Quantcast

Pledge of allegiance: can you tell the difference?

The Laughing man 2012/09/17 12:05:01
You!
Add Photos & Videos
"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?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Metaldane 2012/09/17 13:48:12
    i see where you're going
    Metaldane
    +4
    Honestly the original pledge was the best but we should at least go back to the pre "red scare" pledge. It seems the people of the 1700s were more tolerant of religious freedom then some are today and that's just sad.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • elijahin24 2012/09/18 16:33:46
    i see where you're going
    elijahin24
    Well played, sir. Absolutely right.
  • timothy.hill.14 2012/09/18 14:37:43
    i see where you're going
    timothy.hill.14
    I grew up with the top version and turned out fine. Why is the US becoming so pathetically liberal that we must pander to every group who feels left out?
  • elijahin24 timothy... 2012/09/18 16:34:38
    elijahin24
    Why is it that the US became so pathetically nationalistic, that even in our national pledge, you NEED to leave a group out?
  • Elephant Lord 2012/09/18 02:52:36
    i see where you're going
    Elephant Lord
    The original pledge didn't have "under God" written in it. That was included during the Cold War as a piece of propaganda. Ironically, the original creator of the pledge was a socialist.
  • Tennessean 2012/09/17 18:57:34
    i see where you're going
    Tennessean
    Personally, I am fine with either:

    "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."
  • Owen 2012/09/17 18:51:41
    i see where you're going
    Owen
    +1
    I've said before that it has always seemed a bit creepy to me when a room full of people stand, face the same direction and drone out a prepared speech about their allegiance to the state- especially when it's children!
  • Fran-Halen 2012/09/17 16:56:02
    Undecided
    Fran-Halen
    +1
    I think they want it to be more like this...

    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
  • ג'סיקה Ihre führer 2012/09/17 16:27:06 (edited)
    i see where you're going
    ג'סיקה Ihre führer
    +2
    We should go back to the ORIGINAL pledge. And for pointers for all you people who say this is a Christian nation and found on and for Christianity. No, the founding fathers either came here for the business ( EX: Jamestown, North Carolina, New York [Or New Amsterdam], New Jersey) or RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (EX:Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hamphire, Maryland). The USA wasn't found for Christians. It was found to have FREEDOM. There's a difference. Not just Christian religious freedom. Hence why those little unequal parts should be removed.
  • Metaldane 2012/09/17 13:48:12
    i see where you're going
    Metaldane
    +4
    Honestly the original pledge was the best but we should at least go back to the pre "red scare" pledge. It seems the people of the 1700s were more tolerant of religious freedom then some are today and that's just sad.
  • Vijay Pawar 2012/09/17 13:19:54
    i see where you're going
    Vijay Pawar
    +2
    All of American people awesome...! as all have love for nation...!
  • sockpuppet 2012/09/17 12:18:48
    i see where you're going
    sockpuppet
    +3
    Point taken... and pretty well made, too. :O) They brought in the religious thing in
    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.
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 12:46:31
    Schläue~©
    +1
    Fact is, all of our founding documents laws and overall structure represent Judeo-Christian values and morals and that, is indisputable.
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 12:47:23
    sockpuppet
    +3
    No... we have specific guarantees against a theocracy here.
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 12:55:50
    Schläue~©
    Yeah, I'm well aware of the 1st amendment and perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the opening line,... "Congress shall make no law...."

    Please show me where Congress has done so.
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 13:10:43
    sockpuppet
    +2
    The First Amendment is all we need. It's underpinned by the principle of separation of church and state. How is it in any way appropriate to indoctrinate children with this? If it read "one nation under Allah" or "one nation without a god" you'd be outraged, as well. Same thing here-- only difference is the wording.
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 13:22:09
    Schläue~©
    Separation of church and state does not appear anywhere in our founding documents and is nothing more than a phrase coined by a Supreme Court Justice in a written opinion.

    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.
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 13:41:05
    sockpuppet
    +2
    Coined by Thomas Jefferson... it underpins the First Amendment.

    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.
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 14:03:47
    Schläue~©
    Wrong on all counts. Underpin the first amendment my ass, and some letter that Jefferson wrote to a religious group is what's irrelevant here.

    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.
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 14:14:23
    sockpuppet
    +2
    I won't... and the Constitution will bear me out. Not that you respect or understand the document or its creators in the first place. :O)
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 14:27:11
    Schläue~©
    That's what I love about Paul-bots.
    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
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 14:29:41
    sockpuppet
    Paul bots? Just what I'd expect to hear from a Tippecanoe supporter! Now get lost, you Tippecanoe supporter!

    hahaha
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 14:47:55
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 15:03:46
    sockpuppet
    +1
    Haven't blocked me yet...? I can do this all day! :O)

    weirdo
  • Schläue~© sockpuppet 2012/09/17 15:18:34
  • sockpuppet Schläue~© 2012/09/17 15:20:11
    sockpuppet
    You hang out on the Huffington Post? That whole website is a Left-wing cesspool.
  • Tennessean sockpuppet 2012/09/17 19:12:48
    Tennessean
    Your ignorance is showing.
  • sockpuppet Tennessean 2012/09/17 19:17:36
    sockpuppet
    Regarding what, exactly? I can't tell which answer you're responding to because I can't get the responses to line up properly.
  • Tennessean sockpuppet 2012/09/17 19:32:46
    Tennessean
    +1
    Reguarding what Fascism looks like.
  • sockpuppet Tennessean 2012/09/17 19:38:17
    sockpuppet
    Oh... he thinks I'm a Paulie. I'm just taking a poke at him for shoving religion at everyone. I actually agree with Palin on economics, defense and a few other matters.
  • Tennessean sockpuppet 2012/09/17 19:59:05
    Tennessean
    +1
    So do I, so that is something we can agree on.

    It is too bad that our elected officials only answer to money in lieu of the voices of the people.
  • sockpuppet Tennessean 2012/09/17 20:22:51
    sockpuppet
    You know it. I'm afraid we've been so corrupt for so long that there's no way out of it. Every generation becomes more passive than the one before it, and they go along with whatever the marketers tell them they want. :O(

    The bigger the gov't gets, the less accountable they are.
  • Tennessean sockpuppet 2012/09/17 20:36:19
    Tennessean
    +1
    The only thing the government has been good at is making more and more people dependant upon them.

    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...
    The only thing the government has been good at is making more and more people dependant upon them.

    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
    (more)
  • sockpuppet Tennessean 2012/09/17 21:00:51
    sockpuppet
    I agree totally! I've recently switched my own label to "Libertarian" because I think it embraces a more sensible platform than either of the two biggies do... but I'll still vote GOP to get the Dem's out of power. :O\

    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.
  • Kozmo sockpuppet 2012/09/20 14:16:48
    Kozmo
    +1
    "A government big enough to provide you with everything is also big enough to take everything away"
    - 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...




    "A government big enough to provide you with everything is also big enough to take everything away"
    - 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
    (more)
  • ג'סיקה ... Schläue~© 2012/09/17 16:30:30
    ג'סיקה Ihre führer
    +1
    The first amendment should have been an inference for the seperation of church and state. If you being YOUR religious laws onto someone elses life who doesn't share it, it violates THEIR rights. Hencing why they should be seperate.
  • Schläue~© ג'סיקה ... 2012/09/17 17:27:23
    Schläue~©
    Read the amendment and LEARN.
  • ג'סיקה ... Schläue~© 2012/09/17 17:29:36
    ג'סיקה Ihre führer
    +1
    I've read it and your twisting it out of proportion and making a completely different meaning out of it!!!
  • Schläue~© ג'סיקה ... 2012/09/17 17:38:06
    Schläue~©
    Hardly
    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.
  • ג'סיקה ... Schläue~© 2012/09/17 17:50:56 (edited)
    ג'סיקה Ihre führer
    +1
    I never said anything about that. I'm saying when you add things (one nation under god) and not everyone believes in that god or no god, that infringes the point of freedom of (and from) religion in this country, because usually the term "god" refers to the Christian god and the infringes the point of said ammendment.
  • elijahin24 Schläue~© 2012/09/18 16:37:12
    elijahin24
    The pledge was ratified by an act of Congress.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/04/16 19:12:42

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals