NBC Apologizes for Omitting ‘a Portion’ of the Pledge of Allegiance

1. 61

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   NBC on Sunday decided to cut the words “under God” from the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance that accompanied the beginning of its coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship.
   
   In fact, this happened twice during the show’s introduction…
   
   http://michellemalkin.com/2011/06/19/nb … llegiance/
   
   What in the world would make you think you could edit our Pledge Of Allegience and no-one would care. How out of touch can one station, or all the Leftist stations, but esspecially this one, be with the American people. What arrogance to think it is your place to change a word of our pledge.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LOLOL
      
      The reference to the Invisible Super Being was "edited in" in 1954.
      
      Gues that was OK huh? You right wing fascists are sooooo funny.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

      replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If I'm not mistaken the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain the words "under God" until the addition was approved by President Eisenhower in 1954. It had been changed many times previously until the change in 1954. Many well-motivated Americans have "edited" or changed the Pledge of Allegiance.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "Francis Bellamy (1855 -1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all...
         
         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.
         
         Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. .."
         
         From an article by John Baer
         http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
         
         Watch rightie heads explode.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            TamCorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            
            Not nice...was it necessary to add an insult?
            
            I will never understand why adults have to act so rudely, when discussing topics like this...

            replyreport
   3. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm pissed off they didn't edit out "one nation" and "indivisible".
      
      Those are the ones that piss ME off.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How worrying is it that the American people still feel that it is still somehow sane to think their own country is under the power of some supernatural mythical diety?

      replyreport
2. 95

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   Perhaps for the same reason that those words were inserted by the religious right back in the 50's?
   
   While a large number of people wanted them put in back then, it is now generally recognized that they are offensive and have no business in a statement of allegiance to our country.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They are not offensive, and they are right were they belong.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Political foolishness, uunder the guise of Patriotism, nothing more. Another side track, off the vision of what is happening to us in the Congress and Senate.  They fit shows into time blocks and if they did they did, so what.
         
         Get into the real issues we need to know about. This is all scare and hype, to scream GOP and blame some one else.
         
         We need substance TM, not junk issues.

         replyreport
   2. 62

      Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Note that the modification to the Pledge of Allegiance during the 50's was also done during the McCarthy era, of which he also had influence. I guess he believed the God was on the same witch hunt as him. How convenient to create a god in your own likeness.
      
      Pathetic.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      wild:
      
      It may be an indication that America is "growing up!"
      Maybe we're beginning to see that saying: "one nation, under santa claus,..." is kinda embarrassing! :
      
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         lol

         replyreport
   4. 71

      thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hubpages needs a like button for remembering basic History of America.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Offensive to whom?  You say this as if it is fact what is your source that "under God" is offensive?  "In God We Trust" is still on the money.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John and Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin and nearly all the others wrote and spoke of God, our Savior, divine providence, the creator and so forth.
      
      I believe NBC removed the words because they think like you but not like the majority of people watching their broadcast.  They decided against the long standing practice in our culture to say "under God" as part of the pledge.
      
      If someone takes offense then let them be offended by the Declaration of Independence.  When one supplants reliance on divine Providence with a reliance on profane humanity one actively seeks the end to liberty.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Uncorrected Vision, I can truly believe that your name is accurate, have you not read anything the people you just quoted have written?
         
         The long standing practice of your culture is YOUNGER than a large number of people in America. Something does not become cultural in less than 60 years. 
         
         And as to your last paragraph you are saying that when you refuse to do what one entity says, and instead you do what is best for humanity you end liberty? That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

         replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It is offensive to me, and that is enough for the comment made.  I believe that it is offensive to others as well.
         
         1.  It is in no uncertain terms a govt. endorsement of religion which is in direct violation of our constitution.  It is embarrassing that it be allowed to continue to violate one our most venerated laws.
         
         2.  It is an obvious statement that American citizens (we all say it!) are believers in Christianity, and while I realize that "we are a Christian nation" is a rallying cry for the religious right it has no bearing in reality or truth.
         
         3.  It is but one more nail in the indoctrination of small children to believe the myth perpetuated by the Christians of the country is actually factual.  As such it is disgraceful.
         
         4.  Again, it proposes that American is a nation of Christians.  To indicate to the world that America, the leader of the free world, still lives in the middle ages and actually believes the fairy tale of God is offensive in the extreme.
         
