Comments on: Should “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance permanently?

By: SunTzuSays

SunTzuSays — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:12:23 +0000

That does not at all respond to the contention I was raising. That is, regardless of standards of living or public policies here, people can see or seek out ways to improve their own country and use means of protest, such as refusal to stand for a pledge, to give voice their interests or demands. Whether or not we have a great or greater country than some/most others seems to be incidental to whether or not we should be required to pledge an oath of loyalty and allegiance to it, either out of some nationalistic interest or in order to prove unequivocally that we are loyal and patriotic citizens. Going to church does not make one into a good Christian by default in the same manner that an accurate presumption of loyalty and patriotic fervor and by extension good citizenship could be reasonably discerned from mouthing a few words.

Additionally, it would seem the premise of the pledge was to deal with immigration and to satisfy nativist fears and demands that say, hordes of Eastern Europeans or Catholics had dual allegiances. Why would then the native born people need to pledge their affirmative loyalty to their country under this premise?

By: jcdenton100

jcdenton100 — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:54:26 +0000

I probably still would have kept my desicion about what he said. When i think about how good we have it here, i compare it to the lives of other countries. North Korea for instance, Their governemt lies to them and says that while they have a stable and strong economy/country. Saying that they are lucky because while they are getting 2 rations of food a day, the rest of the world is starving and getting less. Children in North Korea feel sorry for Children in America because they think that America is a poor country. Then i think about Sudan and Darfur. Thats why i believe we have it good in this country.

By: SunTzuSays

SunTzuSays — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:55:34 +0000

If he could have articulated in what way he feels this country sucks, would you still wish him removed from this country?

Many such people are not complaining so much about "how good they have it" so much as concerned how others our government deals with have it (foreign countries and their citizens or the impoverished of this country).

By: jcdenton100

jcdenton100 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:48:54 +0000

I think that certain people should leave the country if they dont stand for the pledge because they dont realize how good tehy have it in this country. I heard someone say "This country sucks!" I wanted to yell at him. Those are the kind of people that should be kicked from the country but they have freedom of speech so they can say what they want.

By: SunTzuSays

SunTzuSays — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:52:06 +0000

Sigh… my patience with your ignorance runs low, since you clearly don't bother reading what I write… My points..
1) If it is an unsettled argument in your estimation, why do you feel that you are correct enough to desire the expunging or call for the removal of the people who disagree with you? I don't think your opponents make this demand for you to be removed or ask you to leave the country (I do not). Why do you?

2) I already listed reasons a christian (or any American) might not want to say the pledge, but here goes again. a) they see it as superseding their loyalty to christ, which is in their mind, foremost and risks division of loyalty to pledge allegiance to a nation instead of their faith. Alternatively, they may see it as arrogant nonsense to presume a divine nature of a country established and run by men for men, b) they disagree strongly with national policies, often relating to the military and foreign aggressions undertaken by us, and wish to register a point of protest.

You apparently do not like these reasons, but they are protected exercises of free speech and freedom of conscience.

By: Toa

Toa — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:11:32 +0000

I led the pigeons to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for witches’ dance, One nation underdog indivisible with liver tea and jugs of wine for owls.

By: jcdenton100

jcdenton100 — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:14:12 +0000

Why has this been an ongoing argunment for the last x amount of years? There are two answers to this argument and they strike at one another with equal force as if they were enemies in a battle. Like America and Russia in the cold war, no one had more power then the other. The Government cannot come to a solid answer because they are afraid of what the people will do so they continue to debate about this argument. And why would a christian not stand up for the pledge? I do every time i hear it.

By: SunTzuSays

SunTzuSays — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:53:05 +0000

Then why do you feel a desire to dismiss the people who do not abide by your preferred methods?

How is that desire justified in the face of a claim that "there is no real answer"?

By: jcdenton100

jcdenton100 — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:27:04 +0000

This argument is the exact reason this subject has been going on. Its to complicated for the Government to end in one decission. There is no real answer to this debate.

By: SunTzuSays

SunTzuSays — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:52:26 +0000

….and why do we say it then? As is demonstrated above
1) It's not a constitutional requirement for anyone, other than perhaps elected officials and military units, to declare their loyalty to this country. I don't see how not saying it therefore is
"unpatriotic", it is simply not a required duty of citizens. Even this oath itself did not emerge until the late 19th century.
2) the amended oath specifically includes the controversial phrase because of communism and the (erroneous) implication that only atheists are communists (and vice versa). Which is odd because the originator of the pledge was himself a socialist. Since communism is not, generally speaking, a grave existential threat to this country at present, it seems odd and out-dated to retain the amended version.

You are still conflating patriotism with nationalism. If someone disagrees with our federal public policies, not saying a pledge is often an appropriate means of protest. This is not "unpatriotic", it is simply not blindly patriotic (or otherwise known as: nationalistic).