SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Michael M who wrote (16141)7/1/2002 9:06:30 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (3) of 21057
 
NO ONE is required to pledge allegiance.

Required by law, no. Effectively required by common practice is another thing entirely.

The pledge is a cultural icon. The insertion of the words "under God" was an attempt by one group to impose their beliefs on the culture as a whole. It was a divisive and intolerant act. Removing the words would not be anti-religious, it would simply return the religious to an equal footing with the irreligious, which is as it should be, as far as I can see.

I think it would make sense to remove the words from the "official" version, which ought by rights to be as inclusive as possible. Then the religious could insert any statement of submission to the divine that they deemed appropriate into their personal versions, and none would have any right to interfere.

A reasonable compromise, I would say, but I doubt that many of the religious sort would agree.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News