         Yes, I know the words on our currency.  They were put on in the same disgraceful period in our past when and religious right decided they were the caretakers of the entire country and others must agree with them.  They are just as distasteful and offensive as telling the world that we are "under God".
         
         The Declaration of Independence was written 200 years ago - have we learned nothing since then?  Are we still the same ignorant people believing in the same fairy tales?  Or can we accept that those people were deluded while being very wise at the same time and take the Declaration for what it is while moving on with things we can change?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Conceit of the contemporary.  Because we are modern we are greater than those who came before us.  History is that which we are doomed to repeat.  The religious notions you scoff at are responsible for the ideas of natural law.  Once we surrender our natural rights for man "given" rights we surrender freedom.
            
            God Bless You.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, we are not greater - in many ways we are less.  We don't often see a statesman the likes of our founders and too many of our members contribute nothing to society in general while living off the efforts of others.
               
               On the other hand, we are much more knowledgeable.  We no longer fear falling of the edge of the earth and we will never again repeat that fear.  We understand that we are not the center of everything.  We have even come to the point that irrational beliefs in supernatural creatures are not an absolute requirement for membership in society.
               
               Sorry, but there are very few religious notions that have any responsibility at all for our understanding of natural laws; for the most part those notions delayed learning as far as possible.
               
               Natural rights.  The only real natural right you have is to eat or be eaten - to take whatever you have the strength to take.  All others are a construct, an invention, an idea from human society.  They are what have given us freedom (as long as we are willing to fight and die for it), not some natural right for someone else to do with us whatever they can.

               replyreport
            2. 71

               thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               All I heard was
               
               Buzzword, buzzword, buzzword. 
               Passive Aggressive closure.
               
               Methinks someone has been watching Fox.
               
               What do your natural rights have to do with religion?

               replyreport
3. 61

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   oh those are the most pathetic arguments I have ever heard. "One Nation Under God!" and too bad if you don't like it. Get the legistlature to change it if you don't like it, we did.

   replyreport
4. 62

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   The media can do lots of fun stuff.. like when an ultra conservative Jewish newspaper edited out Hilary from this photo...
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In fact edited both women out!
      Strange.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Post the link to this story please. Amazing!  The woman in the back near the door is also missing from the grainy picture.

      replyreport
5. 60

   mikelongposted 12 years ago

   The uproar over the omission of "Under God" is ridiculous...
   
   But, I look forward to the day when references like these are completely removed...
   
   The day will come....

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      To some... not to most.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      TamCorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, I don't believe so...   Atheism may be around, but it's not the majority, and it won't ever be, in my opinion. 
      
      You don't believe in God? That's your prerogative, of course, but the fact is that most people still do, and always will.
      
      And I'm not trying to bait anyone, but let's be honest here...okay?  If the majority approve of "Under God", then why should they be ignored in favor of the few who don't?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Tyranny by the minority. It has been rampent in this country for 50 years.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            TamCorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe so, but it would be nice if it didn't continue on through the next 50 years!
            
            This is only one instance, but I've been witness, and victim, to others in my lifetime, and I am more than ready for it to end.

            replyreport
      2. 63

         I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Because removing the phrase "under God" is not an appeal to atheist beliefs. If you forget to end a sentence in "thanks be to God", does that mean you're an atheist? I don't see many people asking them to change it to "one godless nation, indivisible...". They just want the reference to God to be removed, along with the "In God We Trust" on our currency. These leftover remnants from the Red Scare have no place in a country that is supposed to separate church and state.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            TamCorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I understand the whole separation of church and state controversy. But why does it seem to be that the ones protesting this the most are the Atheists?  It obviously doesn't bother the majority of the people in this country, and, also, who is it hurting?
            
            And, again, this is not an attack on Atheists, just an honest question.
            
            I have to run now, but I'll try to check back in later...

            replyreport
            1. 63

               I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I think it's the implication that an atheist is not a true American. If this is one nation, under God, then where does the atheist fit in?
               
               I think the pledge itself is a bit of  a ridiculous tradition. If we were to watch a group of Chinese children standing and reciting in unison an allegiance to their country we'd call it Communist brainwashing. How many 6-year-olds understand what "allegiance", "republic", and "indivisible" mean? It's just something pounded into their heads at an early age and they're lead to believe that's what American children have always done.

               replyreport
      3. 71

         thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Before you say that Atheism will never be in the Majority you might want to travel to some countries and tlak to teh local populace.
         
