Here we go again -The Pledge

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, rvotaw at i... wrote:
> Anna wrote:
> 

> 
> On the same topic, there are people, such as Jehovah's Witness, who 
> don't believe in things like pledging to the flag.  We have several 
> students like that in the school I teach at.  The children simply 
> stand with the rest of the class, but don't recite the pledge.  I 
> don't agree with their beliefs, but I don't argue with it either.  
> But we don't discontinue the pledge in the entire class because of 
> it.  HP can work the same way, you don't believe it's appropriate
> for your child, fine.  But don't take it away from all the others 
> who want to read it.
> 
> Richelle
> 

bboy_mn:

I always thought it would be a good idea for those people who didn't
like the word 'God' in the Pledge, to change it to 'good' when they
recited it.

However, our heritage is etched in stone, we could never change
anything as sacred a The Pledge of Allegiance... or could we?

The Pledge has actually been changed four times since it was
originally written (1892, 1923, 1924, & 1954).

http://www.flagday.org/Pages/StoryofPledge.html

It was originally published in the Youth's Companion for September
8,1892, and was first recited en masse Columbus Day in October 1892.

The original-
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.



Under God -
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added
the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a
patriotic oath and a public prayer.


Final Version-
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
/of the United States(2)/ /of America(3)/
and /to(1)/ the Republic for which it stands,
one nation /under God(4)/, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all."

(1) 1892 added "to"
(2) 1923 added "of the United States"
(3) 1924 added "of America"
(4) 1954 added "under God"



Let see now, do I have a point?

I guess one point is that few things are so sacred as to be immutable
and not subject to interpretation. The one exception to that, at least
for me, would be the Bill of Rights.

As far as Harry Potter and the nut cases who are still protesting it,
I see them as opportunists. People who love nothing so much as the
sound of their own voice, and revel in the opportunity to see their
name in the paper (or on the news, etc...). 

When ever significant religion and religious leader from the
Archbishop of Canterbury to the Vatican has endorsed J.K. Rowlings
books as good and moral, there can really be no justification for
attacking these books or the values they reflect. 

More so, there is no justification for and every precedence AGAINST
allowing these people to force their values and misguided beliefs on
the rest of the world. They have every right to choose; but that right
is to choose for themselves and their families, NOT to choose for me
and my family, or my community. 

Poeple who attempt to do things like this are in violation of the very
foundation of the American way of life.

Just a few thoughts and some trivia.

bboy_mn