An explanation to why some are upset about the pledge issue

[Az]

No one has demanded that everything be dropped to fight the pledge. All anyone has asked for is that our representitives acknowledge what is constitutionally correct. So what if its a losing battle. Stick your toe in at the very least. Give us a sense that there is some sort of spine there. That you represent something other than polls and special interests.

We keep complaining about how the Dems have no spine. And right here is why. A spine means courage. A spine means doing things because they are right not because they are advantageous to your current position. And yet here are numerous people ready to throw a sizable number of people overboard simply because its a losing battle. Just how do you think it makes those people feel?

We have been playing the short term goals game for a while now. And the result is the rupugs own the WH, the Senate, the Congress, and the Courts(not to mention the media). Good job. Shall we continue using the same tactic?

Short term games in politics do not work in the long term. The illusion that we win seats is burst by the fact that the seats we win are politically weakened regarding our core issues. Instead they are seats won on repug lite campaigns. This is not a win. This is a place holder. Until a real repug wins it its just a slowing of the slide.

The Dems have to differentiate themself from the repugs. We cannot survive just being the other party. They need to find the things they stand for and then start beating those drums consistantly. They need to let people know who they are rather than reading polls telling them who they think the people want them to be. This is called leading.

[rodeodance]

1. I am not upset about the CA ruling. Good for CA for doing the right thing

[samplebytes]

47. Easy fix - Change it back to the pre red-scare pledge. N/T

[napi21]

2. I think the Dems should let this one up to the courts.

I look at this argument the same as I look at Roe...settled law.

From everything I've checked, no one is forced to say anything! Stand there and think about baseball or your girlfriend. It only lasts less than a minute! Kids have been saying the pledge for well over 60 years, and a lot longer than that, since I know I wasn't the first class to do so!

I say drop this baby on the SC. Somebody's going to be pissed, no matter what their decision is, but let the loser be pissed at the SCOTUS. We have NOTHING to win here!!!

[Az]

4. If its right then tell the people why its right

Its going to the SC. And yes the spineless thing to do would be to duck and cover and let them take the hit. And with the way the courts are stacked right now we are gonna lose.

Now this is just my imagination but a politician with a spine I would imagine would tell any that asked them that the phrase never belonged in the pledge. They would explain that the original pledge never had it in there. That the phrase was added during a dark period of history and was exclusionary. Something the USA does not stand for.

Instead we have the right recasting McCarthy as a hero. Thats guts. Thats standing up for something you believe in. Its sick but it takes guts. And that is why they hold the power in our government today. Because they bring ideas to the people rather than begging the people for guidance.

[napi21]

7. I know why the phrase in in there. I was Eisenhower, and done

to declare the big difference between the US, and Communism. Yes it was a dark period in history, and lots of people were spouting the Communist under every bed idea.

All I'm saying is that it's been done for a very olong time, and hasn't seemed to harmed anyone. If we fight this, I think we will be turning away a lot of moderates who have now turned to the Dems because they are so disgusted with Shrub and his policies. What difference would it really make if we won and the SC ruled to remove the phrase? Would it really affect you? I know it wouldn't affect me!

It definately will affect all of us if we toss out a chance to turn a lot of moderates against us again because we just look like God haters! I know that's not true, but perception becomes the truth!!!!

There are many bigger and more important fights right now. I feel those are where we should concentrate out efforts.

[Az]

11. Degree

It is not an all or nothing battle. It very well may be a losing one. But how people deal with losing battles tells others a lot about them. This is the spine thing. We keep on complaining about the Dems not having spines. You don't need a spine to fight for something you are going to win anyway. Spines are for when the odds are against you.

That being said this is not a critical issue directly. But it can serve us. It is an opportunity to remind people that this is a nation of many beliefs. It is an opportunity to show that the Dems really do stand by the people. That they do have passions. That they are not just about polls.

All it requires to do this is to simply state that you happen to believe it is wrong to have the phrase in the pledge and that you support the constitution of these United States. The SC will handle the rest. There is not a tremendous amount of political capital that needs to be spent here. Its a low priority issue. But it has the potential to show our parties character or lack of it.

