jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (12 posts)

The Pledge of Allegiance Divisive? Some Politicians in Oregon say yes.

  1. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    How could something that includes the words ‘pledge of allegiance to the flag of the UNITED States’ be considered divisive? Believe it or not, the mayor and city council of Eugene, Oregon just voted on this very issue.  (It should also be noted that the city of Eugene, Oregon is a member of ICLEI, part of the UN’s Agenda 21 Program.)

    Long before NBC Sports edited the Pledge of Allegiance, the city of Eugene, Oregon was busy debating if their City Council should recite it before each bi-monthly meeting. At the June 7th meeting of the council, a proposal was floated by Councilor Mike Clark, suggesting that every bi-monthly meeting start with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Columbian reports that Mayor Kitty Piercy (a lead sponsor of Code Pink’s latest Anti-War Resolution) and others did not agree with this idea, suggesting that reciting the pledge might be “divisive.”

    Judging from the letters-to-the-editor posted in the local paper, residents of Eugene responded to the debate from just about every angle one might imagine. We offer an example from both sides:

    Pledge language debate is debasing;

    As a veteran and an American it shocks me that there is even a debate about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. It is unpatriotic and debasing that our values have slipped so much that people cannot say and confirm their allegiance to their country. Fine. Don’t say “under God” if that offends you.

    And if you are offended by our flag and country, please find someplace else to live. If politicians feel they need to debate it, we need new politicians. Freedom requires sacrifice from everyone.

    Requiring pledge would be divisive;

    Eugene City Councilor Mike Clark’s desire to force all people, through their representatives on the council, to swear to the Pledge of Allegiance spurred me to research the pledge itself.

    Justice Robert Jackson, in a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, wrote for the majority: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” With that 6-3 decision, the court said no one can be forced to recite the pledge.

    I see God as a concept was invented by men, and I defy Clark to draw a circle and define who belongs inside and who is outside the circle without showing the arrogance of the majority fundamentalist religions and their ignorance of the needs of those who are secular. If the word “God” is meaningless and divisive, then why pledge to it? It will serve only to divide our community more.

    If reciting the pledge at City Council meetings becomes an “official” activity, then I ask that my representative on the council, Andrea Ortiz, not stand and salute as a way to keep faith with those of a secular persuasion in her ward.

    Hugh Massengill

    A compromise proposal was pitched, offering the pledge to be recited four times a year, at meetings that happen closest to national holidays (July 4th, Labor Day, etc.)  That proposal passed last night by a vote of 6-2. One of the dissenting votes came from City Councilor George Brown who reportedly told Mr. Clark that he should “say the pledge at home or with friends.”

    When asked to comment on the issue and her statement that reciting the pledge before meetings might be “divisive,” Mayor Piercy told The Blaze:

    The Eugene City Council has not historically had the pledge as part of its agenda. At the request of one of our councilors who has served in the Air Force, this council decided to not make the pledge routine but to reserve it for special days of national recognition such as Flag Day, Veterans Day, Memorial Day and the 4th of July.

    In any case the entire council believes this country is based on the freedom to speak or to be silent, to pledge or not to pledge

    Fox News crews from a local affiliate in Seattle were at the meeting and reports are now reaching the network level:

    Video here...

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the- … -think-so/


    Well I am sure everyone here knows my opinions on this issue, but I would like to hear you all's opinions. I believe "Under God" belongs in the pledge, and the pledge of allegience should be recited at all official meetings, Scools, Hearings, etc...

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Until they take the following words out, I'll continue to demand no one else speak such nonsense.

      "Indivisible", "Under God", "One Nation", and "I pledge allegiance"

      I'm also shocked that you'd be for it, TMM, It was designed to make the US a more socialist country.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Anything people disagree strongly about is "divisive".  So yes, I would say this qualifies whether one things it should or not.

  3. wilderness profile image99
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    My only real objection is the "under God" that was inserted around 1950; to me this if offensive as it gives recognition that we believe in a myth from prehistory.  A group reciting the pledge and including these words gives tacit approval of the concept, including those individuals that do not say them simply by being a part of the group.

    There is also the problem of religious groups that will refuse to participate in any such pledge.  I believe Jehovah's Witnesses fall into this group, although I could very well be mistaken as my knowledge is very limited and long out of date.

    HOWEVER, it seems to me that any such group that refuses to give their allegiance to the country should not be in a position to run that country.  If they can't pledge to put the welfare of the country first in their deliberations and thoughts then let someone that will do that make the decisions.  Nor would I accept the sophistry that the pledge is allegiance to a chunk of cotton hanging from a pole; the pledge is very well understood to apply to our country.

  4. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Sure it's divisive. Divides God lovers from God deniers.  The inquisition seems to going in a different direction this time.

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Some people have religious objections to swearing oaths, including the pledge. Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for this.

  5. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    (It should also be noted that the city of Eugene, Oregon is a member of ICLEI, part of the UN’s Agenda 21 Program.)

    What do you mean by this? I thought Sustainable Development is about Population and Environment, that is the core essence of Agenda 21. What is the connectment, errrrr connection?

  6. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    As described in my previous article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society.

    This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.

    Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate 'a Local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” - Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3

    The official opening ceremony was conducted by the Dalai Lama and centered around a Viking long-ship that was constructed to celebrate the summit and sailed to Rio from Norway. The ship was appropriately named Gaia. A huge mural of a beauiful woman holding the earth within her hands adorned the entrance to the summit. Al Gore lead the US delegation where he was joined by 110 Heads of State, and representatives of more than 800 NGO’s.

    Read more:   http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s … google.com

    Note: this article and website has been scrubbed from internet but it is still cached.

  7. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    I don't believe this theory AnnCee. For one this is a joint endeavor by every country in the world, it is agreed upon agenda not about political statement but rather more on trying to achieve sustainable growth - population resources and environment.

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ditto.  The food chain is international, ergo it needs some international level monitoring.  Otherwise the next food with melamine in it will be kids cereal, not dog food--consider the thousands of dead dogs a practice run.

      We can have international structures that nations sign up to without it being a new world order (presumably lead by [group you hate] and leading to the rule of the anti-christ and end of times).

      Someone needs to stop planes from banging into to each other, prosecute crimes against humanity and ensure you can't sell cyanide as a sweetener just by crossing a border.

  8. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    I am not an atheist, agnostic, deist or a believer in the supernatural.

    If you've read any of my forum comments or my hubs, ya have to know that I detest ALL that monotheism represents and that I feel that to mention a primitive metaphysical divinity in our Pledge of Allegiance is embarrassing and disgusting to any KNOWLEDGEABLE, pragmatic REALIST.

    I think that to try to introduce the idea of there being a "god thing" to a child is "child abuse."

    This "god thing" concept has no more crediblity in FACT than Santa Claus.

    To make "it" out to be "real" by including it in a pledge that an easily "programmed" child makes to his country, I consider being the same as adding "Santa Claus" in place of the word "god" to the pledge.

    To add Santa Claus or god to our Pledge of Allegiance is disgraceful and an insult to American Constitutional history!


  9. Evan G Rogers profile image76
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Half of the pledge is nonsense.

    I pledge allegiance (i don't)
    The the flag of the USofA (To a flag? Really?)
    And to the republic for which it stands (that makes more sense)
    one nation (nope)
    under God (nope)
    indivisible (nope)
    with liberty and justice for all (ha! BS - ask the Gitmo detainees)

    So, who cares if it's divisive.

    It's nonsense.