Jerry Falwell wakes up one day and turns on his computer.
He logs into the Internet. “You’ve got mail” his computer says. That voice always makes Jerry giggle. “I check mail” Jerry says in his best impression of the AOL mail guy.
He opens the first e-mail.
“Dear Jerry, I just love you. You’ve changed my life. Thank you. Signed Judy Springs.”
“Ahh, wasn’t that a nice thing for Judy to write.” Jerry thinks while sipping on his morning coffee.
He opens the second e-mail.
“Dear Jerry, The pledge of allegiance is a paradoxical, self-contradictory piece of trash…” Without finishing, Jerry deletes the E-mail.
He opens his third e-mail.
“Dear Jerry, Do you like bees. I think they’re buzzy. My hand got caught in the toaster once. Signed Ralph Wiggum.”
“Ahh, wasn’t that a nice thing for Ralph to write.” Jerry thinks while sipping on his second cup of morning coffee.
Jerry decides he’s had enough of e-mail for the moment so he grabs a bagel from the kitchen, returns to his computer and types “free teen nympho pics donkey” in Google and hits the enter key.
I’d like to change the phrase to “one nation under Satan,” and see how offended robwrigley gets. Then the rest of us can guess whether he’s really offended or is just a hypocritical poser.
blowero, I wanted to, but in true Superman fashion, I didn’t want to “stoop to the villain’s level.” Besides, its so much easier to dismiss that kind of mail than a real letter. Nevertheless, I’m sure he won’t even read it either way.
It’s often difficult for people who are convinced of the active reality of God to understand that people who are not can be offended by being required (or expected) to endorse something that invokes Him, to them in a just and proper way.
I personally have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance (with the mental reservation that my country might conceivably take a stance contrary to my religious beliefs, in which case I would have to give allegiance to my God before my country – thanks, RT, for highlighting that for me).
But I can see why “under God” (with the implication of YHWH the God of the Bible) might be quite offensive to a person who is willing to pledge allegiance to this republic and to its flag, but who does not believe in the aforementioned God.
And I can see why Christians who take the “no allegiance to idols” command seriously and fairly literally can have a problem with pledging allegiance to the American flag.
The problem here is that “the republic for which it stands” is a nation espousing the liberty to decide for oneself whether or not to pledge allegiance to flag, republic, or God – and there is more than a slight tendency to make things either mandatory or forbidden.
As an impartial Canuck, I would suggest changing “under god” to “under whatever higher power I espouse to, whether that be Bart Simpson, my own intellect, a collective conciousness, giya (sp),or a minor or major diety (either anthropomorphic or ineffable).”
While that change may make the wording somewhat awkward, it is only a first draft and would be greatly improved by someone with greater writing skills than I possess.
It could be truncated to “under my godbeing” but that could still be misunderstood by metaphor-understanding-challenged people.
You COULD do that too, but what would be the fun in that? I am being silly here, I do think it should come out especially since it was put in sometime in the fifties, (I think) probably in reaction to the start of the Cold War? If I just revealed the depths of my ignorance, please forgive, and correct, me.
I personally find the whole idea of a pledge offensive, it smacks of propaganda, and subtle mind bending. But each to their own.
Indeed the part about “one nation under God” did start in the fifties at the beginning of the Cold War.
The American Government felt the need to distinguish the difference between those supporting “democracy” and communisim.
I must admit when this entire issue first began surfacing I thought it was ridiculous. I couldn’t understand why everyone thought it was such a big issue. Being an “ex-Christian” (I have seen the light - thanks to religious nuts such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson; i.e. the Christian Taliban) one whom believes in God, I was personally not offended.
Though, when I began to reflect on the issue itself it began bothering me and I have since changed my attitude. This nation, declaring…rather - priding itself that we separate Church and State, does not really reflect that in this statement. In fact, I still attend high school where students are scolded severly if they do not recite the pledge (excluding those whom are visibly of other religions).
Therefore I believe that in order for the United States to remain true (for once) to its values and its creeds, we have no choice BUT to re-examine the pledge of allegiance and amend it to exclude the “under God.”
As for those who argue “who does it really offend?” What does it matter? That’s not the issue. The statement “one nation under God” has NO place in a government sanctioned public creed, and furthermore, no public authority should force, or even suggest anyone to say it. It began in elementary school when they began brainwashing children to say it. I think it should stop here.
Not even to mention that I believe it’s ridiculous in the first place since everyone mindelessly states not even considering what it is, was, or is currently in place for.
As for Jerry Falwell, please… Don’t get me started…
Hmm. My senior year of HS, I was supposed to say the pledge and have a moment of silence each morning. I read my book during the pledge and invoked demons and drew pentagrams on the board during the moment, as ritual demon summoning dances come under “prayer, meditation, or other silent activity.” I love icnoclasticism.
I remember the day in kindergarten, or maybe first grade, sometime back in the mid-80s, that I first memorized the whole pledge of allegiance. After school that day I went straight home and proudly recited it to my mother. She pondered silently for a few minutes, then explained to me what it all actually meant (it had, of course, previously been just a string of syllables to memorize) and reminded me that whether I wished to say it or not was my choice. That was the last time I recited the pledge of allegiance.
I think the main thing to which I object in it is the “under god” clause, but even if that weren’t there, I wouldn’t say it. I also object to the “I pledge allegiance” clause, and the “to the flag” bit, and in my opinion the parts about “republic,” “indivisible,” and “liberty and justice for all” are outright lies.
Hey, I’ve got an idea… how about, in, say, 5th grade or so, students are given the assignment of writing their own pledge of allegiance, and from then on, every morning, if they wish, they may stand and quietly recite it to themselves? Sound good? I’d vote for it.
Seriously, though, I really don’t like the idea of pledges and oaths and stuff like that in general, for the same reason the Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers) objects to them: requiring me to take an oath in order to ensure that I’m telling the truth implies that at any time when I’m not under oath I could quite possibly be lying, and I find that suggestion to be extremely insulting. I would like people to trust me equally at all times, not just when I’ve put my hand on some book or my heart and spoken some mumbo-jumbo about “pledge” or “swear” or “so help me God.” The whole business reeks of superstition.