[Mich Otter]

29. napi21 said, "hasn't seemed to harmed anyone"

Why should any child have to try to answer any question about why he/she does not want to say the pledge? There may be any number of reasons, it is no one else's business. Children can be very cruel to someone they feel they have reason to pick on.
Each fight for what is right has to be fought each day. Waiting to fight another day only makes it harder to win.
There is no sensible reason to say the pledge in the first place. It is only making a group statement for the purpose of having a show.
If these shithead Republicans have their way, I wouldn't be surprised if they start getting American kids to say a "Pledge of Allegiance to the President and all the Government". What harm would would that be, really? Do you want to have your kids coerced into participating?

[MADem]

44. Why do ***WE*** have to fight it?

It isn't a D or R issue--it is a freedom of speech issue, frankly.

Americans with brains don't like to be ordered to parrot shit. They don't like to be commanded to salute a flag and say the nation is ruled by God if they do not believe that. One of the great things about our country is that we are ALLOWED to not like the gubmint...

Loyalty oaths? We, and I mean Americans, not Democrats, don't do loyalty oaths....we think for ourselves, or we used to, anyway.

The only way we make this a D issue is if we take it on in monolithic fashion. You might be surprised that there are tons of R's who do not like the Pledge either, for precisely the reasons I outlined above.

[Moochy]

5. Loyalty Oaths

"Under God" was added during the red scare of the 50s.

Who else requires loyalty oaths.. oh yeah thats right the Bush Campaign events. :)

And to your point about it being optional thats a bogus argument. You are totally discounting the effect that this has on non-religious people.

[AllegroRondo]

8. The same reason 'non-mandatory' prayers were banned from schools

kids who choose not to say the prayer (or the pledge) are made to feel as if they are second class citizens. "REAL Americans say the pledge, but if you don't want to, just stand outside the door for a minute."

[BlueJazz]

3. If the Repugs get upset about the Pledge and start babbling ...

..on about this "Christian Nation", Ask them why Congress approved the original pledge just the way it was.. (With no mention of God)

[AllegroRondo]

10. and mention that "In God we trust" was not on our original currency

it was added to coins during the civil war, to show that God was on the side of the union.

it wasnt added to paper currency until the 1950s.

[newswolf56]

6. I applaud the decision. I am old enough to remember when the pledge...

did not include the implicitly theocratic "under god," also to remember vividly the legendary "one nation under god" cartoon in The Realist (a caricature of Yehveh sodomizing Uncle Sam -- in many states a felony even to possess). It has always quietly infuriated me that in order to pledge allegiance to our flag and country, we are forced also to pledge allegiance not only to a specific deity ("God" as a synonym for Yehveh) but also to a deity many rightfully regard as an ultimate symbol of oppression: the god of the library-burners and witch-burners, the god of genocide, the god of misogyny, the god of environmental destruction -- this entirely because of the infinite cowardice of Congress to resist the runaway Christofascism of the McCarthy Era. (Yes I am old enough to have seen this phenomenon before -- and because of the vastly increased secret-police power of the government, it is even more dangerously repugnant now than it was then.)

[Walt Starr]

9. Go down that road and we'll have fewer than 40 Dem Senators

no filibuster and no stopping a REAL theocracy.

Be my guest. Stick your head in the noose and step off the chair.

[Az]

12. The road we are on has done that for us already

The DLC standard isn't working. Not only is it losing us seats but its remaking the party over into a bunch of repug wannabes. If we keep trying to win on repug lite platforms our winning candidates will increasingly come to resemble repugs. We are losing faster on the path we are on.

[Walt Starr]

14. This is not about the DLC standard. This is about distraction from

those issues on which we will win. Hell, I am probably the most anti-DLC person on this site.

Get distracted now and I guarantee you, we will lose seats in both the House and the Senate. It's already been proven, all you must do is look to the results of the past two elections where we werre distracted from those winning issues by bullshit like this.

