I didn’t miss it, I ignored it.

The Pledge as Loyalty Oath seems to be a subject you want to discuss. That’s fine, just go ahead without me. I’m not interested.

You missed my primary point. The Pledge of Allegiance is at its core an oath of loyalty.

The very idea of an oath of loyalty for all citizens is opposed to the American ideal of individual liberty, not a statement of that ideal.

None of the changes Congress has made over the years changes that essential fact.

Gitarcarver,

There are just some things that society should take care of. Feeding children is one, IMHO. If society pays for education, it is not much of a leap to pay for lunches. And when compared to the total cost of other education stuff, it is small potatoes.

Of course, whether society should pay for education in the first place could be a topic for debate.

It would be better if the families that “cannot afford lunch” use the WIC/Food stamps that they are receiving to pack a lunch for their little tax deductions, instead of double dipping on federal and state handouts.

Yeh,an indivisible nation, like e pluribus unum; acknowledgement we live under God, like acknowledgement that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights endowed by the Creator. Not ideals? Liberty and justice for all? Not ideals? I think you miss my point and perhaps make it at the same time.

I understand protests against actual failure to uphold our ideals. Seems to me the essence of Bobs and your replies are objections to the hypocrisy of not living up to one’s stated ideals – not objections to the ideals themselves. Very well. Haven’t I said that already in different words? But it seems to me you both are missing my point by rejecting America’s ideals themselves. Or, if that’s not what you mean, then aren’t we in agreement?

I have a hard time understanding why people protest and disrespect American ideals.

The Pledge of Allegiance isn’t a statement of of American ideals. As an oath of loyalty, it is a perversion of those ideals.

The original version wasn’t even written specifically for the US.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth’s Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

Congress has had to modify it several times to make it acceptable to the American public.

In its original form it read:

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

In 1923, the words, “the Flag of the United States of America” were added. At this time it read:

“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.”

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God,” creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy’s daughter objected to this alteration.

Shortly thereafter, the pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart, and after reciting “to the Flag,” the arm was extended toward the Flag, palm-down.

In World War II, the salute too much resembled the Nazi salute, so it was changed to keep the right hand over the heart throughout.

John, you make a common illogical leap here, in which people conflate “I don’t understand A” to be the same as “There is no justifiable understanding of A.” I, being a less than omniscient individual — I know that shocks you — am willing to admit there are things I don’t understand. Why, occasionally I even make the effort to understand another’s point of view, and once or twice have admitted I have been mistaken. That’s how progress is made, not be saying “I don’t understand,” usually in that tone of voice that indicates that is as far as this discussion is going.

My understanding of why people kneel rather than stand at attention, is they are protesting the people who put their right hands over their hearts and think that’s all they need to do. There is a lot of that going around, and always has been, as long as patriotism has been the last refuge of the scoundrel. In this, I sympathize with them, even as I stand straight with my hand over my heart as a reminder that such symbols of patriotism — the flag, the pledge of allegiance — are not sinecures, but dedicatory symbols of my wavering attempts to be worthy of those ideals.

Back to snarking tomorrow.

Bob

I understand protesting against actual failures to uphold our ideals. But I have a hard time understanding why people protest and disrespect American ideals.

mx,

With all due respect, the link to the program seems to make the claim that the lunches are “free.”

That seems to violate the axiom of “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

To illustrate, the schools around here are very aggressive in trying to get people to sign up for the lunch program. When asked about where the money for the program was coming from, members of the school board replied “from the Federal government.”

When that was followed up with “where does the Federal government get their money?” the reply from the people who are responsible for educating kids all said “we don’t know.”

Someone is paying for the lunches and for the program to advertise they are “free” just isn’t true.