Quantcast

A "patriotic" email I received this morning

Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET 2012/06/29 13:51:33
I swore I wouldn't make another political poll...

But I just got an email this morning that irked me.

I'll preface this by saying the following:

1) I believe in a higher power, so this isn't some atheists vendetta against theism.

2) While I believe the two words that will be the subject of this poll should never have been added, I am not a 'die hard' for getting them removed. I'd like it if they were, but I'm not pushing the matter - I can live with them there. I'd just be happier without them.

The two words in question: "Under God". Namely in the pledge of allegiance for the United States.

I am of the firm opinion that those two words effectively negated the following word in the pledge: Indivisible. In one act, the nation was divided. Oh, it's true that the majority of Americans believe in a God of some sort, but the crux of the matter is that not ALL people in this country do, and by saying the nation is 'Under God' successfully ostracises the percentage who have no belief in a higher power.

But that particular belief of mine isn't the point of this at all - it's only to give you some idea of where I'm coming from.

The point?

This morning, I received an email from a friend. This email was attempting to be patriotic. It said it wanted to get it forwarded around before July 4th, and had cute little gifs of flags waving, bald eagles, etc... It really was cute. And under a few inches worth of glittery images was the pledge. Which I really don't mind at all.

Except that in this email, the phrase "On Nation, Under God" was underlined.

And the word "Indivisible" was not.

That was all too telling for me. I deleted the email, rather than forwarding it. Had those words not been underlined, or had "indivisible" been underlined, I'd have happily forwarded it.

But I will not condone overt, blatant attempts at further dividing our nation under the guise of a false sense of patriotism. Yes, false. You read that right. Because a true patriot wouldn't be trying to divide us, they'd be trying to unite us. A true patriot would want to stand by ALL people in this nation, not just the ones they agree with. A true patriot would see someone who doesn't believe what they do and say "that's fine, I'll defend you to the teeth, despite that."

Patriotism is loving your country. Period.

It's trying to unite us, not using two words as a weapon against a minority.

I don't care if you say "under God" in the pledge or not. But the second you use it as something to *hurt* your fellow countrymen (and women)? You cease to be a patriot and are only scum in my eyes. You're attacking the very people who should be your 'brothers' and 'sisters' in this great nation.

So what are your thoughts?
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Melicious Kiss of PHAET 2012/06/29 15:21:44 (edited)
    Melicious Kiss of PHAET
    +13
    clapping gif


    Well said and I agree 100%. United we stand (lol I almost typed untied.. heeehhee) divided we fall, and people who try to divide us, who celebrate our division are not patriots, and they are to be pitied.

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

  • morris44 2012/07/02 21:21:37
    morris44
    +1
    Excellent. Especially since indivisible was in the original text and under god was not.
  • Archer ... morris44 2012/07/02 22:28:17
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    Agreed, though my main point of contention is that the latter phrase is being used as a weapon against fellow citizens of the United States.
  • morris44 Archer ... 2012/07/03 16:09:45
    morris44
    +1
    Sorry to respond off-point.
    Today it seems many use various weapons against others instead of trying to find common ground.

    I have always loved the sentiment of this quote by Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, "Because I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a - a little lookin' out for the other fella, too..."

    What happended to looking out for the other fella?
  • Archer ... morris44 2012/07/03 17:06:39
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +1
    No worries. A lot of people missed the point, sadly. It wasn't an attack on the pledge or how it was worded (despite me not agreeing with the addition of those two little words between 'nation' and 'indivisible') - it was, and always will be, the fact that those two little words are used to openly attack fellow americans.

    Few people look out for 'the other fella'. Those that do often get voted out for going against what is popular, or ignored.
  • JimTheGeek 2012/07/02 20:22:44
    JimTheGeek
    +1
    I agree. It's those who would deivide us under the guise of patriotism who are the true subverters of our democracy.
  • JesusIsMyGod 2012/07/02 02:51:33
    JesusIsMyGod
    +1
    I agree.
  • Mog of War 2012/07/01 19:47:48
    Mog of War
    +1
    Atlthough it fits well within the general feel and the rhythmic scheme of the pledge, "under god" was only added to the pledge during the 1950's, and the pledge itself had originally been penned by a man who was both an atheist and a socialist, and even he didn't find a problem with under God being added at first. Now if you really want to see a pledge that was awkward both rythmically and rhetorically when they added "under God," look at the Texas Pledge.