Six seats, Az, that's how far away from a REAL theocracy we are at this point. We have a chnace to turn it all around right now, but if you take the bait, we fall into the same trap we did last year.

Give it a rest. It does not matter. Pay attention to the shit that will get us the wins, then these sorts of issues can be tackled.

[Az]

33. Lets use some logic and reason on this issue

We can both agree that the facts suggest that the Dems are losing seats and power at a steady flow. So whatever we are doing now simply isn't working.

Even with Bush showing terrible numbers the Dems are not getting any influx of power. They cannot capitalize on the rights most horrendous missteps. Its because the Dems no longer have an identity people trust. They stand for nothing in most people's eyes any longer. They are the party of the special interests and poll taking.

So lets say they duck and cover on issues like the pledge. What effect is this going to have. First off its going to alienate a lot of 1st ammendment fans. Conservative estimates of just the atheists suggests around 10% of the population. Now its not going to be unanimous but I can assure you that this political maneuvor will sicken a lot of nontheists. And when people become sickened by such tactics they tend to stop participating. Thus we lose more core voters.

The message it sends to the moderates is a blank. Duck and cover makes no statement. It stands out in no way. It tells the moderates nothing about the Dems other than its another issue they don't differ from the repugs on. And why would anyone vote for Repug lite when they can vote for a real Repug. They are much better at being Repugs than we ever will be and they have passion of conviction. We have the passion of not being seen.

The more we back away from our core issues the more the candidates we select for office resemble the repugs. Its a simple process. DINOs do us little good. In order to turn the people around on issues we need politicians that are talking about ideas that reflect our core. Not trying to emulate the right.

Yes, we will lose ground initially. Deal with it. We are losing more right now. If the opposition party is not opposing then it is serving no purpose. The fact is the core values of the Dem party are not favored by the people right now. Winning a few seats by running away from our values gains us nothing. We need to bring the message of our values before the people and champion it. Not hide it like some embarassing relative.

The people will continue to slide further and further into the rights deluded vision of society. If no one stands up and proclaims there is another way there is simply nothing to stop the slide. You don't stop someone from falling down a hole by pushing them into it. You grab on and pull for all your worth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Eek! Eek! The redneck Jesus Jumpers won't like us.

They'll vote against the Democrats!

As if that's what they'll do anyway.

[Walt Starr]

21. Nope, that's not who won't like us

Joe Barcalounger and Mushy Marvin from the Midwest won't like us and will vote for Bushbots because they don't "hate god".

Those who post on DU and FR do not decide elections. Elections are decided by the mushy middle. If the mushy middle perceives that Democrats hate god, they vote Republican. It's been proven to be an effective means for Republicans to win elections.

[Modem Butterfly]

25. We already tried your idea in 2002, Walt

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll445.xml

It worked like a fucking charm.

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

26. Nope, the REPUBLICANS offered that legislation

and caught the Dems with their pants down.

Plkain and simple, we were had. And they are going to have us again because the same shit keeps crawling out frombeneath the rock at a point in time when we are powerless to change it.

[Modem Butterfly]

31. By all means, if it didn't work the first time we should try it again

And keep trying until it does work...

[Walt Starr]

36. Pointis, we DIDN'T try it, the Republicans did, and won. n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

37. Oh for crying out loud

It didn't work, Walt. Our reps played the "I love Jesus just as much as Trent Lott" game and it didn't get us any votes. It didn't even get the Repugs votes; they all ran on terrorism in 02 and on terrorism and against gays in 04. It's a non-starter, Walt. Your idea is tried and tired.

[Walt Starr]

38. No, they didn't

They followed along like lemmings. They proposed nothing.

Had the Dems come out before the Republicans, there would have been a difference.

[AuntieM1957]

41. if each of us who thinks this is a defining issue wrote

each and every member of the DLC

every Democratic member of Congress

MAYBE they'd realize we're serious about it.

But kvetching to each other won't get their attention.

What can we do to affect a change?