         America has a lot of catching up to do in terms of religion, for starters tehy still take it seriously, something that disappeared in most countries when the ability to read became widespread.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            TamCorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            I did say, "In MY opinion", thisisoli. I honestly do not think that people are going to give up their faith--I know I won't, my husband won't, and most everyone I know won't, either.  And, believe it or not, we are ALL fully capable of reading, and do so on a regular basis.
            
            I am not going to argue about who's right and who's wrong, when it comes to God.  I don't push my faith on anyone, I have never once tried to "convert" anyone--so I'd appreciate it if others reciprocated.
            
            As far as this topic--I still feel the pledge should be left alone...if you don't like some of the words, then just don't say the darn things...

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "f you don't like some of the words, then just don't say the darn things"
               
               NBC did just that and look at the uproar.

               replyreport
            2. 71

               thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               If you publicly state an opinion it is open to debate.
               
               I never said you couldn't read, however throughout most of the christian world, the spread of literacy was soon followed by a loss of interest in religion. I simply find it interesting that this has seemingly not crossed in such a huge way.
               
               In the American cities I have visited the opinion on religion is more European however in the various American small towns  I have stayed at the religious fevor still seems strong.

               replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, we sure do seem to be moving in that direction. My hub which shows that a large portion of the founding fathers were Christian was deemed substandard.
      
      "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
      --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
      
      "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
      --The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
      
      "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
      --Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
      
      "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
      --History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229. John Handcock
      
      "And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
      --As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797. Samuel Adams
      
      "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
      
      --America's Providential History, p. 93. James Madison
      
      And forget that the framework of the United States Constitution was laid out by the prominent Quaker William Penn. Or that from the beginning this country has birthed dozens of religions that believe in a God, and dare I say Believe in Jesus.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Way to take some of those quotes out fo context, for instance the line from Thomas Jefferson, you might want to instead read teh entire paragraph,
         
         A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.

         replyreport
      2. 63

         I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         As thisisoli pointed out, that Jefferson quote means pretty much the opposite of what you think it does. Jefferson would have been very opposed to the Evangelical movement and the push to sneak religious practices into government.
         
         In regards to your hub being deemed substandard, was that the opinion of a moderator or did all those quotes trip Hubpages' duplicate content filter? I know I've had trouble just publishing a list that is available on other sites in a Hub, even if it was just a small part of the Hub.

         replyreport
6. 60

   mikelongposted 12 years ago

   Tyranny by a minority is the history of this nation Mason....
   
   Whether it be a minority of slave owners over their overwhelming majority slave population in the South, or the tiny economic elite who hide behind the "white" race caste and "Christianity", the true tyranny has little to do with religion or ethnic background...
   
   As for things not changing, I disagree...  It may take a generation, but change will come...

   replyreport
   1. 80

      TamCorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm just curious as to how you are so sure that it will?  People with complete faith in God are not going to switch to Atheism just because a few say that there is no God.
      
      This is not an attack on you, just an honest question.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Tyranny is always a symptom of government.

      replyreport
7. 60

   mikelongposted 12 years ago

   Onus,
   
   Back in the days of the Founding Fathers there was no other viewpoint than religion...  There was no such thing as atheism in those days...
   
   If there was, we would have a different story...
   
   We live in completely different worlds at this point....  It makes no sense to keep trying to go back to the 18th century...

   replyreport
8. 62

   Daniel Carterposted 12 years ago

   "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation, divided by religion, with liberty and justice for conservative Christians."
   
   I'm not an atheist, but the conservative Christian agenda in America kinda feels like this. A lot of Americans really don't want to argue about this. We just don't feel pushing beliefs on everyone else is a good thing. Therefore, separation of church and state is a good thing.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" Jefferson
      
      It was clear in Jefferson's time that he was referring to a state organized religion, one that the people fled from, which was held by their previous oppressors in England. Freedom of religion was the concept, it is only a modern concept of wholly secular government that is sometimes attributed to John lock, someone who never set foot in America, and had little to do with the thinking of the drafters of the US. Constitution.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Alot of the States had their own Churches... it was the the Federals who were not allowed to, as expressly forbidden by that amendment, as to; Congress shall make no law.... Congress is a representation of the federal Govt... not the States. The Courts over-stepped when they found other-wise. You are exactly right Onu

         replyreport
      2. 62

         Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The whole section of the letter reads as follows:
         
         Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
         
         http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
         
         I personally believe you have misinterpreted Jefferson's intent.
         Additionally, Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. He removed all of the miracles of Christ from his version of the Bible, which was quite famous in its time. Deists believe that Christ is not divine, but hold him high regard. Therefore, his address regarding the separation of church and state is a delicate balance in accommodating not just his own views, but the beliefs of others, making the government neutral about religion, but allowing personal beliefs as a personal right.
         