    Orignial Pledge:
    "Honor the Texas Flag,
    I pledge Alegience to thee,
    Texas, one and indivisible"

    Pledge with under God added:
    "honor the Texas Flag,
    I pledge alegience to thee, Texas,
    one state under God,
    Texas, one and indivisible"

    It's incredibly strange, that I felt "under God" to not be out of place even knowing it was added later, because, having said the pledge both ways, it gathers the same rhetoric, and the phrase "under God" makes it feel more complete and in line with the framers of the country...

    In the Texas pledge, on the other hand, it fits neither rythmically nor rhetorically. This was a pledge written by Christians by, but it's still obvious that the phrase "under God," has no place. And why? The initial foundations of Texas, it's pledge, it's constiution, was even more secularistic than that of the...
    Atlthough it fits well within the general feel and the rhythmic scheme of the pledge, "under god" was only added to the pledge during the 1950's, and the pledge itself had originally been penned by a man who was both an atheist and a socialist, and even he didn't find a problem with under God being added at first. Now if you really want to see a pledge that was awkward both rythmically and rhetorically when they added "under God," look at the Texas Pledge.

    Orignial Pledge:
    "Honor the Texas Flag,
    I pledge Alegience to thee,
    Texas, one and indivisible"

    Pledge with under God added:
    "honor the Texas Flag,
    I pledge alegience to thee, Texas,
    one state under God,
    Texas, one and indivisible"

    It's incredibly strange, that I felt "under God" to not be out of place even knowing it was added later, because, having said the pledge both ways, it gathers the same rhetoric, and the phrase "under God" makes it feel more complete and in line with the framers of the country...

    In the Texas pledge, on the other hand, it fits neither rythmically nor rhetorically. This was a pledge written by Christians by, but it's still obvious that the phrase "under God," has no place. And why? The initial foundations of Texas, it's pledge, it's constiution, was even more secularistic than that of the United States. I'm sure there's some provisions in there stating the Christian Character of the culture, but freedom of religion is upheld and the general spirit of the society secular. For one thing the two most dominant branches of Christianity in the State do not acknowledge the Christianity of the other branch respectively, so religious harmony was necessary at first. (It wasn't until the reconstruction era that religious and ethnic conflicts began and this'll put me off on a tangent) Long story short, the presence of the extra phrase is not in harmony with the rhetoric of the pledge, perhaps becasue it's "one state" bit, which while America's "one nation under God," doesn't promote the idea that America is the only nation under god, but one of many, the "one state" bit has a stronger sense of oneness, a stronger sense of "we're special." For one thing it has this arrogance to it, that seems to imply that this state is directly below God and NO ONE else. The fact that Texas is a province of another country, in fact we're the only state that is essentially a province as we were annexed by a treaty which acknowledged our sovereignty. But that sovereignty is beneath a higher secular power, not just the divine power.
    (more)
  • Archer ... Mog of War 2012/07/01 22:33:58
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +1
    Eh, I respect your opinion on the matter, but I get the distinct impression you missed the point of my rant.

    I don't give two farts about the fact the words are there.

    I care that they're being used to hurt fellow Americans.
  • COMALite J Mog of War 2012/07/02 00:55:08 (edited)
    COMALite J
    +2
    “…and the pledge itself had originally been penned by a man who was both an atheist and a socialist, and even he didn't find a problem with under God being added at first.”

    Wrong on both the first and last count. Francis J. Bellamy was a Christian Socialist and Baptist minister, not an atheist. (It should be noted that the Christian Socialism movement of the time bore little resemblance to what most people today think of when they hear the term “socialism.” It was about taking Christ’s statements about the poor seriously, and following through on how the very early Christian Church was set up socioeconomically.)

