Pledge of Allegiance ruled "unconstitutional"

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I happen to think that the comparison is apt and applicable for the time it happened. And it was disgusting. Any American should be ashamed of that period in our history, as much as we take pride in others.

 

I'd be a lot more disgusted with someone who'd apply a clinical term like "depopulation" to the virtual extermination of the natives of this land. Oh, the U.S. military didn't kill off whole villages of Native American men, women and children in the West; we just "depopulated" the area. How polite.

 

We become a great nation by learning from our failings, not be ignoring or making them less than they are.

[Trevorum 24]

The campaigns of extermination carried out against Native Americans were strategic, systematic, and were sanctioned by governmental authorities at local, state, and federal levels. They were fueled by a widespread belief that these peoples were not even human beings, and they were motivated by economic expansionism.

 

There are those who, unbelievably, deny the Holocaust. Even today, Turks will deny the Armenian genocides. For what ever reasons, some Americans choose to deny the well documented atrocities committed by US military personnel against Native Americans.

 

FWIW, my "agenda" is to remember the mistakes of our past so that we are not doomed to repeat them.

[packsaddle 753]

"I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people's dream died there. It was a beautiful dream . . . . the nation's hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead."

Black Elk recalls the massacre at Wounded Knee.

 

Neihardt, J.G. 1979. Black Elk Speaks. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. 270 pp.

 

It's worth a read or two. What we did there was not noble. It was without honor.

[madkins007 10]

Henk- Just for my own curiosity, what difference does it make grammatically if there is a comma between "One Nation" and "Under God"?

 

The comma is usually placed to indicate a slight pause, and we tend to read the Pledge in a series of short bursts- probably at least in part because it is easier to read ANYTHING in a group in shrt bursts.

 

It is usually spoken:

I pledge allegience

to the flag

of the United States

of America

and to the republic

for which it stands

one nation

under God

indivisible

with liberty

and justice

for all

 

Its a nice rythym and flows. When a person in our unit made a similar comment and we tried to recite the 'one nation under God' bit in one phrase, it sounded choppier. Personally, I also feel it gives a bit more emphasis to 'under God' this way- less slurred.

[madkins007 10]

For those who wish to revert to an earlier version of the Pledge, here are some options:

 

What Bellemy wanted to write:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.

[Note: he knew the word 'equality' would not be welcome since neither women nor blacks- nor others- were considered equal at the time.]

 

Original published version, Sept 8, 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

1st Revision, Oct. 11, 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

2nd Revision, June 14, 1923:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

 

3rd Revision, June 14, 1924:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

 

4th Revision, June 14, 1954:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

 

Personally- I like his preferred version!

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

To those people on the receiving end of the genocide, depopulation, accredited/sanctioned killing by the government, by the Nazis, or any other country fill in the blank; it makes little difference what it is called, historical perspective, imperialism or personal opinion. They have all been murdered, slaughtered, gutted, left to the wolves, etc. and according to God it is wrong. It makes little difference what we recite, put on our money, preach in the pulpit, spout with solemn benediction; unless we act in accordance with what God has asked, we are out of compliance. During the first century debate of true Christianity, Paul answered the question of what it is to be a Jew and it remains the same today. It is what is written on your heart and that is the only thing that compels one to correct action(s).

FB

[TheScout 10]

Everyone seems to forget that horrendous acts of violence committed by the Indians as well. The perpetrated massecres of settlers at Schenectady, Deerfield, and many other places. Indians also took violence on this scale to each other. The "native" tribe to my area, Western New York was the Neutrals. Around 1700s they were eliminated by the Senecas of the Iroqouis Nation to secure more hunting land.

 

The campaign of the Americans should not be recognized as genocide. It should be thought of a series of violent wars by many nations to secure North America. It should not be compared to the genocide of Nazi Germany. The Jews represented no actual threat to Germany (except maybe in Hitler's eyes) and were killed for no purpose.

[evmori 11]

Everyone seems to forget that horrendous acts of violence committed by the Indians as well.

 

Maybe because we were trying to take over their land & they were defending it?

 

If we don't learn form our mistakes we are destined to repeat them.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

"wars to secure North America"??

 

I think you'll find that North American was secure and doing just fine and dandy under the thriving Native American nations that populated the area. It only became "insecure" when the Europeans decided to invade it.

 

Since Hitler was the leader of Germany at the time, his seeing the Jews as a threat would seem to be enough, don't you think? Germany's leaders saw the Jews as a threat to their goals at the time, and took action to eliminate the threat. The U.S. government saw the Native Americans as a threat to their expansion goals, and took action to eliminate the threat. I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

 

If you don't like the term "genocide" and prefer something nice and sterile like "depopulate", then that's fine. The Natives are just as dead and the actions by the government at the time just as unconscionable.

[Lynda J 10]

I agree with Madkin. The Pledge should stand as originally written.

 

Now if Bellemy had written it with "Under God" in the original version I would be fighting mad at having it removed.

 

One thing that people seem to forget was that this country was founded on a platform of "religious freedon" Not for just one belief but for all.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

If one person loses their right to their religious belief then we are all losers. Because if means that at some point in time if one belief other than yours takes power you can also lose the right to believe or not. I believe in God. I would hope that he can give me the strength to give others the right to believe as they chose.

For years "good christians" have totally destroyed cultures in the name of GOD. I do not think that is what he wants. It doesn't matter if they believe in the tree in the forest, they believe in a higher being. It is their religious right. Just as it is ours to believe in God.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>I think you'll find that North American was secure and doing just fine and dandy under the thriving Native American nations that populated the area. It only became "insecure" when the Europeans decided to invade it.