         If this is the case, then it's quite understandable that Jefferson and other famous deist of his day (such as Benjamin Franklin) also understood the importance of freedom of no (or uncertain) belief in God.

         replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. I learned the Pledge in school and the Boy Scouts without the words "under God." It's not a big deal for me, but I resent people trying to shove their religion down my throat.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Damn Ralph... didn't I tell you O'Bama was Irish...

         replyreport
9. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   I am not sure what the pledge has to do with a golf game in the first place.  If you don't want to use it as is, don't use it.  If you want to change it, get it changed through proper channels.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is all I am saying. We got it changed, they can if that is what America really wants. I just do not believe America does want it. So they try to change it and force it on us.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Apparently it was changed in 1954 to include "One Nation under God" without the public's permission, so therefore, it was changed without proper representation then. Who is to say one way or the other that it should or should not be changed back now, without proper representation? The only way to know is to vote, not to assume.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We elected them. Go to the elected leaders and tell them to change it. That simple.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               This is why we get opinion poll leadership. They make decisions based on what will get them re-elected, not what they think is right. This kind of leadership leads to things like increasing government aid spending and simultaneously cutting taxes. That may be what opinion polls indicate the people want, but it's not what's sustainable. If 20 people pushed to have "under God" removed from the pledge, 80 people would respond by telling their elected officials to keep it as it is.
               
               The Supreme Court is the check on this system, and they have gradually stripped from states the power to compel students to recite the pledge, although they have rejected claims that the phrase "under God" is a promotion of religion.

               replyreport
         2. 83

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It was still changed, so this is the official version.  Documents like this have an official version that you can't just monkey with it.  You can use it, or not.  I would have gone with: not.

            replyreport
      2. 71

         thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So when you got it changed you believe you were right, but when somebody else wants to change it you believe tehy are wrong?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            They didn't change it, they just misrepresented it.  It is what it is.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No. If you can get it changed, go ahead. Just as we did. That is our system. Not the Mass Media determining what we do with it or any other policy.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Mass media was surprisingly effective 60 years ago too, but so are sneak law insertions.  I am not saying either party is particularly right.
               
               And no, I can't go and get the laws changed, because I am not a US Citizen.
               
               Besides I think it is blatantley obvious that the American public have little say in a Government funded by corporations.

               replyreport
10. 83

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    I am an outright atheist and would prefer God was not in the pledge.  But the pledge is a policy vested with a certain group and modified using an agreed protocol.  No end runs.  If they wanted to write their own pledge there is nothing stopping them.  If they want to use this one, they can't edit it without following the protocol.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I would have rather they just didn't use it... rather than dis-respect us who love the pledge and the way it is now. So I agree with you Psyche, pretty much all the way. Except the atheist thingy...

       replyreport
    2. 95

       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hmmm.  Does this mean that a new version (maybe from NBC) can't use the word "allegiance"?  And maybe not the word "Pledge"?  How about "Liberty for All"?
       
       Where do you draw the line between "editing" and "writing their own"?

       replyreport
       1. 83

          psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          My point is that they are not empowered to edit it at all.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             And MY point was that they did not edit it - they made a new one.
             
             The religious right will complain, as you do, that any change is an edit as long as there is one word left of the (modified) version.  As you point out elsewhere a common form is important to keep it important and meaningful.  When that form requires obeisance (under God) to a myth to declare our patriotism to our country it is just a little offensive.

             replyreport
11. 83

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    The nice thing with shared cultural properties is that they have an agreed form that we all share no matter what you think of it, that is what makes them important and meaningful.

    replyreport
12. 60

    mikelongposted 12 years ago

    Evan...
    
    Tyranny exists outside of government as well.....it has the potential to exist anywhere that power forms...
    
    And power is not isolated to government...
    
    Enron's use of its control over California's electicity was definitely tyrannical...
    
    My grandfather held tyrannical control over his church.....and this control trickled down to my home life...
    
    Government is a tool that can be used for both good and evil...  It just depends on who is using it and what their purposes are...

    replyreport