Tuesday, May 24, 2005

I Pledge Allegiance

Faith-based folks will be happy to know that the Pledge of Allegiance is still being said in the Public Middle School a half block from our house. I was on my run this AM and passed by the school at the tail end, warming down. There was a flock of children in the courtyard with a teacher holding up the flag, all reciting the Pledge. As I slowed to my walk, I heard with my own two ears the familiar phrase...
...One Nation
Under God
With Liberty

And Justice
For All
Then I got to thinking, as I have myself spoken these words as a child and as an adult. Just wondering if some people may be getting the short end of the stick. What happened to the "Liberty and Justice for All" part of this pledge?


Anonymous said...

God in, Liberty and Justice out

Senator Joe McCarthy is the hypocrite who added God to the pledge circa 1954. Prior to then, you could think God was in the idea behind the pledge if you wanted to, but that idea wasn't explicit.

Scratch a ''Christian,'' find a hypocrite. It's easier to jam Jesus down the throats of the heathen than to set an example worth following. Why not spread the Gospel the easy way, by having the government impose it. Oops, that's the Taliban speaking.

In fairness to the Christians who walk the walk, of which there are many, most of them are not in favor of the entanglement of church and state. The message of love thy neighbor is strong enough to stand on its own without state help. The other ''Christians'' are fascists, they want to use the power of the state (rather than their personal good example), to force their performance standards on others.

Remember Prohibition? it was written into the US Constitution. Marriage is between a ''Christian'' and the Constitution. Slated for repeal when the people come to their senses.

atrandom said...

Dear Anonymous, How interesting that you mention Joseph McCarthy. You didn't find it McCarthism that Harry Reid used innuendo to attack a judicial nominee with information he did not see himself and announced on the Senate floor and which even the nominee was not allowed to see and had no way to rebut. McCarthism, Reid style.

Ol' windspike is too afraid to engage in the "marketplace of ideas." He just wants to pontificate without debating his ideas. You on the other hand want to have it both ways. You say scratch a Christian and you find a hypocrite, then magnanimously allow that some Christians "walk the walk," then they're fascists again. I think you must have the same pair of flip flops worn by John Kerry during the joke he called his presidential campaign.

You're conclusion that certain people "force their performance standards on others" is really comical. The concept of performance standards is the definition of LAW. It demands certain standards on human activities. Use the word “nigger” in Harlem and you’ll wind up in jail for a hate crime because some one is demanding a certain standard. What about the first amendment’s “free speech” provision?

Thanks to the theories you promote, pedophilia, polygamy, bigamy, you could even marry your dog would be legal. Political correctness is your religion. It is the most dictatorial performance demanding philosophies ever created. Without performance standards murder would be acceptable. Don't look to anyone coming to their "senses" (your definition) any time soon. It is patently contradictory.
Have a good day:)

Anonymous said...

Where's your evidence Random? Trouble with your argument is that it centers an political correctness (which is certainly not written into law). Can you really get arrested in Harlem for being a fool? I don't think so. Still makes you a fool

windspike said...

Dear Random,

No fear here. Have you been to Harlem? Aparently, you believe there is something to fear there. Truth, indeed, is a slave to perception:http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/02/truth.html

As usual, I find myself a bit bewildered by your typing. It usually has very little if no salience to the post at hand. If you could address future comments to the particular post, that would make it more like a dialog than you trotting over to my web location and ranting ad nauseum. If you have that much to say, perhaps you aught be posting them to your blog and then inviting comments over there.

Also, you are getting pretty much side tracked on the whole PC idea. It is pretty much an issue from the 1990s.


Oh, on a totally different issue, do you really think people will want to marry their pets? By the way, Mormans in the past have been supportive of polygamy, are they bad people?

Incidentially, can you tell us what sort of protection marriage (or even your marriage) needs that requires intervention by the federal government?

SheaNC said...

Yes, what sort of protection does marriage need? And why are so many republicans obsessed with marrying dogs?!

Anonymous said...

God in, Liberty and Justice out: Part II

I love a good flame, atrandom, but it would be hard to warm a bun over yours.