Ojuice5001

You know what makes this Pledge of Allegiance situation ironic? We all know that the original version didn't contain "under God." But I just <a href="http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm" target="_blank">found out</a> that the writer of this origninal version was a Baptist minister, name of Francis Bellamy. Think about what this means. The Christians keep going on about how the motivation behind the change is the desire to remove God from the world. And yet, the person who created the pledge had dedicated his life to keeping God in the world, and he didn't see anything wrong with a pledge that didn't include God. It just goes to show that Christianity and its rivals were much more at peace before about 1950 than now. If anyone is registered on a Christian board that could benefit from hearing this, I suggest you post this. I'd make it the good old Baptist Board, but they banned me along with the other non-Christians.

I'm really glad the school system is ceasing to endorse monotheism. Whenever a large change of this nature occurs, power transfers from Jehovah to the Roman, Norse, and North American gods, or vice versa if an increase in establishment is involved.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Doug Schiffer

Even greater irony can be had. Francis Bellamy was a Socialist and was against private property rights. Imagine how the fundies would feel if the realization dawned on them that they were having children recite a "Pinko's" words every morning!

liquid

I have read on a baptistboard post that he also happened to be a freemason, at Little Falls lodge, IIRC.

Not sure what bearing that has, but the poster evidently felt it made the pledge as a whole satanic.

Autonemesis

All the irony? Just a guess...

Yes, very ironic. I might also point out that the Establishment clause limits what Congress may do, not any individual. But via the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause, courts have determined that any government rule, policy or practice is covered by the Establishment clause, all the way down to the local levels. The irony here is that the very same people who wish to turn back the power of the 14th will see it strengthened if the 9th's ruling is overturned. For it is the 14th's equal protection clause that prevents the teacher from leading a recitation of the pledge, not the 9th's ruling. But it's quite OK for there to be a strong 14th as long as the Jebus freaks are the ones wielding unappealable federal power over the states, you see. There is absolutely no sense of principle with those folks, they are only after a power grab.

Just shows you how well the plan worked when the pledge was added in 1954. Look at how successful that idea was.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Grumpy

Further ironies: Some of those most incensed at the possible omission of "under God" from the pledge must argue that including the words is trivial, while removing them would be horrendous.

Second, others who argue that we'll next have to strike God off the money, out of Congressional prayers, out of the introductory benediction of the Supreme Court, off inscriptions on public buildings, etc. are also the ones who say that there has been no Establishment Clause violation. This includes President Bush, who now says he <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020627/ts_nm/court_pledge_dc_8" target="_blank">will not nominate</a> non-monotheist judges. But there's no established religion, see. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Autonemesis

Let us not also forget this gem, which someone else posted on another thread in C/S (I forgot whom, please step forward):

They had to DIVIDE "one nation indivisible" to put it "under God."