"Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok."
— Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Missouri
Hmmmm. It's odd that our founding fathers saw no need to include God in a Pledge of Allegiance. Maybe they're just slapping their foreheads and saying "D'oh" in their graves because they forgot.
The phrase "under God" was crammed into the Pledge by Tailgunner Joe to protect the world from the infection of Communism about 150 years after we protected the colonies from the infection of Imperialism. It's done its job, and it's earned a cushy retirement.
Despite claims from the Congress and the layman that removing these two words will cause rioting and anarchy. But we established a republican democracy without it, we fought 'The Great War' and won without it, we bought the Louisiana Purchase and expanded to the Pacific without it, we abolished slavery without it. We got Watergate and Iran-Contra and Operation Desert Maxi-Shield and Bill Clinton's Hummerfest with it.
It's not the final sign of the apocalypse. I think it's a sign that we are having troubles staying whipped up into a frenzy over terrorism.
Edit
Now that it's not early in the morning, I'd like to rephrase my main point in more coherent fashion. (After all the commentary has been finished....) "The worst kind of political correctness run amok" is where people actually suffer--kids suspended from school for having a bottle of aspirin, a city councilman called upon to resign for using the word 'niggardly'--not because two words are taken out of a loyalty oath that had been tacked on fifty years ago. And using those two words as a political vehicle to take a joyride around the media is inexcusible given the number of actual problems--things that actually need to be dealt with--we have facing us currently.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-27 09:42 am (UTC)What I find troubling is that our government continues to bend over for the vocal minority and set precedent or pass legislation for the benefit of the individual at the expense of the many.
Instead of being responsible for his daughter and making sure she understands the words of the Pledge he demands the entire nation change and forces the nation to be responsible for his daughters welfare.
If it were "just words" that could be included or removed, we'd think an individual could learn to cope with it, wouldn't we?
no subject
Date: 2002-06-27 10:11 am (UTC)In fact, our founding fathers saw no need to write one at all; it was written in 1897 and printed in a magazine for youth. According to one web page, the original version was:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands -- one nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all."
The page goes on to explain,
"The original Pledge was recited while giving a stiff, uplifted right-hand salute, criticized and discontinued during WWII. The words 'my flag' were changed to 'the flag of the United States of America' because it was feared that the children of immigrants might confuse 'my flag' for the flag of their homeland. The phrase 'Under G-d' was added by Congress and President Eisenhower in 1954..."
Just to be exact, you know. :-)
no subject
Date: 2002-06-27 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-27 11:00 am (UTC)I will say that I'm not surprised the 9th Circuit Court came up with this decision. I doubt any of the others would. But there will be the inevitable appeal, so I'm not going to be too incensed just yet.
However the story will crop up in my new writing project. And it may take someone's mind off the $4 billion Worldcom created out of thin air
no subject
Date: 2002-06-27 08:24 pm (UTC)And personally, I don't much like the idea of lying because it's what's expected. If I had to stand up in class every day and proclaim how much I adored (as an example) Li'l Bow Wow's music, just because everybody else loves it....
And my main point is not that this guy is protecting his daughter from religious brainwashing, nor that it's all that important whether these two words are said or not. What I'm saying is that a lot of people are getting very excited over an issue that, given the world around us and the number of things that are going on that are really important, this is a non-issue and way too much energy has been spent on it--on both sides.
Of course, if I insist on writing posts early in the morning, my main point may become obscured.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-28 10:58 am (UTC)It's as easy to think about as changes in the SAT and Amtrak, but most folks don't have contact with either one of those, so don't care.
It should be treated with all the respect the issue deserves, which I think I've done more than adequately elsewhere.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-01 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-02 10:02 am (UTC)(Communist salute? Which one is that?)
Re:
Date: 2002-07-02 08:29 pm (UTC)