I only assert that “Under God” is part of the Pledge of Alliance. I make no claim as to whether it should or not be there.
I simply state the fact that it is there as a foundation of my greater point, which is that we are selective as to what rights we care to exercise and what issues truly concern us as individuals. “Under God” in the Pledge of Alliance has come under fire, while no one seems to care that “In God We Trust” is on all the currency we use. Certainly, people don’t mind what it says on the currency, so long as it pays the bills and luxuries. However, we use money on a daily basis, while most adult “Americans” have forgotten the words to the Pledge of Alliance, just like they’ve forgotten the words to the national Anthem.
My argument is solely on the basis of the First Amendment, and social changes; and how these relate to foreign affairs.
——
I am beginning to feel that the basis and point of my argument have been lost to the appearance, and extreme awareness, of certain terms I have used to describe or explicate my position. Right after my statements on “Under God” and “In God We Trust”, I discuss the duality of expectations, actions and awareness which bring my point to bear.
I’m trying to find the quote about not being obligated to live by the rules of dead men.
I know that there is a famous Bible quote: Let the dead bury their dead or Let the dead bury the dead.
But I still think that I got the concept from someone else.
I was thinking Emerson and now I’m thinking Nietzsche.
I can’t really just quote Nietzsche because he flies all over the place, but I did find this:
Whether they know it or not, they certainly act as if their motto were: let the dead bury the living.
Friedrich Nietzsche – The Use and Abuse of History (1878)
My take on reading this section of the book is that we should not be beholden to any rule contrived by the dead, lest they bury the living. And while I was delighted with many of their thoughts and ideas (see my recommended reading list), I should always be ready to abandon a concept if I find fault with it.
So, as of now, I think that my position stands:
My Hypothesis:
I’m not obligated or beholden to live by the rules of dead White (or Anglo Saxon) men.
I emphasize White to stress the fact that Native Americans, Africans, Asians and not to mention a whole host of races were excluded from the decision making process. I stress dead because they are not aware of our current conditions and cannot revise or debate the issue.
I was a Roman Catholic too. Went to Catholic Grade School and was even an Altar Boy.
Hi:
If you’re going SOLELY by the First Amendment, doesn’t it seem clear that since they added the words in 1957, that it is a violation of the First Amendment?
Yes, some people do mind that the motto is on money and in fact, there are people who want it removed from money too.
I think that if they eliminate God from the Pledge, the motto will quickly be removed from money.
It might just be a tactical decision to deal with the Pledge first.
Furthermore, I think that they object on principle.
The difference between money and the Pledge is that we are pledging an oath to a God we don’t think exist.
Lest I forget, Merry Christmas!
BTW, I am kind of ready to let this issue go unless you want to continue it.