Pledge of allegiance at UConn games

[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.

 

[meyers7]

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.

Well that was a pretty stupid argument by Bellamy. His pledge goes "I pledge allegience to my flag (disregard of the USA) and the Republic for which it stands..."

What republic did he think it stood for? What a dope.

 

[Icebear]

Good info Ice, thanks.

I wrote a foreword for the book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Rights Alternative Version of American History, a number of years ago for my friend Chris Rodda. Her second volume is coming out soon. She and I used to write on this material regularly on the Pledge of Allegiance and the Constitution discussion boards on the old AOL.

 

[Replicant]

Back to the original OP point. I enjoy reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the National Anthem whenever and wherever possible. It's an honor. Makes me feel good.

When I'm in someone's country, home, house of worship, etc., I'm respectful and mindful of their customs, practices, faith, etc. and try my best to honor same and act in accordance. That includes UConn's house.

In the good old USA, everyone is free to do or say anything they choose with few exceptions. A great privilege. Attend UConn games and say the Pledge and rise for the Anthem, or not. Your choice. Show respect and deference, or choose not to. Your choice. Feel fortunate and proud to revel in enthusiastic national pride, or feel pressured and offended by perceived pressure [or guilt] to conform. Your choice. I don't much care what anyone else does, thinks or feels in this regard - I have no control over it.

In general, I think the Anthem alone sets a perfect pitch for a sporting event. Nearly every country in the world employs a similar standard before major events. Adding the Pledge is unique and a positive [not negative] IMO. I'd be fine if they didn't have it as well.

Point of clarification from several prior posts. The concept of the "separation of church and state" has become a popular interpretation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that was never articulated in the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence for that matter. The Constitution has one sentence with two separate points that reference religion. The first point prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a national religion and was specifically intended to prohibit the government from creating our very own New World version of the Church of England. The second point reinforces an individual's right to freely practice any faith they so choose. It does not state that the government is prohibited from employing the term "God" in it's proclamations or culture. As Meyers previously and aptly noted, the term "God" is multi-denominational:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Icebear]

Well that was a pretty stupid argument by Bellamy. His pledge goes "I pledge allegience my flag (disregard of the USA) and the Republic for which it stands..."

What republic did he think it stood for? What a dope.

His hope was that it might be used by others as a utopian statement of human spirit vs nationalism. Not saying i agree just explaining his view. His pledge read simply, "I pledge allegiance to My flag and the Republic for which it stands, One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Some argue that he did not include "equality" for the more practical reason that he knew that the state education superintendents association for whom he was working would not approve it because they did not believe in equality for women and blacks.

 

[meyers7]

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

Well I haven't read any of Thoreau's stuff in many, many years. I don't remember much of them.

However, just because one can call it civil disobedience doesn't mean it isn't disrespectful.

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

I don't think so, but they did. But that is not relevant as to whether it was disrespectful or not. In reality they were disrespecting the flag that many of their race had fought and died for. In essence disrespecting them.

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

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[meyers7]

His hope was that it might be used by others as a utopian statement of human spirit vs nationalism. Not saying i agree just explaining his view. .

Agree or not, he had a pretty stupid argument.

 

[Icebear]

Point of clarification from several prior posts. The concept of the "separation of church and state" has become a popular interpretation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that was never articulated in the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence for that matter. The Constitution has one sentence with two separate points that reference religion. The first point prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a national religion and was specifically intended to prohibit the government from creating our very own New World version of the Church of England.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They had real fear of the cost of recreating the Hundred Years war in Europe. They knew that the emerging nation was too poor to squander resources in prolonged religious wars. There were Episcopalian (Virginia), Catholic (MD), Congregationalist (MA and CT), and more groups vying to maintain power in the states (colonies). Complicating the situation by attempting to overlay a national religion would have been divisive and led to a disastrous political and potentially physical battle. Separation of church and state as a applied concept in the New World dated to Roger Williams departure from the Massachusetts colony and his founding of Rhode Island.

 

[Icebear]

Well I haven't read any of Thoreau's stuff in many, many years. I don't remember much of them.

However, just because one can call it civil disobedience doesn't mean it isn't disrespectful.

.

