Pledge of allegiance: can you tell the difference?
The Laughing man
2012/09/17 12:05:01
|
|
|||||
|
13 votes
|
|
93% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
7% | |||
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one white nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one black nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one straight nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one vegan nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Gods, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under the great leader, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Are these respectful of the equality of every American?
Do they they place one group over another?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one white nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one black nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one straight nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one vegan nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Gods, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under the great leader, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Are these respectful of the equality of every American?
Do they they place one group over another?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
or
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I pledge allegiance
To The Corporate States Of America
And to the oil rich nations
For which it stands
One nation
under Fahd
with no liberty
and injustice for all
the 50's, probably a reflection of the moral climate of the day.
We have people now who swear that this country was created as a "Christian nation" with Christian ideals, etc. and point to the slogans on our money and in our songs as evidence of this-- missing the point of religious freedom spectacularly.
Please show me where Congress has done so.
As I said, Congress has made no such laws that establish any religion, the term 'GOD' is universal throughout the World and is the English version of a recognized supreme being.
Whereas English has never been declared the official language, it is used for every legal document from coast to coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And for those of us who recognize no supreme being... the word has no place in our dogma. You can add it quietly in your mind, if you please. :O)
And your remark about the English language is irrelevant.
YOU, are the one who can leave the room or sit quietly while the vast Majority of the nation continues as we have since the first ship landed at Plymouth.
They claim to know the Constitution, yet cannot accept it for what is actually written and insist on adding their own words and interpretations.
Bravo
It is too bad that our elected officials only answer to money in lieu of the voices of the people.
The bigger the gov't gets, the less accountable they are.
We need to some how remove the lables from politicans when they are running for office and let the voters vote based on the individual politicans record rather than if they are a Republician or Democrat.
The two party system has just led us further and further from the limited federal govenment established by our Constitution, and allowed the federal government to assume powers not granted them via our Constitution.
The fedral government now claims powers granted the states in our constitution, because there is nothing in the constitutin that give teh federal government any power over health, education or welfare.
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legi...
We need to some how remove the lables from politicans when they are running for office and let the voters vote based on the individual politicans record rather than if they are a Republician or Democrat.
The two party system has just led us further and further from the limited federal govenment established by our Constitution, and allowed the federal government to assume powers not granted them via our Constitution.
The fedral government now claims powers granted the states in our constitution, because there is nothing in the constitutin that give teh federal government any power over health, education or welfare.
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
James Madison
Maybe some day, we'll have such a system, though-- other countries seem to make it work pretty well, and two parties just doesn't cut it for the third most populous nation on the planet.
- Thomas Paine
the bulk of the Founding Fathers were Deists, her's what Carl Jung wrote:
Jung stressed the importance of individual rights in a person's relation to the state and society. He saw that the state was treated as "a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected" but that this personality was "only camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it", and referred to the state as a form of slavery. He also thought that the state "swallowed up [people's] religious forces", and therefore that the state had "taken the place of God"—making it comparable to a religion in which "state slavery is a form of worship". Jung observed that "stage acts of [the] state" are comparable to religious displays: "Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons". From Jung's perspective, this replacement of God with the state in a mass society led to the dislocation of the religious drive and resulted in the same fanaticism of the church-states of the Dark Ages—wherein the more the state is 'worshipped', the more freedom and morality are suppressed...
- Thomas Paine
the bulk of the Founding Fathers were Deists, her's what Carl Jung wrote:
Jung stressed the importance of individual rights in a person's relation to the state and society. He saw that the state was treated as "a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected" but that this personality was "only camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it", and referred to the state as a form of slavery. He also thought that the state "swallowed up [people's] religious forces", and therefore that the state had "taken the place of God"—making it comparable to a religion in which "state slavery is a form of worship". Jung observed that "stage acts of [the] state" are comparable to religious displays: "Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons". From Jung's perspective, this replacement of God with the state in a mass society led to the dislocation of the religious drive and resulted in the same fanaticism of the church-states of the Dark Ages—wherein the more the state is 'worshipped', the more freedom and morality are suppressed; this ultimately leaves the individual psychically undeveloped with extreme feelings of marginalization.
Tennessean sounds like a George Orwell's 1984
(Goose Stepping?) DuckTalking Head.
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil people
I'm sticking to what the actual words say and not adding to them or attempting to interpret my emotions into it.
Personally, I'm not 'religious' at all,.... but I do know law and Congress has NEVER passed any bill that either establishes nor prohibits the free practice of religion,
It's the fringe fanatics that have interpreted the amendment as freedom from religion which does infringe on the rights of others.