On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[East of Eden]

It really isn',t necessary. It was put in during the anti-commie hysteria of the McCarthy era.

I wouldn't call it 'hysteria' anymore than our opposition to Hitler was 'hysteria'. I doubt the victims of communism in the Soviet empire and China wouldn't have called it that either.

[MagusYanam]

I wouldn't call it 'hysteria' anymore than our opposition to Hitler was 'hysteria'. I doubt the victims of communism in the Soviet empire and China wouldn't have called it that either.

The problem was that, in many cases, that opposition to communism was not in good faith the way that opposition to fascism (for the most part) had been. Communism - evil as it was in its all its nihilistic excess - was a judgment on the Western world's indifference to the plight of the poor at the hands of imperialism and unchecked capitalism. It would have not been so successful where it was if America had taken seriously the imperatives to care for the least of these as we had in Western Europe with the Marshall Plan, rather than backing fly-by-night dictatorships and death squads in Latin America and South Asia.

Besides, McCarthy wasn't a successful communist-hunter at all. Thankfully the Army hearings outed him for the fraud that he was.

That said, this objection to removing 'under God' from the Pledge is kind of a red herring. Very few American atheists are or were ever communists.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 14 Post 131

It really isn',t necessary. It was put in during the anti-commie hysteria of the McCarthy era.

I wouldn't call it 'hysteria' anymore than our opposition to Hitler was 'hysteria'. I doubt the victims of communism in the Soviet empire and China wouldn't have called it that either.

I would contend placing the term in the PoA is indeed hysteria, given the complete lack of verifiable evidence this nation is "under God".

[East of Eden]

The problem was that, in many cases, that opposition to communism was not in good faith the way that opposition to fascism (for the most part) had been. Communism - evil as it was in its all its nihilistic excess - was a judgment on the Western world's indifference to the plight of the poor at the hands of imperialism and unchecked capitalism. It would have not been so successful where it was if America had taken seriously the imperatives to care for the least of these as we had in Western Europe with the Marshall Plan, rather than backing fly-by-night dictatorships and death squads in Latin America and South Asia.

Are you also opposed to our backing of Stalin?

Besides, McCarthy wasn't a successful communist-hunter at all. Thankfully the Army hearings outed him for the fraud that he was.

He actually underestimated the number of Communists in the US government. He said it was 206, but in 1995, after the fall of Soviet communism and the declassification of broken Soviet codes (Project Venona), historians determined that there were actually 349 Americans working as spies for the Soviet Union in the United States government in this period. If today we had 349 Al-Queda spies working in the US government, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

[MagusYanam]

Are you also opposed to our backing of Stalin?

I don't know whether you've heard or not, but Stalin was dead long before I was born. Historically speaking, I don't think we ever did 'back' Stalin; we had a very uneasy alliance during WWII (fraught with backstabbing and intimidation tactics on both sides) but that was pretty much it.

He actually underestimated the number of Communists in the US government. He said it was 206, but in 1995, after the fall of Soviet communism and the declassification of broken Soviet codes (Project Venona), historians determined that there were actually 349 Americans working as spies for the Soviet Union in the United States government in this period. If today we had 349 Al-Queda spies working in the US government, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

You're forgetting:

a.) McCarthy had ZERO access to the Venona papers. Very few people outside of the intelligence services had any access to them until '95.
b.) McCarthy did not use his power in the Senate to catch spies in good faith, but to carry out personal and political vendettas. Basically, under his definition, a 'communist' was anyone who stood in his way.

I'm honestly far more comfortable with the Feds monitoring and arresting spies than having a civilian-led moral panic or witchhunt which is more likely to destroy the lives of innocent people.

