NBC apologizes for cutting “under God”

LadyJazzer wrote: So, "Under God" was added in 1954, during the McCarthy-era hysteria.... I'm glad we got all that information about Nazi salutes out of the way, and the "under God" deflection stuff out of the way.... So, we can continue the outrage-of-the-day about what was left out of the TV clip.

(Interesting that they are not particularly outraged about "INDIVISIBLE" being left out--but leave out "under God", and there's hell to pay! It's so good that we have all of the conservative watchdog groups around to make sure it doesn't slip by.

So, I'M OUTRAGED that "INDIVISIBLE" got left out... (and I could care less if "under God" did... Personally, I haven't said the words "under God" since about 1960... I'm not "pledging allegiance" to God...I thought it was to the flag...)

When you get right down to the brass tacks of it, "Under God" is more in line with original intent than "indivisible" is, so if one of them was going to be left out, it should be "indivisible" since it never should have been part of the pledge to begin with. "Indivisible" is simply regressive ideology rearing its head and attempting to indoctrinate people into believing something other than what truly exists. Liberty and freedom carry with them freedom of association. I am free to associate with whomever I choose to associate with and to not associate with whomever I choose to exclude. Whether that freedom is between two people or two states makes no difference - association is voluntary, not compulsory, in a place of liberty and freedom. To imply otherwise is simply attempting to indoctrinate people into believing something that is contrary to what exists.

Wow.. I'm sure that the guy who wrote it -- in 1892 -- will be glad to know that you've figured out what the "original intent" was, 100 years after the creation of the Constitution and the nation... And that he AGREED with McCarthy in 1954 about adding the words... And to know with such absolute certainty that the word "indivisible" should "never have been in it", (and that the guy who wrote it in 1892 was, therefore, wrong in how he wrote it)?!?! Who knew?

You never cease to amaze me with your omniscience... and bullsh*t.

PrintSmith wrote: When you get right down to the brass tacks of it, "Under God" is more in line with original intent than "indivisible" is, so if one of them was going to be left out, it should be "indivisible" since it never should have been part of the pledge to begin with. "Indivisible" is simply regressive ideology rearing its head and attempting to indoctrinate people into believing something other than what truly exists.

As long as we're offering our guesses as to what the self-avowed "socialist" who wrote it meant, I'll suggest that 30 years after the civil war Francis Bellamy might have meant "indivisible" as having to do with the not-too-distant War Between the States.

As for Bellamy agreeing with McCarthy or visa versa... I would again point out Bellamy was a "socialist" and probably someone who would have ended up on one of McCarthy's communist lists (and may have. I haven't checked). I'm glad no one here is dissing the pledge simply because a socialist wrote it.

WayneH wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: When you get right down to the brass tacks of it, "Under God" is more in line with original intent than "indivisible" is, so if one of them was going to be left out, it should be "indivisible" since it never should have been part of the pledge to begin with. "Indivisible" is simply regressive ideology rearing its head and attempting to indoctrinate people into believing something other than what truly exists.

As long as we're offering our guesses as to what the self-avowed "socialist" who wrote it meant, I'll suggest that 30 years after the civil war Francis Bellamy might have meant "indivisible" as having to do with the not-too-distant War Between the States.

As for Bellamy agreeing with McCarthy or visa versa... I would again point out Bellamy was a "socialist" and probably someone who would have ended up on one of McCarthy's communist lists (and may have. I haven't checked). I'm glad no one here is dissing the pledge simply because a socialist wrote it.

Which is where the idea of "Indivisible" came from. The Constitution doesn't say that any state which joins will be prevented from leaving - that is another "interpretation" that was applied to it when some of the states attempted to leave. The Constitution is a voluntary compact between independent and sovereign states. The original members of the union joined it voluntarily as a result of elections to decide the question. To say that one of these independent and sovereign states could not voluntarily withdraw from the union is to imply that the United States could not voluntarily withdraw from its membership in the United Nations, or NATO, if it decided to do so.

As to Bellamy, he was dead by the time his salute was replaced and "under God" were added, though he was alive when "my Flag" was changed to "the flag of the United States" and later "of America" was added. I'll also comment that "under God" was added to remain true to the text of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address - which, if you are correct that the Civil War was the inspiration for "indivisible", renders it a more complete, if still incorrect, expression of the sentiment felt as a result of that conflict.

PS, somehow you're limiting the definition of "indivisible" with not being allowed to divide and not mentioning it could also mean not being able to be divided (one being an internal force and the other an external force).

Still no outrage from anyone that half of our states don't require the Pledge to be recited in public schools, huh? I'm shocked. As I said, that has more impact than leaving a couple of words out on a golf broadcast, which is what seems to be focus here.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government has no ability to compel anyone, including children, to say the pledge since "compulsory unification of opinion" violates the 1st Amendment. There is also the criticism, accurate in my opinion, that children lack the ability to give the consent which is an inherent part of the pledge.

FWIW, I think the pledge should be abandoned altogether. It is totally inconsistent with the principles of the republic and the indoctrination which it attempts to infuse the citizens with is completely false. We are not one nation, we are a union of 50 independent and sovereign states.

IMO, it’s time to add this to the posts again…
"Boys and girls, I have been listening to you recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it appears that it has become monotonous to you or could it be you do not know the meaning of those words. If I may, I would like to recite the Pledge and give to you a definition of the words.
I----meaning me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge----dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.
Allegiance----my love and my devotion.
To the Flag----our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there is respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
Of the United----that means that we have all come together.
States----individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common cause, and that's love of country.
Of America.
And to the Republic[/color]----a republic, a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands!
One nation----meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible----incapable of being divided.
With Liberty----which is freedom and the right of power to live one's life without threats or fear or any sort of retaliation.
And justice----The principle and quality of dealing fairly with others.
For all.----which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine."

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our nation, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That's a prayer" and that would be eliminated from schools, too?

Go watch & listen to it: http://www.redskelton.com/PLEDGE.htm

And that's the point TPP - it is divisible, just as the presence of the union in the UN and NATO is a divisible compact. It is a voluntary union of 50 independent and sovereign states that could become a union of a lesser number of states if some of them choose to voluntarily withdraw from the union they voluntarily joined. Association is voluntary, not compulsory.

That's why we fought the Civil War... It is NOT "divisible"...

But we're all so glad that you are there to interpret the 1892 Pledge for us... (based on the usual Sovereign Citizen, Federalist, Founding-Fathers, Original Intent crap that you spout at the drop of a hat...)

The 1892 pledge came from a socialist - which is why it understandably intentionally misrepresents the actual state of things. Nation wide socialism is simply incompatible with the Constitution unless you can get folks to believing that your socialistic "interpretation" of that document is contained within it. Hence the desire to misrepresent the republic as a union of sovereign states and lead people to believe it is a single indivisible entity in possession of unlimited power over them.