I wasn't suggesting as to whether it was disrespectful, it is, but as to whether there are times when disrespect can be required. To propose that one does it out of simple respect should consider whether disrespect may be appropriate or even necessary.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/co...olinaut/archive/2011/11/jesse_ventura_i.shtml

Thoreau wrote, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly the true place for a just man is also in prison."

 

[Bestiarius]

I thought the National Anthem at sporting events was just a gentle reminder to doff one's hat. - Oh, say, can you see?

 

[arty155]

National anthem or pledge...one is sufficient.

Kinda uncomfortable for foreign student-athletes. Standing by quietly works better during the national anthem.

KG,
1. Both? I am enjoying this thread, but you hit the nail on the head at the very outset, KG - this simply boils down to redundancy. In 40 years of military ceremonies, and related participation in civil ceremonies, I cannot recall the redundancy of doing both. Well intended, but it’s a bit like singing the national anthem twice.
2. Agree, the anthem seems always the way to go when you are able, like here, to have a singer or just music. These are our student-athletes, US and international, and it’s good for them to see internationals stand politely during the anthem here, exactly as we expect Americans should do, representing us, when attending other anthems overseas.

 

[arty155]

Having volunteered to serve my country for 2 years of life, with a great deal of responsibility; I for one was glad to serve. I am very proud of it. I am more than happy to sing the our National Anthem or Pledge Allegiance. If you decline to pledge or sing that is your right which I served to protect. As for God & Country, isn't their something about a "coin"?

-I hear ya, Artifact. Little debate 10 years ago.
- Neither the flag nor the anthem meant the same after the first combat out post, and we certainly never took incoming the size those Brit bomb ketches lobbed into McHenry.

 

[Icebear]

Agree or not, he had a pretty stupid argument.

It was a different time and a different historical context. The Civil War was just decades before and slaves were freed, the Industrial Revolution was rising in full force, child labor laws were emerging, socialist ideas and optimism about egalitarian ideals were flourishing. Bellamy was at a point of intersection expressing his belief of Utopianism and the stark reality of human conflict and enduring self interest. Not sure stupid is the description I would use but incredibly naive, sure. But from where we stand the view is much clearer.

 

[arty155]

Do we also have to stand, remove our hats, and cross our hearts? I sure wouldn't want one of those cameras that sees everything we do in public from driving on the interstate to parking in a shopping mall catching me being unpatriotic. Better make sure your lips are moving for the pledge.

Well, let’s Google Kibitzer’s reference:
Stand? Yup
Remove our hats? Yup, unless religious wear
Hand over heart Yup
Cross our hearts? Nope; looks like wearing a bra is your call.

 

[Icebear]

Modern custom has dropped the hand over heart aspect of respecting the flag during the national anthem. This per Snopes is according to Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner.

As I have shared before when this topic arises I was raised to stand with hand over heart for the Pledge and in respectful "at ease" and sing for the Anthem, of course, any hat was removed but few in our family wore hats or caps at the time. "Performances" of the anthem bug me as much as anything because I believe we should sing it not watch it. Hand over heart is not a good position for singing.

My grandmother explained the difference to me this way a pledge is a statement of fidelity and therefore the position of hand over heart is a sign of that action like placing the hand on a Bible or raising one's hand when swearing an oath. The anthem is an expression of remembrance and national identity in which we participate by singing. Not saying this is the right approach but for me it has always helped to define the two and the difference.

 

[arty155]

I worked in a middle school where we had several children whose parents were immigrants from another country. They were also non-Christian. The students would stand for the pledge but not recite it, which enraged some teachers. So, the students had to come to the office during the pledge recitation in order to avoid any backlash. I felt so badly for those kids, only 11 or 12 years old having to go through that.

Several school districts have done away with the pledge to avoid situations like the above and other districts have been sued by families that object to the forced recitation of the pledge.

Thanks for sharing this one…. Wow
Makes me angry these teachers apparently flubbed a great teaching opportunity; you’d think having international students politely standing during the pledge is exemplary behavior any teacher would want for highlighting what their US students should emulate if they too are fortunate enough to be attending another nations similar ceremonies overseas, or in settings outside their religious beliefs.

Really compelling comments here, and by Icebear regarding different faiths. Up to now, I completely understood the valid issue atheistic or agnostic parents had with ‘under God.’ It was beyond me that anyone might also look at that as meaning exclusively Christian today. Thanks again.