Another interesting historical analysis: al-Qaeda is only the problem it is today because we helped to equip them to wage guerrilla war and acts of terrorism against the Soviets. They say hindsight is 20/20, but it would still seem to pose a problem with the platitude that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

[East of Eden]

I don't know whether you've heard or not, but Stalin was dead long before I was born. Historically speaking, I don't think we ever did 'back' Stalin; we had a very uneasy alliance during WWII (fraught with backstabbing and intimidation tactics on both sides) but that was pretty much it.

My point is in regard to Latin America, sometimes in the real world our choice is between the lesser of two evils.

You're forgetting:

a.) McCarthy had ZERO access to the Venona papers. Very few people outside of the intelligence services had any access to them until '95.
b.) McCarthy did not use his power in the Senate to catch spies in good faith, but to carry out personal and political vendettas. Basically, under his definition, a 'communist' was anyone who stood in his way.

Never claimed McCarthy had access to the Verona papers, just that his assertion there were Communists (Alger Hiss being the most prominent) in the US government was absolutely true, despite the ridicule he got for saying so.

I'm honestly far more comfortable with the Feds monitoring and arresting spies than having a civilian-led moral panic or witchhunt which is more likely to destroy the lives of innocent people.

McCarthy's point was that the Feds weren't doing this, but should have.

Another interesting historical analysis: al-Qaeda is only the problem it is today because we helped to equip them to wage guerrilla war and acts of terrorism against the Soviets. They say hindsight is 20/20, but it would still seem to pose a problem with the platitude that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

Jihad didn't start with Afganistan. Should we have done nothing to expel the Soviet army of occupation there?

[MagusYanam]

My point is in regard to Latin America, sometimes in the real world our choice is between the lesser of two evils.

And THAT provides greater cover for communism than anything I've said so far. To the poor and oppressed, communism may justly be seen as the 'lesser of two evils' - particularly when it offers them food, shelter and clothing rather than a bullet between the eyes at the hands of thugs hired by wealthy landowners.

Christianity should always be concerned with care for and social responsibility to the 'least of these' - that was one of the most prominent messages of the Gospel. If people are desperate and angry enough that they turn to Trotsky and Stalin rather than to Jesus for their daily bread, then it is clear that the followers of Jesus have failed.

That said, the topic is the Pledge, and I've made my stance clear on that. If it is an oath, it's a rather silly one. But it shouldn't be made a weapon designed to exclude atheists from public space.

[East of Eden]

And THAT provides greater cover for communism than anything I've said so far. To the poor and oppressed, communism may justly be seen as the 'lesser of two evils' - particularly when it offers them food, shelter and clothing rather than a bullet between the eyes at the hands of thugs hired by wealthy landowners.

I can see how they would be suckered in by Communism. The problem is it never delivers on its promises and gives them a greater chance of getting that bullet between the eyes than from those wealthy landowners.

Christianity should always be concerned with care for and social responsibility to the 'least of these' - that was one of the most prominent messages of the Gospel.

You're preaching to the choir here. It is wrong for American Christians to live in luxury while so many are needy.

If people are desperate and angry enough that they turn to Trotsky and Stalin rather than to Jesus for their daily bread, then it is clear that the followers of Jesus have failed.

Despite doing what we can, the poor will always be with us.

[MagusYanam]

I can see how they would be suckered in by Communism. The problem is it never delivers on its promises and gives them a greater chance of getting that bullet between the eyes than from those wealthy landowners.

Right. But that doesn't remove the wrongness of backing the wealthy landowners and supplying them with weapons to be used against the poor.

Despite doing what we can, the poor will always be with us.

Didn't say they wouldn't be - only that a Christian public and foreign policy should be to their benefit rather than to the benefit of large corporations and the banana republics in their pockets. Communism doesn't just appear out of nowhere - through greed and cowardice we end up cultivating it.

[DeBunkem]

The same thing happened with our national motto, chosen by the Founders: "E pluribus Unum" not"in God we trust." This point may already have been made. Also, the writer of the pledge was a socialist, and would never have approved of adding religion to the Pledge.
Godless Pledge and Dollar