Pledge of allegiance at UConn games

[speedoo]

I don't see this lasting very long.

Jeez I Hope you're right. But I'd still like to know what the impetus was.

 

[mr006]

Hey, if you don't like it...don't participate...just stay in your seats.

or you complain and discuss - another free Constitutional Republic tradition. If the Armed Forces schools want to add it to their events (maybe they do already, I don't know), fine, but I don't see why we need the pledge. Maybe a focus group said it would improve attendance?

 

[meyers7]

It is not disrespecting something at all to not participate.

Never said it was. It's disrespectul not to remove your hat or talk during anthem.

 

[meyers7]

Sure it is, the state run publicly funded institution is promoting christianity.

No it's not. Not at all. It's hardly even religious in nature (pledging to the flag and republic). Even if one was confused and considered it religious, there are many, many religions that have a god. So it would be no more Christian than Islam or Judaism, etc.

 

[Icebear]

Never said it was. It's disrespectul not to remove your hat or talk during anthem.

Sorry , I thought you were discussing the Pledge not the Anthem.

 

[meyers7]

If that's the criteria, then why not have a cross burning? A live execution? I'm sure there are people out there who would like those too. I guess everyone else can just sit quietly and "not participate".

Well that's a pretty ridiculus comparison, but yes, people could sit quietly and "not participate" if they chose.

 

[boontonbomber]

with all of the comment on this topic, i don't think anyone has given a persuasive(or non-persuasive, for that matter) explanation as to why it's appropriate to recite the pledge at an athletic event. for those of you who think that there's nothing wrong with reciting the pledge, is there anyone who can tell me why you think it should be done? just curious. actually, is there anyone at all out there who can think of a reason?

 

[meyers7]

Sorry , I thought you were discussing the Pledge not the Anthem.

Both at different times. But the disrespectful part had to do with the anthem. But one could disrepect the pledge too (but not by not participating).

 

[HuskyNan]

Both at different times. But the disrespectful part had to do with the anthem. But one could disrepect the pledge too (but not by not participating).

Here's a question - do you stand when the Star Spangled Banner is being played on TV? Or is it only when you attend an event in person? If it's only in the second instance, then aren't you singing or reciting the pledge more for form, to show your fellow fans your loyalty, than anything else?

 

[Icebear]

Both at different times. But the disrespectful part had to do with the anthem. But one could disrepect the pledge too (but not by not participating).

Can you think of times or persons for whom not saluting or respecting the National Anthem is appropriate? Ex. if you were a slave, if you were Tommy Smith or John Carlos, etc. If so what would those circumstances be and how would you identify them? If not, then would you always honor the flag of other nations when in their country by doing whatever is customary there?

 

[Vowelguy]

Well that's a pretty ridiculus comparison, but yes, people could sit quietly and "not participate" if they chose.

I was *not* comparing the two.

The OP deemed the pledge acceptable since 'some people like it' and 'everyone else could choose not to participate'. I was merely pointing out that that is pretty weak justification, and that lots of other events fit that criteria.

 

[boontonbomber]

No it's not. Not at all. It's hardly even religious in nature (pledging to the flag and republic). Even if one was confused and considered it religious, there are many, many religions that have a god. So it would be no more Christian than Islam or Judaism, etc.

i expect that the people who pushed to have "under god" in the pledge would disagree with you, both on the religious part, and to which god they were referring.

 

[Icebear]

i expect that the people who pushed to have "under god" in the pledge would disagree with you, both on the religious part, and to which god they were referring.

The Knights of Columbus were very clear in whom they intended.

 

[UConnChapette]

I don't think anyone answered the question on whether the Pledge of Allegiance is said before other UConn sporting events. The answer is yes. It has been said before every football game, like the basketball games, before the National Anthem is played.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

No it's not. Not at all. It's hardly even religious in nature (pledging to the flag and republic). Even if one was confused and considered it religious, there are many, many religions that have a god. So it would be no more Christian than Islam or Judaism, etc.

So your trying to tell me that the writer of the National anthem and the pledge had Islam,judaism etc in mind when they were written, really ? that is much like the guy from south carolina when he said "keep your government hands of my medicare, but what ever works for you I guess. Me I'm done with this, no time for make believe, time for a martini that is so dry Lawrence of Arabia couldn't get through it. See y'all at the games fellow yarders.

GO UCONN !!!!!!!

 

[temery]

The writer of the pledge was a socialist who never intended for the God reference, which was added by politicians during the cold war.

I like the national anthem, but find the pledge of allegiance to be silly. Actually, I've never heard a pledge I didn't find silly.

So your trying to tell me that the writer of the National anthem and the pledge had Islam,judaism etc in mind when they were written, really ? that is much like the guy from south carolina when he said "keep your government hands of my medicare, but what ever works for you I guess. Me I'm done with this, no time for make believe, time for a martini that is so dry Lawrence of Arabia couldn't get through it. See y'all at the games fellow yarders.

GO UCONN !!!!!!!

 

[Icebear]

The writer of the pledge was a socialist who never intended for the God reference, which was added by politicians during the cold war.