[BurtWorm]

34. How can you be so sure?

What makes you think Americans are going to care more about "under God" than they do about New Orleans going under?

[BurtWorm]

35. Delete the repeat.

[morgan2]

13. I agree

the Republicans have been great about reassuring their base that they support unpopular Republican ideals, while not offending the middle. The Dems shy away from unpopular issues and piss their base off for the most part. They need to let us know they support unpopular ideas, even if they won't be implemented right now.

[Jeebo]

15. Is this country REALLY "indivisible"?

No, that issue wasn't settled in the Civil War. All that happened then was that the states that were trying to secede were forced back into the Union literally at gunpoint. The issue of whether any state has the legal, constitutional right to secede has never been settled.

And isn't saying a pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth IDOLATRY? Doesn't it violate the first two commandments? ("Thou shalt have no other god before me; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.") Don't the good Christian people who are such staunch defenders of the pledge realize this?

And is this really a country that has "liberty and justice for all"? HAH! Don't make me laugh!

Everybody keeps talking about the "under God" part, but why isn't anybody talking about the OTHER untrue or, at best, debatable points in the pledge? Forget about the "under God" part; the pledge is pure and simple a piece of propaganda, start to finish.

Ron

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of religion.."

No. As in not any. As in not making a "little" law that only involves a "couple of minutes".

Leaving the Bill of Rights to the politicians is like leaving the bank to the mafia.

[Freedomfried]

30. It's amendment number "1" so it must be important!

Jesus cultists need to learn to read.

[gollygee]

17. I love your last paragraph

"The Dems have to differentiate themself from the repugs. We cannot survive just being the other party. They need to find the things they stand for and then start beating those drums consistantly. They need to let people know who they are rather than reading polls telling them who they think the people want them to be. This is called leading."

And your whole post could pertain to many different issues - Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, etc.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

19. well said as usual and welcome back Az

it's good to see you posting. i don't mean to sound all sentimental and wishy-washy but it is quite nice to see your polite, non-confrontational and informative/productive communications again on DU.

[Modem Butterfly]

20. Well said

We will not get the GOP to play nice by simply taking their position on a particular issue. All we will do is turn off our supporters and make ourselves look foolish.

[converted_democrat]

27. Completely untrue......

Look at the most recent polls out. We are in a good position. People are coming around, and the blinders about Bush are falling off. Why give them a reason to beat us up? I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs, and I admire that, but what you are suggesting is about the worst strategic mistake we could make at this time. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but this is not a battle we want right now. I am not suggesting that we pander, I'm suggesting we fight the battle another day. We have the masses on our side, for the first time in a long time, we don't need this right now.

[Az]

28. Reread the polls

All they tell you is that Bushco is doing a lousy job. There is nothing there saying that people are flocking back to the Dems. Why would they. What do we stand for? What do we represent? The media is still firmly in the rights hands. The repugs are still controlling the issues. They just happen to have turned their backs on George and Co. as well.

[converted_democrat]

32. Nope....

I come from a red family, and a red area, people feel lied to. People feel duped. I'm in no way suggesting we go pub light. All of the people that I go to church with, have come up to me and told me how I was right about Bush, and that they feel the Pub party wrecking our country. If this issue comes out the way you want it to, what do you think they will do? Who do you think they will vote for in the next election cycle? Issues like this should be brought up when we are in power, not now.

[PA Democrat]

22. I say we Dems should point out the utter hypocrisy of the religious right

moaning about the removal of "under God" from the pledge at the same time they support an administration that is about as far removed from God by their actions as you can get.

Help the poor? The Republicans say, "let the lazy bums pull them up by their own bootstraps."

Rescue the people stranded by Katrina dying for want of food and water? The Republicans say, "that's their own damn fault for not leaving when they had the chance."

Blessed are the peacemakers? The Republicans say, "Shock and awe!" "Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here."

One nation under God? Try one nation under greed, and a growing mountain of debt.

