Monday, October 25, 2010
10 comments
I don't say the pledge at all at public gatherings, and I don't care what people think of me for not doing it. America is supposed to be a free country. I'm not going to pledge allegiance to a symbol. If I'm going to pledge fealty to anything, it will be to the constitution, and not to a piece of cloth. And since I'm an atheist, which isn't illegal (yet), it's silly to expect me to say "under god."
Only in totalitarian regimes should people be required to prove their allegiance. We aren't a totalitarian regime.
Yet. We may be when Republicans get through with us.
That's OK DPT. We understand just where liberals stand when it comes to respecting their country.
The pledge includes a pledge of allegiance "to the Republic for which it stands." Is that noxious to you also?
How about "with liberty and justice for all?" Incompatible with socialist liberal principles?
You can stop pretending that it's the flag part that bothers you.
Interesting how the left has just succeeded into turning the Pledge of Allegiance into the modern day equivalent of a protest song. Americans will find ways to fight back against Democratic Socialists and an insistent, defiant Pledge of Allegiance before a Democratic Socialist sponsored event seems like an excellent way of getting the attention of the enemy.
Wow Q, even you've got trolls these days- must be all that Koch funding I keep hearing about paying people to post crap like that.
I don't stand for God Bless America at baseball games either. Who decreed that is the new national anthem?
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Funny thing is, I completely understand DPTs position. It was my unconsidered position about 25 years ago. About 1985, I was a college student, and my favorite talk radio station was talking about flag burning. On a lark, I called in and took the opposite position. Why did it matter at all? It's just a flag. Every country has a flag. To some people that flag represents all the injustices that the United States has ever done. Isn't this all just some sort of flag worship?
Anyway, for the rest of the morning the radio station switchboard was lit up with callers who were absolutely livid about my call. It took me years to figure out that yes, it does matter, and allegiance to the United States really does mean more than say, allegiance to the White Sox or even allegiance to the Democratic or Republican party.
To take a detour ...
The thing that Obama has been doing recently that really bothers me is reinterpreting the Declaration of Independence.
“[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
By editing out the words "by our creator", Obama completely changes the meaning and intent of the sentence. Just exactly who is doing the "endowing" is enormously important. For most of recorded history, the "endowing" is done by the government. Thus, what government gives, government may take away. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just generous gifts of government, then they can certainly be withdrawn when granting those gifts becomes inconvenient.
"endowed by their creator" means something entirely different. It means that government has not granted those rights. God has granted those rights, and government is forever commanded to respect them. Government is forbidden to withdraw those rights when it becomes inconvenient.
Obama has completely inverted the central premise of the Declaration of Independence.
Holding atheism as a personal belief does not constitute a license to disrespect the religious. Think of it this way. There are plenty of religious people whose fingers are itching to use the government to put the hurt on godless little snots like you. The main thing holding them back is their love and near religious dedication to the principles in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the belief that for them to openly violate the principles of the Declaration and Constitution would be the equivalent of a mortal sin. It would be like a devout Jew or Christian abandoning the Ten Commandments.
(continued)
Funny thing is, I completely understand DPTs position. It was my unconsidered position about 25 years ago. About 1985, I was a college student, and my favorite talk radio station was talking about flag burning. On a lark, I called in and took the opposite position. Why did it matter at all? It's just a flag. Every country has a flag. To some people that flag represents all the injustices that the United States has ever done. Isn't this all just some sort of flag worship?
Anyway, for the rest of the morning the radio station switchboard was lit up with callers who were absolutely livid about my call. It took me years to figure out that yes, it does matter, and allegiance to the United States really does mean more than say, allegiance to the White Sox or even allegiance to the Democratic or Republican party.
The thing that Obama has been doing recently that really bothers me is reinterpreting the Declaration of Independence.
“[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
By editing out the words "by our creator", Obama completely changes the meaning and intent of the sentence. Just exactly who is doing the "endowing" is enormously important. For most of recorded history, the "endowing" is done by the government. Thus, what government gives, government may take away. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just generous gifts of government, then they can certainly be withdrawn when granting those gifts becomes inconvenient.
"endowed by their creator" means something entirely different. It means that government has not granted those rights. God has granted those rights, and government is forever commanded to respect them. Government is forbidden to withdraw those rights when it becomes inconvenient.
Obama has completely inverted the central premise of the Declaration of Independence.
Holding atheism as a personal belief does not constitute a license to disrespect the religious. Think of it this way. There are plenty of religious people whose fingers are itching to use the government to put the hurt on godless little snots like you. The main thing holding them back is their love and near religious dedication to the principles in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the belief that for them to openly violate the principles of the Declaration and Constitution would be the equivalent of a mortal sin. It would be like a devout Jew or Christian abandoning the Ten Commandments.
(continued)
(continued ... sorry about the double post. Firefox fumble.)
Why do liberals work so hard to tear down, disrespect and destroy the principles that they simultaneously rely on to protect their unpopular views? It's like watching someone trying to break open a lions cage, secure in the knowledge that lions must not be dangerous because they've never been bit by a caged lion.
The pledge is important because it says a lot about the person who refuses to participate. As an American, you happen to live in a country that is the greatest achievement of the Age of the Enlightenment -- a nation grounded on the extremely radical principles that the authority for government is derived from the consent of the governed, not from the power of kings or the barrel of a gun. That man's equality and rights are not grants of government, but are endowments by God to be respected by government.
Those are extraordinary statements of breathtaking scope. Respected, they provide the greatest protection of the individual against the power of government that has ever existed and ever will exist.
The Pledge of Allegiance is how people identify themselves as belonging to the particular tribe of people who see this as overwhelmingly important. It is clearly not important to you. You take its benefits for granted. Of course there is freedom of speech. How could it ever be any other way?
You're a free rider. It's nothing to brag about
It's OK to be a free rider in this sense. No one cares. It is, however, exceedingly gauche for a free rider to disrespect the driver and paying passengers.
Shorter (and you could really use some shortening) Anon: "Nice freedom you got there, be a shame if something happened to it..."
Seriously, the good grace of the religious majority relies on atheists not hurting your fee-fees? People's faith must be pretty weak if they'd violate something they apparently view as God's word just because someone doesn't respect their tribe.
I'm sure everyone here also knows that the pledge wasn't even written until 1892 and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1954, right?
I am German (born long after WW2) and as such allergic to any kind of flag worship and waving. I find the wording extremly inept. If such a pledge including the flag should be made at all it should be '...to the republic this flags stands for...' not the other way around with the republic almost an afterthought.
While I am at it, why did the US choose a poem about a failed rocket attack set to the almost unsingable tune of a boozing song as its national anthem when there were tons of alternatives?
HB
|
