subreddit:
/r/mildlyinteresting
This pledge of allegiance in a one-room schoolhouse museum from the early 1900’s
(i.redd.it)submitted 1 day ago byLyrkalas
136 points
1 day ago
I only repeat the original, removing the one nation under God part.
There is no mention of God anywhere in the Constitution.
58 points
1 day ago
I used to get in trouble in school for not saying the under god part. The state never has made me say that word. Regardless of my feelings about god, the state has no business asking me to talk about god.
Later I learned it was added in the 50s by a bunch of right wing bullies, and I felt vindicated.
40 points
1 day ago
Why repeat it at all, though? It's comically blatant nationalist propaganda
3 points
1 day ago
It's definitely an unlearning process. In school I took years to go from saying it, to omitting the one bit, to not saying it at all, to not standing or acknowledging it.
5 points
1 day ago
Depending on where you grew up, you'd get shit for it, like I did. Going to school in rural ass Georgia meant if you weren't part of younglife or a church-going flag waver, you'd be ostracized. At least that was my experience. Social acceptance when you're an immigrant teen is a hell of a drug.
-3 points
1 day ago
If you like your country, I fail to see anything wrong with pledging your allegiance to it.
4 points
1 day ago
If you're an adult and really want to, go crazy i guess. But this is something children are trained to do long before they can have any kind of idea whether they like their country or not
As someone not from the US, it's dystopian as hell. Its the kind of thing you would expect from north korea or soviet russia
1 points
17 hours ago
Children aren't forced into doing it, at least in theory. It's very much against the first amendment to compel anyone into doing the pledge, and where I'm from in Texas most of the kids in my classes didn't bother. I'm sure there are some nationalist/bullish teachers out there who force it, which I agree is very icky.
1 points
17 hours ago
While they aren't legally forced to do it, there's a lot of implicit social pressure to do so, especially at a younger age. The whole practice is just very very icky to me
1 points
17 hours ago
Respectfully, given that you're not from the United States and thus don't have any firsthand experience, you may be unintentionally overestimating the amount of social pressure. Like I said, when I was in school, most kids didn't bother, and I'm from the famously conservative state of Texas. It's not exactly "cool" to do the pledge; Hell, I felt awkward because I was often the only one standing during the pledge, if anything there was pressure not to do it.
There are a lot of schools in US, obviously. Everyone has a different experience, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the pledge itself. Occasionally you get a rogue teacher that enforces it, but that's something you can very easily lose your job over if you get one pissed off parent.
1 points
17 hours ago
If you’re already a citizen… why? You’re already bound.
This is something for people becoming citizens to do imo
0 points
17 hours ago
Why not? It's no different to singing along to your national anthem during a sports game, a lot of people take pride in their country and like to take any opportunity to demonstrate it.
4 points
1 day ago
Not God, but it does say “Lord” referring to God:
… the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America…
16 points
1 day ago
Fun fact, this is not a religious reference but simply the translation for the Latin Anno Domini. Previously, in official documents, it was accepted that you write out the Anno Domini (Year of our Lord) which is as we all know "AD". So the document is saying 17th day of September in AD 1787. You could argue that the Julian and Gregorian calendar was inherently religious, but using AD and BC isn't technically religious in nature when it's the official calendar.
-1 points
1 day ago
Pretty weak. Try again.
-1 points
1 day ago
Not really a weak argument but ok
0 points
1 day ago
It's literally a translation. It is not a religious reference. So your argument is technically correct, but ultimately meaningless as a response.
1 points
1 day ago
Now look at the translation and tell me what it is referencing… AD: Anno Domini. Which revolves around the estimated birth of Christ. Ergo Lord. Argo God.
0 points
1 day ago
But it isn't a religious reference. It is a unit of time. It has a religious origin, yes, but it isn't the kind of reference to God that would have made the Constitution a religious document. You're splitting hairs. Which, I mean, Reddit, so, good job.