[hogwyld]

39. Yes!

Get all religion out of government, and even out of the country. Send the fundies off to their utopia, and we'll see how good we can run things using common sense, logic, intelligence, and compassion instead of spinning their ouija cross at anyone they don't like.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Somehow I don't think that many Democrats in Congress will agree with you

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll445.xml

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00166

[Az]

24. Of course not

They are the results of years of playing by the DLC playbook. Cozy up to the right. Act like repugs. Allow the repugs to define the issues and then try to steal their voters. Over time you get repugs this way.

Do you recall our own pleas to the Dems to grow a spine? This is it right here. This is the Dem party demonstrating their lack of spine. In their attempt to appeal to the center and the right they abandon the very things that define them and lose their core. It makes sense in a short term game, but reality is a long term thing.

[AuntieM1957]

40. remind yourselves and everyone else that

under God was not in the original pledge.

It was a loyalty test added by the hell-driven and evil-minded Joseph McCarthy.

That's why I find it offensive.

And despite my personal belief in God, I will never, ever utter that phrase as part of the pledge. Because next to my faith, I hold an abiding belief in religious freedom and tolerance. They belong to the same strand of grey matter in my rapidly aging brain.

So, I take this personally. It is an important issue. How can you expect children to develop tolerance for others when someone might be singled out because they won't say it in class?

What the heck are we teaching them? Drop the phrase and let's move on.

If you need to say under God to remind yourself - then work on your own faith, and leave mine alone.

It is a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Because if we're not the party of religious tolerance, then I will gladly leave. So, I suspect, will many, many others.

[MADem]

45. OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

was not in the original pledge, either. That got tossed in because they were fearful that all of the "furrin'" kids would think they were pledging allegiance to the flag of the nation from whence they emigrated.

It is a stupid loyalty oath. It needs to go, completely, not changed or chopped, along with the Miss America Pageant and all of the other foolish customs of the last century that advance nothing.

[AuntieM1957]

49. I didn't know that - thanks for the info

I agree with you that it's a loyalty oath.

My personal allegiances aside, I find the idea of anyone being coerced to make take an oath ridiculous because:

1) anyone who truly means USA harm, will take the oath without regard for it's meaning/honesty.

2) it squelches independent thought by ostracizing those who refuse it.

It's just plain un-American. It's Amerikanbushitan. And I'm not.

[MADem]

50. Yeah, and the ULTIMATE irony is that the guy who wrote the Pledge was a

MINISTER!!! And he did not see any need to mix up church and state!!!

http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/flag.html
Francis Bellamy, the author of these words, was an ordained minister, magazine writer, and Freemason who stated that his aim was to say "what our republic meant and what was the underlying spirit of its life." Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 as part of the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus. It was embraced by the nation and almost immediately became a part of the school-day ritual. Bellamy's original text has been altered twice. In 1923, the words "the flag of the United States of America" were substituted for the words "my flag". Congress officially recognized the Pledge in 1942 and added the words "under God" in 1954.

[troubleinwinter]

42. Allegiance oaths should be up to individuals, and not children at all.

Basically it is all stupid shit anyway. Take an oath if it is meaningful to you. Uhmmmm..... yeah! Like marriage promises! Gads, what a waste of time the whole argument is.

If one were to spy for another country, do you think reciting the 'pledge' would stop it?

It is a pretty little traditional bit of ritual.

If it is to have any meaning, children should not be compelled to pledge, and each person should pledge the portion that they MEAN.

[Corgigal]

48. Religious views of children should be up to

the parents to decide, not the public schools. No parent should have a problem with this because they should know that this is their responsibility. If I meet some parent who is shocked that this is even being considered I was tell them that if they are so worried about the faith of their children by them not naming God daily in a 2 second phrase then they might need to spend more time with the kids and the church.

[renate]

43. one of the (many) things I don't understand is

why are we supposed to pledge allegiance to a FLAG? That's STUPID.

This isn't a snarky question but a sincerely curious one. Why are kids pledging allegiance to a particular graphic design?

[MADem]

46. It is a very valid point!!

I pledge allegiance, to the particular graphic design of red and white stripes, and white stars on a field of blue....

Foolish!!