I like the national anthem, but find the pledge of allegiance to be silly. Actually, I've never heard a pledge I didn't find silly.

He was a Christian socialist, temery, which was not an unusual confessional position. The early church largely practiced commonwealth principles. But, yes, he specifically avoided the term "under God."

 

[Replicant]

Admittedly, I've only done cursory research on the Pledge, but I'm curious how you concluded that Bellamy "specifically avoided the term under God"? Clearly he didn't incorporate it originally, but was it intentional or a simple omission of happenstance?

Francis Bellamy wrote the original Pledge in 1892. Louis Bowman advanced the concept of "under God" in 1948 as a tribute to Lincoln and his use of the term in the Gettysburg Address and was awarded for his idea by the DAR. Congress adopted the Pledge in 1942 at the start of WWII (logically, given the context of events at the time) and finally passed a bill that incorporated "under God" that Ike signed into law in 1954.

 

[meyers7]

Can you think of times or persons for whom not saluting or respecting the National Anthem is appropriate?

No, not really.

Ex. if you were a slave, if you were Tommy Smith or John Carlos, etc.

I believe they were disrespectful.

If not, then would you always honor the flag of other nations when in their country by doing whatever is customary there?

You can be respectful without saluting it (or whatever they do there) or singing along. Actually it would be disrespectful to sing along or salute another country that was not yours.

 

[meyers7]

Here's a question - do you stand when the Star Spangled Banner is being played on TV? Or is it only when you attend an event in person? If it's only in the second instance, then aren't you singing or reciting the pledge more for form, to show your fellow fans your loyalty, than anything else?

Good questions. Actually thought about that this Thanksgiving. My brother-in-law stood with his hand over his heart while the NA was being played for one of the football games.

Personally no I don't if it's on TV. If I am not there, I can't see where it really matters. Kinda like watching a concert on CPTV, if I get up and get a drink or change the channel or answer the phone I don't find that disrespectful, because I am not really there. If I'm there live then yea it would be disrespectful to answer my phone, talk, or get up and walk out. Same idea.

But for you last question, no, they are two very separate things (being there vs seeing on TV - heck half the time if it's on TV I've DVR'd it so it's not even live). But when I am there live, I don't do it for others that are there, I do it because I want to, and to show respect to the flag/song.

 

[Icebear]

Admittedly, I've only done cursory research on the Pledge, but I'm curious how you concluded that Bellamy "specifically avoided the term under God"? Clearly he didn't incorporate it originally, but was it intentional or a simple omission of happenstance?

Francis Bellamy wrote the original Pledge in 1892. Louis Bowman advanced the concept of "under God" in 1948 as a tribute to Lincoln and his use of the term in the Gettysburg Address and was awarded for his idea by the DAR. Congress adopted the Pledge in 1942 at the start of WWII (logically, given the context of events at the time) and finally passed a bill that incorporated "under God" that Ike signed into law in 1954.

John Baer's book from 2007 gives a wide variety of useful information on Bellamy and the pledge. It is called "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Revised History and Analysis. In the mid 1920s the DAR added the words "the United States of America." Bellamy vociferously spoke out on record against the change because it worked against his utopian sentiments which extended to all humankind. The sentiments were inspired in him through the novels and writings of his first cousin Edward Bellamy. His granddaughter similarly opposed on the congressional record the 1954 change on the basis that her grandfather would have opposed it as he did the previous change of the DAR and all changes. He, also, had intentionally omitted Lincoln's "equality" from the phrase "with liberty and justice for all." he did this because he did not believe equality had yet been achieved but that liberty and justice were to be manifest through the emancipation proclamation and the law. He noted in a discussion of the Pledge that appeal might have been made to the Jeffersonian spirit of the slogan of the French Revolution, "equality, liberty, fraternity" but chose not to do so. He considered those ideas too non-descript. The resistance to include "under God" by Bellamy would have been consistent with the traditional Baptist theology which inviolate human conscience and conscription of it.

BTW, thank you for correcting my miss stating of Bellamy as Francis Bacon. I was reading Bacon last week and transposed the names.

 

[meyers7]

So your trying to tell me that the writer of the National anthem and the pledge had Islam,judaism etc in mind when they were written, really ?

No, I'm not implying anything like that. Actually I don't think there is any religious leanings in either of them. (are you having trouble following this?)

 

[meyers7]

I was *not* comparing the two.

The OP deemed the pledge acceptable since 'some people like it' and 'everyone else could choose not to participate'. I was merely pointing out that that is pretty weak justification, and that lots of other events fit that criteria.

But the events don't compare. That's the point.

 

[Replicant]

Good info Ice, thanks.

 

[Icebear]

No, not really.

So therefore you would reject Thoreau's arguments from On Civil Disobedience.

I believe they were disrespectful.

But was their action politically and personally demanded by the injustice they perceived denied to blacks.


You can be respectful without saluting it (or whatever they do there) or singing along. Actually it would be disrespectful to sing along or salute another country that was not yours.

And therefore potentially arguable disrespectful to show common will with one's own nation when it acts unjustly.