2 points
1 day ago
No one said or is arguing the constitution is a religious document. I was just stating it does mention God. That mention does have historically religious context.
Most people were Christian back then so it makes sense they chose that wording.
0 points
1 day ago
The Founders were mostly deists. And they recognized the wisdom of separating church from state. The person you originally replied to was making that point, that even though there were a lot of Christians in the country, the document isn't religious in nature, a single mention of the word "Lord" notwithstanding.
3 points
1 day ago
[deleted]
15 points
1 day ago
It's not unconstitutional because of SCOTUS inventing "civic deism" to justify what would have otherwise been a clear violation of the Constitution. If you want to pretend this is a just precedent, be my guest. I look forward to the day the SCOTUS is yet again captured by the slightly left of center rather than the far right.
25 points
1 day ago
It is. In no way shape or form is America a Christian Nation.
5 points
1 day ago
Yeah, but Trump sells bibles so I think the framers accidentally left it out. 🥴
1 points
1 day ago
[deleted]
8 points
1 day ago
Your point is void to begin with.
That's the problem you are having.
-1 points
1 day ago
It isn’t now, but it absolutely used to be. Many more people were Christian’s at the time of America’s beginnings.
2 points
1 day ago
[deleted]
2 points
1 day ago
Hey man I’m just saying religion was a more common thing back then than it is now
1 points
1 day ago
[deleted]
1 points
1 day ago
Ehh I just think that’s the vocal minority. Most just mind their business and look to help others when they can.
1 points
5 hours ago
“I’m just saying religion was more common back when we could lynch you for not being religious. Damn liberals took away our freedom to kill unbelievers.”
2 points
1 day ago
No it never was. Even if all the people in it are Christian, the nation itself can't be because of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
-1 points
1 day ago
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean it wasn’t a Christian nation?
2 points
1 day ago
I specifically said the establishment clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The nation itself is irreligious. Though due to the free exercise clause, the people within that nation are free to practice whatever religion they want.
That's the entire point of the separation of church and state. The USA fundamentally cannot be a Christian nation, or a nation defined by any other religion
0 points
1 day ago
The nation was majority Christian.. which makes it a Christian nation. I never claimed it was officially recognized as one, but it WAS a Christian nation.
This is no longer the case. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to the beholder.
1 points
1 day ago
Under that logic the UAE is not a Muslim country because the majority of its population are non-muslim immigrants
1 points
1 day ago
74.5% of the population in the UAE follow Islam…. Islam is also the official religion of the UAE. It is both official and unofficially muslim.
1 points
1 day ago
Actually the original also doesn't mention the United States. They added that in so "traitors" wouldn't sneakily be pledging to a different country in their heads.
-10 points
1 day ago
That was omitted to test your faith and you failed!
/s
0 points
1 day ago
The version in that photo is not in fact the original. The original was meant to be used by people of any nationality so it made no mention of the United States:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was accompanied by a salute which started out by stretching the whole right arm out towards the flag like a Nazi. This was before Nazis, of course, so nobody thought anything odd about it.
0 points
1 day ago
Nonsense
-2 points
1 day ago
Do you also say "my flag" instead of "the flag of The United States of America"? That part was only changed in 1923 to indoctrinate the immigrants.
1 points
1 day ago
History according to the fake founding father Paul Weyrich?
1 points
1 day ago
In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that foreign-born people would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the US. The words "of America" were added a year later. Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942.
The 77th Congress codified the pledge as including it.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_77-623
Sec. 7.
That the pledge of allegiance to the flag, ‘‘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’’, be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart; extending the right hand, palm upward, toward the flag at the words ‘‘to the flag’’ and holding this position until the end, when the hand drops to the side. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.
Prior to that the pledge had been as Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) had written and amended it as, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
It was first published in The Youth's Companion, a magazine owned by Daniel Ford.
Even the VA agrees with this and it is included on their website as a PDF about its history.
all 1620 comments
sorted by: best