« USASpending.gov goes liveRomney is no Kennedy »

On nation indivisible

A Perspective on the Pledge is a story set in an alternate universe where the Pledge of Allegiance was changed in the 50s to read "one white nation, indivisible" instead of the 1954 change that added the words "under God." It's an interesting way to look at the issue. What do you think? Is the analogy apt or not?

Reading this prompted me to get familiar with the history of the pledge before and after the 1954 change. It was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 to help sell flags. It quickly caught on and was being recited in schools within months.

The effort to add "under God" started in the Knights of Columbus in 1951, was rejected by Congress in 1953 and then accepted in 1954 after President Eisenhower backed the effort. Ike was convinced by DC Presbyterian minister George Docherty who preached a sermon on the subject with the President in attendance. Docherty said, "There was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life."

It started as an advertising gimmick, how much more American can you get? But seriously, I disagree with his statement. I think that liberty and justice are more important to America than religion.

Here are some questions I'd like to ask to my readers.

1. Is the "one white nation" analogous to "one nation under God"? In what ways are religion and race similar and different?

2. Which is more important to the American way of life, liberty or faith?

3. Does the pledge imply that non-believers are second class citizens?

4. What do you think of loyalty pledges in general and our Pledge of Allegiance in particular?

(via Bay of Fundie)

1 comment

Okay #1: yes it is analagus (or whatever) because adding a specifier, by design, excludes those who do not agree with the specifier. OTOH to say whiteness is obvious and belief in TIMITS is something one could fake. Then again I see very little similarity between religion and race. A black man is always and obviously black. A jew/christian/muslim/atheist are not obvious on visual contact.

#2: Liberty, without question. Faith is personal, life is temporary. Liberty is something we all yearn for no matter what our faith or position in the cycle of life.

#3: With that “under god” bit it most certainly does. Looked at differently, the pledge doesn’t lose anything “american” by not stating that there is an invisible man in the sky ‘above’ us.

#4: Pure propaganda!

No offense intended here okay? Found the post from b2evo’s main page and felt like responding. In my humble opinion we should all be free to experience our time on this planet as we see fit. If that means with - or without - religion then so be it. For the person who believes in God they can feel the pain of the non-believer by imagining our currency saying “there is no god", or our pledge saying “one nation that needs no god".

* hey you got open id working! I wondered what benefit it would provide or how I would use it. Perhaps God provided an answer to me eh?


EdB [Visitor] • http://wonderwinds.com12/16/07 @ 09:37

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
  
(For my next comment on this site)
(Allow users to contact me through a message form -- Your email will not be revealed!)