    And he bloody well did too have a problem with inserting “under God,” especially with inserting it in that spot. See my other posts in this thread for more details. Basically, he and other ministers of his day (not just Christian Socialists) rightly believed that tying any Name of God to a pledge (or oath) of allegiance (or loyalty) to any physical object made by human hands (or even a concept made by human minds, e.g. a Republic) to be at the very least tantamount to, if not outright, both blasphemy and idolatry!

    Moreover, inserting any words in that particular spot undermined Bellamy’s whole point in writing the Pledge in the first place. And make no mistake: the 1950s insertion was made in that spot specifically to undermine his main point!
  • Mog of War COMALite J 2012/07/02 01:25:17 (edited)
    Mog of War
    +1
    You know I LIKE being wrong about things when it means I'm about to learn something new.

    The pledge to the flag, was also a pledge to the republic, described as one nation indivisible. Since nation states in western civilization have been for the longest time described as Sovereign beneath God, how does describing the republic as one nation under God change any of it's meaning?

    Also, how does that specifically undermine his point?

    P.S. I guess I should do my homework a bit better, and not take someones word for something just because they're usually right about stuff.
  • COMALite J Mog of War 2012/07/02 21:40:58
    COMALite J
    +2
    His point was to prevent another Southern rebellion / secession by making them and their progeny swear forevermore to uphold “One Nation Indivisible.” In the original Pledge, there wasn’t even so much as a comma separating “One Nation” from “Indivisible.” It was intended to be a single phrasethe key phrase!

    Inserting any words between “One Nation” and “Indivisible” broke up and thus weakened that phrase. Weakening that phrase was the goal of the Southerners in the 1950s (many of whom still sang, and believed, “Keep yo’ Confederate money, boys: the South’s a-gonna rise agin!”). They hated that phrase. Acknowledging God was just a bonus. Other elements in American society (notably the Knights of Columbus) wanted the acknowledgment of God as their primary goal, but without the support of the Southern Congressmen, they never would’ve succeeded, and the Southerners insisted that it be put in that spot.

    It could just as easily and grammatically have read, “One Nation Indivisible, under God, with Liberty…” — but that wouldn’t’ve satisfied the ulterior motives of the Southerners who still pined for Old Dixie.
  • Mog of War COMALite J 2012/07/03 18:11:59
    Mog of War
    +1
    Hmm... That makes sense, and explains why the evangelicals are more prone to harp about this issue.
  • COMALite J Mog of War 2012/07/03 23:57:50
  • Mog of War COMALite J 2012/07/05 20:58:28
    Mog of War
    +1
    He's my question to you then? How do you propose to change that?
  • Alvin 2012/07/01 02:28:20
    Alvin
    +1
    I agree with your comments and reasoning. If one follows the evolution of the pledge of allegiance, one can see how it has been modified over time to please whatever point of view was prevalent at the time. The "under God" was inserted to set the US apart from the "godless communists" that were taking over the country, according to Senator McCarthy and his HUAC.
  • Archer ... Alvin 2012/07/01 11:27:23
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +2
    Pretty much, yes. But my biggest point of contention is that people are using it as a way to emotionally injure people they don't agree with, now. That isn't being a patriot, that's being a douchecanoe.
  • ghostrider 2012/07/01 01:32:01
    ghostrider
    +1
    why do 'bible thumpers' always equate belief in an invisible 'superman'(woman)? with patriotism?
  • Archer ... ghostrider 2012/07/01 01:49:51
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +1
    not quite 'always', but often enough to be annoying. my biggest issue is that the 'faith' aspect, in this case, trumps any thought of being unified.
  • ghostrider Archer ... 2012/07/01 01:54:10
    ghostrider
    +2
    I agree with you ('always' seems to be the case for me) ... the phrase -- two words, actually -- was added during the 1050s McCarthy anti-communist hysteria.
  • Archer ... ghostrider 2012/07/01 02:03:41
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +1
    sometimes I wonder if much of the population isn't satisfied unless they have someone to be paranoid over. It's sad. You'd have thought with the trail of tears, the internment camps for the japanese, and all of the other atrocities we'd committed through demonizing our supposed 'enemies' and growing paranoid over them, that we'd have learned our lessons from history. Sadly, such is not the case.
  • ghostrider Archer ... 2012/07/01 02:09:32
    ghostrider
    +1
    Yes, "you would think" but, as you say, "sadly, such is not the case." ///// "We" are simply too arrogant to concede we possibly could be wrong - (in/about anything)
  • Jasmine 2012/06/30 23:59:21
    Jasmine
    +2
    I'm with you, brother!

