Pledge of Allegiance Upheld in New Mexico

Jessica Cassyle Carr [ Fri Aug 21 2009 3:07 PM ]

U.S.A.! U.S. of fuckin' A!

"I pledge allegiance 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." — Francis Bellamy

How many times did you mindlessly recite this nationalistic oath as a child?

In the interest of not creating a "mistaken impression that the pledge is not important in New Mexico's classrooms," today New Mexico education secretary Veronica Garcia decided that the state would continue to compel school children to swear the pledge. That rule was up for an amendment that would have allowed students to opt out.

As a response to this disappointing outcome, here are some reasons to abolish the Pledge:

1.) Partially designed as a marketing scheme to sell flags.
2.) Before 1942 the accompanying salute, the Bellamy, was suspiciously similar to that of the Nazis.
3.) I'm told that "God" isn't supposed to be involved with the American government.
4.) There is no liberty in being forced by a republic to swear loyalty to that republic.
5.) Cultish.

Public Comments (4)

- Yakov
  - Yakov's profile
  - send message to Yakov
- Since 2009-08-21
- Posts: 6
In Soviet Russia [ Fri Aug 21 2009 6:02 PM ]
Government pledges allegiance to YOU!
- stuetrory
  - stuetrory's profile
  - send message to stuetrory
- Since 2006-03-05
- Posts: 75
6.) [ Sun Aug 23 2009 3:52 AM ]

"Under god" was added in the 50's, spurred on by religious nutjobs that apparently were unaware of # 3 .

Those 2 words were probably intended to cause the godless commies amongst us to catch fire in the mouth or some such horseshit.
- simonm
  - simonm's profile
  - send message to simonm
- Since 2007-10-08
- Posts: 789
Buldog Pride trumped National Pride [ Mon Aug 24 2009 1:23 PM ]
There were some teachers at Albuquerque High who demanded that all students stand, but that was nothing compared to how adamant staff and faculty was that everyone stand for the fight song.
- JesseChisholm
  - JesseChisholm's profile
  - send message to JesseChisholm
- Since 2009-06-23
- California
- Posts: 3
weak arguments [ Sun Dec 27 2009 2:37 PM ]

re #1: So? The fellow down the street selling flags would have used it that way even if Bellamy didn't want it used that way. The Disney character Mickey Mouse, created for entertainment, is also "partially" a sales ploy. Are you suggesting we abolish everything that is used to sell stuff?

re #2: So? The Nazi swastika is suspiciously similar to symbols of spiritual good in use for 1000s of years. Symbols and styles repeat through history. Are influenced by other cultures through history. Are changed whenever there is a cultureal need to change them. When the Nazi's became our enemies, it was reasonable to find ways to distinguish ourselves from them. What's your point?

re #3: The only valid argument so far, as far as it goes, but you are misquoting the rule. It is that Government isn't supposed to mess with Religion or take sides in Denominational squabbles, or let Religion control the Government; not that Government isn't supposed to acknowledge the existence and validity of Religion. The vast majority of American (nominally) believe in the same God (Jews, Muslims, and Christians). The pledge doesn't even specify whether it is referring to that God or some other.

re #4: But you aren't forced. You a welcome to leave. ;-) Or just stay silent while everyone else pledges their allegiance. One does wonder, though, what your real issue is? Is there a _reason_ you do not feel any allegiance to this country?

re #5: Huh? You have a rather loose definition of a "cult". By that standard a belief in the "Scientific Method" is a cult. Are you suggesting that we abolish any system that requires "belief"? Then we would have to also abolish Atheism, as it requires the belief that there is no God.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were trying for brevity. I think you were too terse for your arguments to convince anyone of anything.

Your arguments lean heavily on emotion and innuendo, rather than substantial issues.

Your position is not unreasonable, nor untenable; it is merely your arguments that are lacking.

-Jesse Chisholm