 

Since Hitler was the leader of Germany at the time, his seeing the Jews as a threat would seem to be enough, don't you think?

[johndaigler 10]

Barry, With all due respect, I think you're over-simplifying your historical points and short selling some of the others posted.

 

"Hitler hated Jews, nothing more. He did not see them as a threat; his motivation to wipe them out was pure hate."

 

As I understand it, and I don't claim to be an expert, Hitler used the Jews (and other "impure" peoples) as fall-guys for the suffering of Germany post-WWI. By giving the Germans a focal point of blame for their cultural, economic and emotional suffering, he was able to rally the German people to a common cause and rebuild their national pride, sense of unity, and overriding belief in the inevitable right of Germany to rule the various Germanic people throughout Europe.

Economically, European Jews often suffered less loss during/after WWI than others because of their tradition trades, careers, portable wealth, cohesive communities, etc. Throughout Christian-European history Jews were not allowed to own land or live amongst the general populace, so they developed self-preserving skills, trades and wealth. Between the two World Wars, Jews became a convenient target of economic jealousy. Combining that with the historical anti-semitic feeling was an easy political manuever for Hitler and the Nazis.

 

Obviously, this description is overly-simplified, as well - But, I think it's more about govts. and power than personal hatred.

 

"North America was hardly doing fine under Indian nations. In fact a great many tribes used the invaders and their high-tech weapons to help advance their own tradition agenda, which was to wipe out their enemy."

 

I guess it depends on your definition of fine. IMHO, the right to that definition belonged to the native peoples who were living here at the time - rather arrogant of us to come in and "fix" the place - don't you think? Yes, many nations used the technology that became available and allied themselves with/against the Europeans or neighboring tribes - but does that somehow negate their culture up to that point? Level of technology is hardly a barometer of "civilization". And until the Europeans arrived, I don't believe there is much historical evidence for, "their own tradition agenda, which was to wipe out their enemy." Again, as I understand it, tribal warfare was most often about rights of passage, economic wealth and use of valued land. Yes, tribes migrated, pushing one another around - but there seems to be little evidence that wars of extinction were anything like a norm.

 

As far as the term "genocide" goes - I think you have to break up the history a bit. Yes, there were "wars" of conquest and somebody had to lose them. I guess we can refer to them as "honorable" military actions. But there remains all the "dishonorable" stuff that should not be forgotten: gift blankets carrying smallpox; massacred villages consisting of old men, women and children; broken treaties; concentration camps (earliest reservations); rampant corruption - ultimately sanctioned by govt. officials; purposeful annihilation of their food/equipment sources; relocation of whole nations (without concern for keeping families or even nations together) to remote environmentally different and useless lands; punishment and execution for practicing their religion; etc. Call it whatever you want - if it's not "genocide", it's in the team photo.

 

jd

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Barry,

>>You need to stick with coloring within the lines of liberalism. You obviously don't know history, at least not in these areas.

 

What does having liberal views in some areas have to do with this?

 

As far as my knowing history, I know it well enough. Regardless of whether Hitler personally hated the Jews, there is absolutely no doubt of his perceived threat, by them, to his political agenda. Now, whether he concocted the notion of the Jewish threat, or whether it actually existed, is immaterial. They were, in fact, treated as a threat, and dealt with accordingly.

 

The same is true of the U.S. treatment of the Native Americans in the 19th century. Were they truly a threat? Immaterial, really. They were treated as a threat, and acted against accordingly.

 

So, by your thinking, because the Europeans had superior technology, it was ok for them to invade North America? It's sort of expected, and if the Natives couldn't keep up, too bad for them? My, what an enlightened view of the American psyche. Couldn't we have developed treaties with them to figure out a way to live together? Oops, I forgot, we did have treaties. We tended to lie about what our intentions really were.

 

Now, did the Native American nations war with each other before the Europeans arrived? Sure, they did. Did some go to the point of wiping out their enemies when given the chance? Yes, on occasion. They were not a perfect people. But was it their "tradition"? Nope.

 

So, Barry, if you want to be so aggressive as to say that I "obviously" don't know my history, and somehow attach that to my liberal views on some issues, as if that has some relevence, you go right ahead. But when your done entertaining yourself, you might want to pull out a couple of history books yourself. You also might want to take off those rose colored glasses you're viewing the country with. We have had our moments of greatness, but we've also had our not so great moments, too. They're all part of our history.

 

 

 

[Hunt 11]

I think what gets people so upset about this Pledge thing is that deep down, we all have to know that Newdow is right and that the public schools shouldn't be promoting a particular religious view. However, the vast majority of people think it isn't that big a deal (even if technically wrong) and wish Newdow would just go away. I think that's why the Supreme Court punted the first time, and will do the same this time if it can find a pretext to do so.

 

That's because if the Supreme Court has to decide the case on the merits, I see only two possible outcomes:

1. To agree that for the schools to require the recitation of a pledge with "under God" in it is unconstitutional establishment of religion, even if no student is required to say it.

2. To say that "under God" is OK because it's merely "ceremonial" and not really religious at all. If that were really true, would people be going nuts trying to preserve it? Obviously not, but that would be about all the Supreme Court could do.

What the Supreme Court is not at all likely to do is to say that it's OK for the schools to promote belief in God.

The only compromise I can see would be for the Court to say it's OK for the school to have a voluntary morning assembly where the Pledge is recited (and nothing else is done).

I think the Court we're likely to have when the case comes up will either punt again, or go with number 2.

[stlscouter 10]

Hunt-maybe the compromise could be based on what the first amendment actually says, "congress shall make no law.." I wish someone would point to the law tht congress passed that mandates all school children must recite the pledge. Perhaps an actual definition of religion would help-I know some who worship government and money maybe these too are religions.