    love and peace
  • misterz 2012/06/30 17:56:50
    misterz
    +3
    I would like to remind everyone that there were no religious wars when we were all Pagans.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... misterz 2012/06/30 18:17:24
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +3
    even when the Romans and other ancient civilizations Warred it was never over Religion

    when the Romans warred it was over natural resources or Expanding the Empire everyone they conquered they let them keep thier Gods and worship as they wanted

    but that all changed when the Cult of Abraham Formed
    then followed by Christdoom and Islam
  • misterz ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/07/02 18:41:01
    misterz
    +1
    When we were all Pagans, there was never a religious war.
  • Archer ... misterz 2012/06/30 19:11:06
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +1
    Completely off the point. Seriously. I'm beginning to think people can't stick to it.

    Your point is mostly true, yes, that was not the point of this posting. At all.
  • Nameless 2012/06/30 09:07:53
    Nameless
    +2
    I remove the phrase "under G-d" because of the reason it was placed into our Pledge of Allegiance in the first place.
  • Archer ... Nameless 2012/06/30 17:25:20
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +2
    I omit saying it, too, for many reasons - one of which is the one you mention.
  • Anonymous Coward218 2012/06/30 08:23:28
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Anonymo... 2012/06/30 18:17:56
  • morris44 ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/07/02 21:25:03
    morris44
    +2
    Simply phenomenal.
    The best response I've read in months.
    Brilliant.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... morris44 2012/07/02 21:31:54
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +1
    at least our Gods keep thier Promise
    like Horus who promised he would forever be inside us

    gods thier promise horus promised

    and help cure all diseases
    gods thier promise horus promised cure diseases
    the eye of horus is where we get the RX symbol for Pharmacy

    and the Snake horus promised cure diseases eye horus rx symbol pharmacy snake
  • bleep 2012/06/30 07:20:24
    bleep
    +1
    tell that to the blood suckers that are trying to get a free ride.
  • Archer ... bleep 2012/06/30 17:26:53
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +2
    And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I think you missed the point of my poll/question/whatever.
  • Christopher Kirchen 2012/06/30 06:20:52
    Christopher Kirchen
    +1
    It didn't have to. If people were just good and realized that God is here even though bad things happen, we could have a nation under God, indivisible. The trouble is, many people now are just out for themselves and their own pleasure so they throw God by the wayside. Some will learn in time, for some it will be too late...What some people don't realize or don't acknowledge is that the devil has power too, and it's that which causes some bad things in life. Not God.
  • Archer ... Christo... 2012/06/30 17:28:35
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +2
    Disagree.

    If people don't believe in God, they don't believe in God. It makes them no better or worse a person than someone who does believe in God. But for you to say that THEY are the problem, when all they want is to feel part of this nation regardless of belief - or lack of belief? No. They are not the problem.
  • Christo... Archer ... 2012/06/30 19:26:43
    Christopher Kirchen
    I believe most people who "don't believe in God" claim not to because Something didn't happen that they believe should have, like some kids stop believing in Santa Claus because they didn't get the toy they wanted for Christmas in the case of God, sometimes if someone dies and someone prayed for their recovery they "stop believing". Also, no, I'm not equating God with Santa Claus; I'm equating the immature mindset that is featured in both situations.
  • Archer ... Christo... 2012/06/30 19:43:33
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +1
    You don't know enough atheists then.
  • Christo... Archer ... 2012/06/30 20:39:29
    Christopher Kirchen
    No such thing.as "enough" I'd as soon know none,
  • Archer ... Christo... 2012/06/30 23:02:53
    Archer ~ The Limit Break of PHAET
    +3
    That's a shame.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/22 07:56:03

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals