Talk:Pledge of Allegiance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old talk

Do we really want to include links like this that will disappear in a few days? This could go into Current Events, but shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. -- Zoe

In the article:

when atheism was often associated with the United State's arch-rival the Soviet Union.

Atheism was not "associated with" the USSR: it was the official state ideology.

That's not the point -- in the US, atheism was, has been, and is associated with many other things besides the (former) USSR. Atheism existed, even in the US, before the Russian Revolution. slrubenstein

Are you trying to say that being in the middle of a nuclear cold war against "godless Communists" had no influence on the decision to add "under God" to the pledge? --Brion VIBBER

nope. The article should suggest that including the words was a reaction to the Cold War. But it should not suggest that only the USSR or communists are atheists, that's all. It isn't a substantive issue, just one of wording. slrubenstein

That's why I wrote "associated with", not "was only practiced by". I've rewritten that sentence anyway; if you don't like the new version, please rewrite it to your heart's content. --Brion VIBBER

---

Can someone please check the text of the pledge to see if the comma belongs after "Republic"? That comma doesn't make grammatical sense. Eclecticology, Friday, June 28, 2002

What's an official source for the text? (I always had the impression of a comma at that point, not so much as a pause but as a parenthetical subclause, but that may just be a matter of the recitation that's not reflected in the text.) --Brion VIBBER

E's right, that comma is clearly wrong (it separates the noun "Republic" from the prepositional phrase "for which it stands" that modifies it.) I couldn't find a 1953 copy of the Congressional Record (only 1994-present is online), but there is a copy of the pledge in the record of Wednesday's resolution, and it eliminates that comma as well as the one before "under God", which also makes sense. I'll change the text to that until somebody can find a good 1953 source. --LDC

It may be possible to dig some of this stuff up at a local university library, but searching through a whole year's worth of congressional records doesn't sound like fun. ;) Does anyone have an approximate date, or a resolution number to look for? --Brion VIBBER

Ah good, the date and sponsor of the resolution are already mentioned in the article.

---

Lots of irony here. The Pledge was written by a Socialist, and one of the two circuit court judges who ruled it unconstitutional is a Nixon appointee. --Zoe

Don't get me started... In the 'free-est country in the world' I would not be free to drop 'under god' from the pledge. MH

You're free to do whatever you want, the pledge is completely voluntary. --67.165.6.76 03:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Okay, I was near the library today and managed to poke in for a few minutes and look for the Congressional Record... I found the bit on the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 243) for adding "under God" being approved by the Senate (June 8, 1954; Congressional Record volume 100 part 6, page 7833-4 -- see text). When I get a chance I'll go back and look for debate on the House side and the earlier resolution from the Senate (Senate Joint Resolution 126)... In the meantime, I found this quote from the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Ferguson (R-MI) interesting (emphasis added):

I believe it to be of great importance that we as a Nation recognize a higher power than ourselves in the guidance of our existence. This joint resolution recognizes that we believe there is a Divine Power, and that we, our children, and children's children should always recognize it, as we do also in engraving the words "In God We Trust" over the principal entrance to this Chamber.

Interpret as you will. --Brion VIBBER, Saturday, July 6, 2002

Oooh, here's another fun one. Rev. George Docherty, who started the whole mess with a sermon, "discussed the pledge of allegiance in these words":

I could sit down and brood upon it, going over each word slowly in my mind. And I came to a strange conclusion. There was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life. Indeed, apart form the mention of the phrase, "the United States of America," it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Moscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow with equal solemnity. Russia is also a republic, that claims to have overthrown the tyranny of kingship. Russia also claims to be indivisble.

In the House, Rep. Brooks of Louisiana said in support of the resolution to add "under God":

Free nations today battle for their very existence in many parts of the world. Communism with its siren voice of false appeal is heard round the world and many peoples and many nations fall prey to these false headlights on the shores of time. One thing separates free peoples of the Western World from the rabid Communist, and this one thing is a belief in God. In adding this one phrase to our pledge of allegiance to our flag, we in effect declare openly that we denounce the pagan doctrine of communism and declare "under God" in favor of free government and a free world.

I'd be curious to hear what our free Western brethren think of that. :) --Brion 02:36 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

In 1954, which parties had the majority in House/Senate? I think this information should be added. AxelBoldt

The Senate appears to have been neck-and-neck, actually changing balance several times during the 83rd Congress (see [1] [via wayback machine]). At the time the resolution was approved (June 8, '54), it was 47 Democrats, 47 Republicans, 1 independent, and 1 vacancy (after the death of a Democratic Senator in May). In the House, the Republicans appear to have had a slight majority at the time of 221 to 213, with 1 independent (see [2]). --Brion VIBBER, Thursday, July 11, 2002

---

As of today, Rednblu 21:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) the text contains the following interesting "incorrect" statement.

• The matter continues to be a symbolic representation of the ongoing struggle over religion in government in the United States.

Before I attempt a "correction" to what I think is a "flaw," I want to think about it.

First of all, personally I am sympathetic to what that phrase, even with the flaw, says--which for me consists of the following components of making sense of the data.

• First, there is an ongoing struggle "over religion."
• Second, the controversy over the "under God" is a "symbolic representation."

I wonder if there is not something more fundamental going on here. By fundamental, I mean in the sense that, once upon a time, someone like Benjamin Franklin looked at lightning striking from the a dark cloud in the sky and pondered, "I wonder if there is not something more fundamental going on here."

That is,

• Is the struggle really over "religion" or is the struggle something more fundamental--like wanting to be different from the NONspecial nations?
• What is the mechanism behind the "symbolic"? That is, what is the mapping from the "symbol" to the "real thing"?

Along those lines, I would like to develop a "fix" to what I see as a "flaw" in the above statement. So I propose to use this area as a workspace to draft a replacement for the above sentence "The matter continues . . . ."

I begin with the lead in paragraph to the "fix." Rednblu 21:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Rednblu 21:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

<<Beginning of proposed insertion>>

Patterns in the controversy

The points-of-view, compromises, and personal interests in the matter illustrate what may be more general patterns in the ongoing struggle over religion in government in the United States.

o used in the following because there is a bug in the ** bulleting program.

o Some scholars conclude that the American judges merely express their own personal biases about "God" when they hold one way or the other in the cases in the struggle over religion. For example, one reporter said that after polling law professors, he thought that the 2002 ruling was "dead on arrival" at the United States Supreme Court because every Supreme Court session begins with the ceremonial plea, "God save this honorable court." [3]

o The dissenting justice in the 2002 ruling stated that the ruling conflicted with the Supreme Court's explicit statements that "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was merely a ceremonial reference to history and was not a religious faith. Justice brief at 1.

o However, the 1954 House Report of the legislators who inserted the "under God" phrase into the pledge of allegiance said that the "under God" phrase was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." 154 U.S.C.A.A.N 2339, 2340.

o The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, was an atheist who said that he was offended by the phrase "In God we trust" on the coins in his pocket. He felt that "In God we trust" was a state sponsored statement of religious faith which was illegal under the separation of church and state. [4]

o But when Mr. Newdow read up on the court cases, he thought he might have a problem showing that he was injured by merely having the statement "In God we trust" on the coins in his pocket. He thought he might have a better argument for injury if he said "I have a right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers." CNN phone interview.

o Two of the three judges agreed that Mr. Newdow had a "right to direct the religious education of his daughter" even though they knew he was an atheist. Justice brief at 3.

o The Ninth Circuit judges refused to overturn the 2002 ruling even though they knew that Mr. Newdow's wife had sole legal custody and that Mr. Newdow's daughter told the court that she wanted to be allowed to pledge allegiance to the flag. Justice brief at 17.

o Mr. Newdow made the following analogy. He said that he didn't think the Christians would be very glad if the atheists were in the majority and if the atheists inserted into the pledge of allegiance the phrase "one nation under NO God." CNN phone interview.

o Some religions in America believe that the Supreme Court's separation of church and state violates the principle of separation of church and state because the Court discriminates against religious belief as compared to non-religious beliefs. They point to the fact that the separation of church and state is based on Thomas Jefferson's religious belief that "Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . . ." Everson case, starting the forcible separation.

o Some religions hold beliefs that disagree with Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs. Some religions in America hold that religion is not and cannot be separated from government. [5]

o For example, many religions in America require as dogma that religion should be taught in the public schools. For example, the Catholic Church Canon Law 799 states that "Christ's faithful are to strive to secure that in the civil society the laws which regulate the formation of the young, also provide a religious and moral education in the schools that is in accord with the conscience of the parents." [6]

Summary of pattern.

o The atheist plaintiff appears to be in the position of claiming that a reference to God is meaningful, and hence the court should recognize the religious bias in the reference to God.

o Meanwhile, the religious defenders of the reference to God appear to be in the position of claiming that the reference to God is religiously meaningless, and merely a ceremonial reference to history.

<<End of proposed insertion with all comments included as of this date>> Rednblu 04:28 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I disapprove of the proposed insertion, although I appreciate the spirit of contribution and scholarship in which it appears to be made. My disapproval is on two points: --FOo

First, this article is about the Pledge of Allegiance;

Yes. And a major problem with the Pledge is the words IN the pledge. Would you agree? Rednblu 23:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

it is not about the relation of church and state in the United States of America. While it touches on the larger issue, this article is not the best place to put political-philosophy discussions of opinion on that matter. The article on separation of church and state, or First Amendment, might be.

Right. I thought so too at first. But when I read this pledge entry I saw that the details of the abstractions of the "political-philosophy discussions" are so neatly illustrated in the Pledge case.

Second, some elements of the proposed insertion appear to be points of rhetoric rather than encyclopedic material. If these elements were to find their way into any Wikipedia article, it would be best that they be ascribed to particular partisans, balanced with claims from other views. To claim to describe the "structure of the controversy" without this would be to present a lopsided structure.

I don't know what you mean. What I get from your comment is that I might put together a "System description page" which would attempt to describe how the factions in the debate interact. Then there could be links to the balanced description of the factions.

Maybe this "System description page" would only have a link to this Pledge page?

Ascribing certain statements to Newdow, particular judges, and the Catholic Church is valuable -- other elements, such as claims about "many religions", appear to connote majority or argumentum ad populum where this is not appropriate.

?? Majority and factional politics is much of what is going on in the debate over religion in the government in the U.S., is that not true?

If you take an objective view of the society, would you not describe the various "views" of the components of the society?

I find the question of the status of expressions such as "under God" and "God save this honorable Court" -- the question of whether they are "ceremonial references" or elements of "religious faith" very interesting and relevant to this article, however. It is what distinguishes this issue (and similar ones, such as posting of the Ten Commandments in government schools) from other Establishment Clause issues.

Yes. That is what jumped out at me from what was already written into the Pledge page. I first said to myself, "Why is all of this time-decaying data in the Pledge page. And then I said to myself, "Ah. These issues are unique to the pledge."

You bring to my attention that there are some unique pieces to the Ten Commandments cases. There maybe the unique pieces are something like the following--"What is wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments as a neutral statement that that is where much of Western law comes from?"

It involves a claim on one side that a reference to God is merely ceremonial, and thus of no consequence; and on the other side that it is precisely ceremonial -- that is, it is in essence a religious ritual, which cannot be inconsequential!

Yes. Interesting.

The secular side appears to be in the position of claiming that a reference to God is meaningful (and thus a piece of religious bias) whilst the religious or traditionalist side appears to be in the position of claiming that it is religiously meaningless (and thus not an establishment of religion). --FOo

Isn't that interesting! Yes. That was exactly what intrigued me. I will edit the insertion to use your phrasing.

I reversed my insertion of this piece into the page--waiting for your comments. Rednblu 23:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Rednblu, I still have some significant reservations about the "patterns" section:

Structurally this section seems to be an outline, or perhaps something akin to a Usenet thread -- a tree of responses to responses. It brooks rewriting into plain encyclopedia prose.

Moreover, some of the apparent responses do not appear to actually be responses to the foregoing points. For instance, the 2002 dissent is placed as if it were a response to the CNN Jeffrey Toobin interview, which it is not. If the encyclopedist is describing a debate or an historical progression of opinion or ideology, s/he would do well to place the statements in chronological order. However, if the encyclopedist is outlining the views of several camps or groups, creating subcategories for these camps -- such as "separationists", "anti-separationists", and "legislative and court opinions" -- would make more sense.

Some of the points seem to contain non-sequiturs. For instance, the first point states that some scholars claim that judges are expressing personal bias, then states as an example of this that a journalist opines that the Supreme Court's ritual will be seen as a counterexample to the Newdow position. As it stands, this is a non-sequitur: the stated example isn't an example of that which the paragraph calls it an example.

Others of the points appear to be, or to imply, ad-hominem arguments. For instance: "Two of the three judges agreed that Mr. Newdow had a 'right to direct the religious education of his daughter' even though they knew he was an atheist." This phrasing implies that someone -- the third judge, or the average or expected opinion -- believes that Newdow does not or should not have that right because he is an atheist. This is a claim sufficiently outré that it should not be left implied: if there is someone relevant who actually holds this belief, it should be cited; otherwise, it should not be hinted at.

Others flatly assert opinion as fact, e.g. "They point to the fact that the separation of church and state is based on Thomas Jefferson's religious belief...." It is not a fact that separation is founded on Jefferson's religious belief; that claim is part of the opinion being described. (Others might hold, e.g., that separation is the historical and political outgrowth of religious toleration acts in Europe, which served to defuse the religious tensions that created so much war and civil strife. This would set separation not as a disconnection from tradition, but a continuation of a successful progression; it would presumably be the view of a liberal-conservative.)

Still other points introduce tangential points which do not bear weight upon the case, e.g. "Some religions hold beliefs that disagree with Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs." Without some introduction to what Jefferson's religious beliefs have to do with the matter -- as opposed to, e.g. the political beliefs of Jefferson and other founders, and the interpretations thereof by the courts -- this is simply a tangent into the distance.

All in all, I think your idea to present different opinions in the larger controversy is valuable. However, I suspect that this particular piece of text is too fraught -- I've tried rearranging pieces of it into either the chronological or camps structure I describe above, and come up with nothing worth posting. Any thoughts as to where to go next? --FOo 02:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I will rewrite that section to include your worthy comments. Rednblu 02:23 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Poem?

The prayer at issue in Engel v. Vitale is several times referred to as a "poem" in this article. What sort of accommodationist doubletalk is that? Engel is frequently cited as the decision that banned prayer in public schools. I have never once seen any credible source refer to the recitation in that case as a "poem." Here's the text (which can also be found in the article), for those who are interested:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

Now, can any person reasonably say that's not a prayer?

I'll also note that in the dicussion of Engel, the article notes that "the Supreme Court has banned some expressions of "God" from public schools." Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth--the Court has only stated that certain religious utterances may not be given state endorsement by having state employees (teachers) lead students in their recitation. Any student or teacher who wishes to talk about God or pray to God may do so, just not as part of an official school routine. This whole section seems to be seriously biased.

You're very right. The lines in Engel are a prayer, or more specifically an invocation (a beseeching of divine intervention). Edited. --FOo 03:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. "Invocation" is precisely the word I was looking for.

True or false??

True or false: somewhere on the Internet, there is a voting poll about the whether the phrase "under God" should stay in the pledge to the flag. 66.245.2.190 17:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've seen several polls.

Loyalty oath?

Removed from ==opposition and controversy== section:

Currently the United States is the only western country with a loyalty oath for schoolchildren.

This is a troll. The Pledge is not an oath, and no-one has to take it. Ellsworth 23:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No-one? Are you certain? A friend of mine had to take the pledge as part of becoming a U.S. citizen in the late 1980s. It may be different now, it may not be strictly required, but she eventually "took the pledge" for pragmatic reasons.--EmmetCaulfield 17:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The oath of US citizenship may require the pledge (I wouldn't know), but the pledge itself is non-mandatory in other circumstances and is legally meaningless. Emmett5 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What about children who aren't US citizens?

What about children who aren't US citizens? Are they normally exempted? (I don't live in the US, so I don't know this) -- 84.57.8.13 00:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dunno. Don't think anyone's required to say the Pledge. I had a classmate who did not say the pledge because of his religious beliefs (Jehovah's Witness).

Foreign nationals are specifically not supposed to recite the pledge, as it is a loyalty oath to a government other than their own.

No schoolchild in a public school may be required to say the Pledge. A public school which punishes children for not reciting the Pledge is operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution ... and is asking for a lawsuit, since the matter has been settled for many years by the Supreme Court. --FOo 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pledge Protection Act

If someone has time, we could act some info on Sensenbrenner's Pledge Protection Act. [7] Sander123 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Under God" ruling

I'll need to do some research, but I think that this section needs a little tweaking. It should include the fact that some of the opposition to the phrase included some conservatives and Christians. Their biggest complaint is that including the phrase trivializes God, and using it could be considered sacrilegious. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 09:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

personal attacks and threats to block against the whole story.

There are some people on Wikipedia who knowingly engage in personal attacks and deletions (even of links) of anyone who explains the connection between the pledge of allegiance and the national socialism of its author Francis Bellamy and his cousin Edward Bellamy, the author. It is behavior that breaks the wikipedia rules. What kind of people cover-up for Nazis and that horrid ideology? The cover-ups include the top media cover ups: They cover up many historic photos the Pledge of Allegiance showing the original straight-arm salute and the fact that the the Bellamys were National Socialists, and that the Pledge's straight arm salute was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) As part of their cover-up they perpetuate the Roman Salute myth. And they lie about the oath of the horatii as an absurd support for a Roman connection They cover up for the swastika and its use as a sick socialist symbolThey cover up for the socialist trio of atrocities. They cover up the fact that socialists helped start WWII with the National Socialist German Workers' Party & the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as allies.They cover up for and are deniers of the socialist Wholecaust, of which the monstrous Holocaust was part They cover up for the National Socialist German Worker's Party and always try to use the hackneyed shorthand "Nazi" hThey repeat the most common cover-ups of the media and And they cover up the newer U.S. Supreme Court case that exposes the socialist history of the Pledge As an example, most of the "Roman Salute" page on Wikipedia is pure poppycock, especially near the top "The Roman salute is a closed finger, flat-palm-down hand raised at an angle (usually 45 degrees) and was used by the Roman Republic. It was also the historical civilian salute of the United States, from 1787?-1934?, known since 1892 as the Bellamy salute. It was also the historical salute among armies of the Middle East and South America. When the Nazi party of Germany adopted the Roman salute from the Italian fascists." The foregoing is all incorrect and of course without any attribution nor support on the Wikipedia page because there is no support. It is not a Roman salute and never was.

Similar criticisms apply to the Wikipedia pages on Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance.

• Date: The pledge was recognized on June 22, 1942. Section 7 of the Flag Code: 56 STAT 379.

• National Socialism: Describing Francis Bellamy as a Nazi is scurrillous. Edward Bellamy was a Baptist minister, an unlikely occupation for one.Septentrionalis 08:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the links to this guy's website. He's been spamming them all over Wikipedia, presumably to get improved Google ranking. — Matt Crypto 07:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Argument in opposition: The Pledge is flawed per se

Another argument against the Pledge of Allegiance is that allegiance itself is a feudal concept (i.e., obedient servitude, as of a serf to a liege lord), not a democratic one, and that to pledge allegiance to an emblem is to turn it into a bearer certificate of political authority. In other words, by taking the Pledge of Allegiance, one is swearing to serve and obey, without question, anyone who wraps himself up in the U.S. flag. This turns dissent into treason, and in spirit runs contrary to the freedom of conscience enshrined in the Constitution.

--Geenius at Wrok 01:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard this arguement, see if you can find it elsewhere, cite it, and put on Pledge of Allegiance criticism. Emmett5 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Concern

Quote: Many object to the exploition of children by leading them in a pledge that even adults have difficulty agreeing upon. They feel that having children recite the pledge trivializes the serious commitments it requires, and the constant repetition insults the honor and wastes the time of those children who view their first recitation as binding. Many parents object to this trivialization of the pledge and emphasize the pledge's seriousness by insisting that their children wait until their majority before making any such pledge.

Personally, I would probably agree with those that express concern of trivializing the pledge by encouraging or even requiring children to recite it daily. However, I think the first sentence of this selection is using unfairly biased language, specifically "exploition." First, I'm pretty much positive that's not a word, at least, according to Dictionary.com it isn't (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exploition). Assuming the intended meaning/word is "exploitation," I don't think that's a fair sentence. This first sentence is introducing the audience to a group's idea, because, unless I'm mistaken in my assessment of Wikipedia, the goal is to provide quality, unbiased articles in the same way a commercial encyclopedia would (if not better) and is therefore not a view held by the article. The first sentence is saying that children are exploited, which I know is not an accepted fact. I believe a far better sentence would be something like, "Many believe leading children in a pledge that even adults have difficulty agreeing upon is exploitation." This separates the encyclopedia from the opinions of others a great deal more. I would even go so far as to suggest using a word other than exploitation or at least saying "comparable to exploitation" or something less harsh. Suggesting even indirectly that children are being exploited is a heavy charge and sure to evoke negative feelings in readers. This type of language is better suited to a persuasive speech than an encyclopedia entry, in my opinion.

I'm not by any means any kind of expert, and I'm by no means a regular contributor on Wikipedia, but I think the issue needs to be addressed. I often cite Wikipedia in homework, but the troublesome wording in this article makes me hesitant to use it as a reliable, unbiased source in an upcoming speech.

Thanks so much for your work, time, and attention.

4:50, 31 March 2005 (UTC)

Have corrected the spelling of exploitation. The statements about exploitation are in the criticism and opposition section. Thanx for pointing to the "adults agreeing upon" point, because that does not seem complete, because for some of those who consider leading children in the pledge, it would be an issue even if there wasn't the multiple interpretations. The issue for them is, that if the pledge is even if understood, to consent to such an important commitment, the child should be older. We have ages of "consent" for sex and marriage, but not for an even more important pledge. --Silverback 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians and the pledge

I have removed an allegation that Libertarians believe that the wording of the pledge obligates voters to vote Libertarian. As a party officer I can tell you that that is patently false and that I have never met any libertarian who believes any such thing. --Dfranke

Removing it again. Whomever reinserted it, I suggest you post here explaining why. --Dfranke

Now you've met someone. Tell me what other party's positions are consistent with the liberty clause.--Silverback 03:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. However, the idea that such a pledge could be considered binding at all is itself rather inconsistent with liberty. I'm changing 'some' to a 'few', and we'll leave it at that. --Dfranke

Hmmm, pledges are nonbinding (meaningless?) is an interesting defense of pledges. Perhaps leading pledges then is a good use of government employee time. I doubt there would be so much contention over the wording if the pledge did not imply some moral obligation. --Silverback 05:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

'Some' may be preferable as not making a statistical statement. I know a Libertarian Congressional candidate whom I believe would agree with the opinion being disputed. (And there is a serious and ancient argument that binding pledges are more important in the condition of statelessness) Septentrionalis 23:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indivisibility

" Communists have been criticized as undemocratic, because they intend the election they win will be the last fair election with any choice, yet supporters of the indivisibility clause hold the same view about the elections which result in statehood."

The second clause of this sentence is objectionable. It puts words in other people's mouths - and it does so in error. Many supporters of indivisibility believe that the Union could be made divisible - it merely has not been. Therefore electing entry into the Union is not in principle irrevocable.

If this is removed, the sentence is almost entirely redundant.

Septentrionalis 23:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see no way to recast without constructions of the form, "opponents of the use of 'indivisible' believe that its supporters believe", which is intolerable syntax. Deleting; let him who can rephrase. Septentrionalis 19:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what about the teachers

I think there should be a mention that requiring teachers to lead the class disqualifies some teachers from employment; namely those whose religion or convictions prevent them engaging in such an exercise. In other words, this requirement is tantamount to state-sanctioned hiring discrimination on the basis of religion.

I'm not familiar with the case law on the subject. If you have particular sources or cases in mind, please post 'em -- it is indeed a side of the issue that does not usually get aired, since it has to do with employment requirements and specifically employment with the government. --FOo 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

teachers

I was a NYC public school teacher for ten years, and am now a lawyer. I became a lawyer after being repeatedly chastised, admonished and threatened for not saying the Pledge in a sufficiently boisterous manner. This took place prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in more than one school. By all accounts (i.e., accounts of actual teachers, not accounts of outsiders who feel competent to comment based on their experience as students/parents), my experience is not only common, but is the norm.

I spent five minutes researching this, and came up with only one case, but this is not surprising. Few public school teachers feel strongly enough about not pledging to battle their supervisors, fewer of those have the time/money/wherewithal to pursue the matter in court. The case I found struck me as remarkably typical, despite differences of time and place. In Hanover v. Northrup, a teacher who objected to the Pledge sat quietly during its recital, leading to her suspension. (325 F. Supp. 170, Conn. 1970)).

Mandatory Reading

I think something should be said about mandatory readings of the pledge, such as in my home state of minnesota, where the governor has mandated that the pledge be read every morning in school over a pa system or something. this doesn't mean you are required to recite the pledge, but t does mean you're going to hear it every week. Xunflash 20:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone really objected they could probably be granted special permission to leave the classroom at such times. After 9/11 the schools took part in a nationwide "moment of silence" and we were told that if we couldn't take part, we were allowed to go into the hallway. Emmett5 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"One Nation Indivisible" without Comma!

The original version of the pledge stated "one Nation indivisible" not "one Nation, indivisible". While punctuation may seem minor to certain editors, it has great significance to its Civil War significance. This page has been taken over by revisionist historians!

Quadell reverted with no justification. The Civil War issue in not addressed. A good example of this in modern politics is the "One Nation Indivisible" bumper stickers that show only the South. This has been brought up more often in editorial commentaries in the MSM than any other serious issue.

An anonymous user posted the above, and added the text below.

As the pledge was originally written, it read "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." In 1892 as today, there were many divisive elements in the country. Those who support the Federal system of government do not believe that states have the right to secede (indivisible). The country was and some would argue still is recovering from the damage caused by the Civil War. It has been argued that changing Bellamy's phrase from "one Nation indivisible" to "one Nation under God" is in itself an attempt to divide the Nation and is therefore against Bellamy's intention.

I removed this for a number of reasons.

1. The text already stated the original wording of the text above, so it isn't necessary to restate it.
2. The statement "there were many divisive elements in the country" seems so vague as to be uninformative.
3. There were many secessionists who believed in the Federal system of government; the terms are not mutually exclusive.
4. "Some would still argue" and "It has been argued" are weasel terms. Say who argues this, or else it looks like the article is arguing this without coming out and saying so. If it's your own argument, it's original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If it's someone else's argument, someone notable, then cite your sources.

I wasn't intending to censor anyone's opinion, but Wikipedia isn't the place to state your own opinions. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This is not my argument. This has been the primary argument put forth in editorials (Slate, NPR, ...). This whole article is editorial content which is not neutral. The federal system of government doesn't allow secession, whereas the confederate system does. Removing "weasel" terms is different than just reverting. The comma was inserted into the original to justify a break that doesn't belong there. You should redact the entire "other objections" section under your logic. I think is shows noticable bias to have a pro-confederate argument and no pro-union argument when obviously Bellamy wrote this less than 30 years after the Civil War and was a Baptist minister perfectly capable of putting G-d in it if he chose to. When the "under G-d" controversy originally broke out there were two strains of opinions: 1) Under God must remain 2) This is a wedge issue.

Reverting should only be used for vandalism, not valid information put in an appropriate section! The Civil War aspect should be properly explained in the article. You need to look up the difference between a confederation and a federal government. Indivisible is explicitly related to this difference. I weep for the school system that produced this article.

I apologize if my reverting seemed rude. It wasn't my intention to offend. By the way, if you're interested in the topic, you might want to read Federation, Federalism, Confederation, and Secession. Secession doesn't seem to me to be related to the difference. Anyway, you have a lot of good points; I'll try to be less abrupt. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 01:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is a founding principal of United States Federalism that states may not secede from the union (territories can and have). This debate reminds me of when I tried to mention that this is why Alexander Hamilton was placed on money during the Civil War. Similarly, in the Wiki system, any time I tried to mention that fact, it was reverted. Read "The Federalist Papers" if you want to understand this fact. They are not very long.

IMO, Wikipedia should one day become more in-depth than the 1911 EB. Those articles you referenced are a good example of the problems inherent in the Wikipedia anarchy. To me they look like stubs compared to a good EB article. I have seen many articles even shrink over the years! Maybe a federal system with checks and balances will one day create a working open source encyclopedia.

The Slate article I asked Quadell to read was written by a Professor at Rutgers and states:

"The key words for Bellamy were "indivisible," which recalled the Civil War and the triumph of federal union over states' rights, and "liberty and justice for all," which was supposed to strike a balance between equality and individual freedom."

"In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

Ok, two things were changed during the 50s. One nation indivisible became One nation under G-d (because of states rights (i.e. confederacy -> dixiecrat) politicians)) English is a very analytic language so splitting One nation indivisible has an effect on meaning. Why not "one Nation indivisible, under God"?

E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many One) became "In God We Trust", another very political attempt to assert states' rights.

Status Quo opinions are not expressed as much as contrary opinions, but nevertheless they are the voiceless majority. People will understand neither side without both sides being shown.

Monotheism vs. polytheism and the pledge

The 9th circuit court from what I've read stated in it’s opinion the words “under god” appear to be a unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism over polytheism and atheism. I think the article should mention this and cover any debate over this interpretation. A cursery search of google brings up a number of articles mentioning this monotheism issue. --Cab88 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Dorothea Lange photograph

I'm a bit concerned about the Dorothea Lange photograph being featured so prominently in the article. It's a fantastic photograph from an artistic point of view, and definitely should be included (although it is a cropped version of the original, which is much better), but it seems to me that the article should begin with a photograph with less of a "message". Something, in other words, that you couldn't imaging being placed on a pro-pledge campaign poster with America the Beautiful playing in the background. The initial photograph, I think, also would ideally show the flag in the foreground, and there should be at least some adults. It should probably be something like the other pictures in the article, simply showing the act of saying the pledge, without implicit commentary. Anybody have any suggestions? COGDEN 19:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the 1899 Flag Day photograph and the Lange photograph be switched. The Flag Day photograph is a little more ambiguous -- it could be taken as pro-Pledge in that it depicts recitation in a traditional environment, but it could also be taken as anti-Pledge for the somewhat military or conformist appearance. However, it's a better choice than the 1892 image as that one uses the Bellamy salute which is likely to confuse readers since it's more readily recognized as the Hitler salute. --FOo 20:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Not the only country with a daily pledge

"Currently the United States is the only western country where the majority of schoolchildren take a pledge of allegiance daily."

Pretty certain this is false, I'm under the assumption that Japan has a nationwide policy _mandating_ a daily oath; seem to remember this from a recent New York Times article.

24.29.130.37 11:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Note the word "western". Ralphmerridew 00:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Japan has a westernized economy if not a western economy or location—the term is ambiguous. It seems the article is trying to compare the US to countries in a similar economic/cultural situation. Rather than comparing the US to "western" countries, it would be better to compare it to developed countries. Theshibboleth 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Edwards v. Aguillard

I made several changes in the paragraph that begins "Some people believe that the American judges are repressive", which was seriously flawed:

• It linked to the wrong lawsuit, Wallace v. Jaffree, instead of Edwards v. Aguillard.
• It misrepresented Justice Scalia's position. Scalia held that Edwards v. Aguillard was not about God, but about "creation science", and he gave credit to affidavits filed by the appellants which stated that "creation science" "is essentially a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that the physical universe and life within it appeared suddenly and have not changed substantially since appearing" and "a strictly scientific concept that can be presented without religious reference". This is of course controversial, but it was the Court majority, not Scalia, who took the position that this was a decision about "God", so it shouldn't be portrayed as such in describing Scalia's position.
• It seriously misrepresented the case by saying the lower court refused to hear evidence on "God". What the lower courts did, and the Supreme Court majority approved of, was to disregard the above-mentioned affidavits and instead construe "creation science" as essentially Christian creationism, and therefore they struck down the law because they construed it as mandating teaching evidence about God in school -- not giving evidence about God in court.

Joriki 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

More international scope

This article should also include information on other countries' pledges of allegiance, and the more general phenomenon of allegiance pledges. I'm not certain of the details, but I've heard that India has a very similar tradition to the American Pledge, and I would be willing to bet that many other countries do, too. If we could find good sources, it would be cool for Pledge of Allegiance to have a corresponding article about the general family of pledges to which it belongs, sort of like The Star-Spangled Banner and the larger phenomenon of various countries' National anthems. --Mr. Billion 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: From this discussion on the Snopes message board, it seems that almost no other country in the world has a Pledge custom similar to that in the United States. Most other countries have one-time oaths to gain citizenship, but almost none have widespread daily pledges in their public schools. This site claims that no country but the Philippines has such a tradition, and that's only because of their status as a former U.S. possession. I've found nothing to support User:24.29.130.37's claim that either some other Western nations or Japan have widespread Pledges. --Mr. Billion 00:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of you won't want to hear this but .... one country which has a system similar to America's is "The People's Republic of China".

Unlike in the US, the ceremony in China (called the flag raising ceremony, rather than a pledge of allegiance) is only held once a week, on Monday morning and all Chinese students must take part. It is often conducted outdoors with the entire school asembled. Whereit differs from the US pledge ceremony is that student are not forced to recognize or not recognize any religious aspects. Only the communist government.

Pledge of Allegiance Criticism

Why are we splitting the article in half, with part going to Pledge of Allegiance Criticism? Tha seems like it might be a POV fork. I don't see any discussion here. -Will Beback 08:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When a subsection of the article is larger and more detailed (about 60% here with as deep a hierarchy as the rest of the article) the entire article, it's appropriate to consider moving it into a separate article. There has been criticism of the pledge throughout its history and the nature of that criticism has changed substantially over time, it's definitely a worthwhile subject for an article focused on the criticism. This being said, the criticism article needs more information on criticisms other than the most recent. It's very detailed on recent criticism and court cases, but very deficient about historical criticisms and criticisms other than the "Under God" criticisms that have been prominent since the 1990s. Daniel Quinlan 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A split is fine, but the text in the Criticism "section" now is just strange. All it says is:

"Over the course of the history of the pledge, the pledge has been the subject of criticism for various reasons." Surely, that's not the right way to refer to the other article. Why not a sentence or two about the major criticisms? Phiwum 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Under God" change because of Soviets

Could someone give me a citation to an unbiased material documenting congress inserting "Under God" into the pledge because of the Soviets? I understand there was some mention of it by one or many individual(s) but I'm wondering if this was really the driving force behind the change as is often repeated as fact. -Casius 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This source also says it was a reaction to Communism, but I don't know how unbiased you'll consider it. It doesn't seem to have any overt bias to me. --Mr. Billion 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Try chapter 5 of Richard Ellis's book To the Flag. It gives the details. --4.240.108.192 02:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Last 2 Words of the Pledge

Perhaps a section could be added that includes the old light-hearted saying about how the last 2 words of the Pledge are, "Play Ball!" Based on the occurance at organized baseball games in the U.S. (i.e., Major League Baseball).

But let us not add the Bart Simpson joke about the last 2 words of the Pledge being, "Hail Satan!" That's just ridiculousness.

69.39.172.34 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the Pledge with the Anthem. Daniel Quinlan 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

the pledge of allegiance

I think that the pledge should be changed back to how It was over A hundred years ago to the original wording "I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

Palm direction

The article says the Bellamy salute has the palm facing upwards, but the picture clearly shows the children saluting with downfacing palms and the article on the Bellamy salute claims the palm should be facing downwards. Anybody know what's going on here? Shadowoftime 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the picture on the main article shows some of the kids with their palms up and some with their palms down. It looks like the boys face up and the girls down. The Bellamy salute requires the palm up, according to the article. The palm faces down during the part of the pledge when they use the military salute. From there, they go to the palm up salute at the end of the salute.

Hawkridge 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Hawkridge

Even at its low res, the photo pretty clearly shows everyone with their palm down, not just boys. So what is the deal?

Eponymous-Archon, Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:22:16 PM (EDT)

This might be an urban myth, but I heard that it used to be palm out but was changed, with the rise of national socialism, to be downwards because the National Socialists had a palm out salute (with arm extended) that was too similar.

perfectblue97

Um, guys, the bellamy salute article seems to answer your question. The palm was downward on the outstretch and then turned up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute LÄCHERLICH

Yes, the Bellamy salute was palm down as clearly shown in the picture of the children doing the salute. This is the origin of the Nazi salute, which was "borrowed" from the Bellamy brothers. The person who wrote the article is purposefully trying to cover up this connection. It would be nice to correct the lie and admit the common ancestry of the pledge of allegiance with Nazism. It would be even better to get rid of the pledge of allegiance.

where's the criticism

the removal of all criticism to a separate article Pledge of Allegiance Criticism, with no summary of that article here (not even a mention, other than in See Also) constitutes a POV fork. so i intend to tag this article as POV. Doldrums 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "Criticism" section to summarize and link to the other article, and am thus deleting the one-liner in the introduction ("Over the history of the pledge, there has been much criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance.") 68.9.116.26 20:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV fork; it needs to be merged ASAP. theProject 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Brightonians"

One sentence in the article was:

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: [...] It was seen by some Brightonians as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War.

I removed the word "Brightonians" from the sentence as I couldn't find an explanation for what it meant. If you have one, please restore it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Another challenge to the Pledge

Refer to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 The article reads: "Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government. "The move by Orange Coast College student trustees, the latest clash over patriotism and religion in American schools, has infuriated some of their classmates -- prompting one young woman to loudly recite the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule."

Might want to reference this latest challenge to the Pledge in this Wiki. --Sbroadwe 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture Veracity

I sincerely doubt that the caption under the first picture, "Japanese-American internees reciting the pledge during World War II (photo by Dorothea Lange)", is true. I'll have to admit that my knowledge of Japanese-American internment and Dorothea Lange pictures is limited, but there are clearly white and black children in the background of that picture. The other girl on the left also does not appear to be Japanese, but probably Filipino. I'm fairly certain that very few, if any, white or black families were interned. The only plausible explaination I can think of is that the child that is relatively centered in the foreground is from an interred family and she was allowed to attend a school nearby or the picture was taken after the internment was lifted. Either way the caption is still very misleading. I'm not absolutely certain though, so I would like to hear what other people think.

Here is a link to the source of the picture - http://www.freedomvoices.org/1langepx/wra78.htm . apparently the caption is not correct, and the children are not in fact interned Galaxydog2000 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the caption accordingly. Thanks for spotting this error. --ScottMainwaring 07:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody Claims the Pledge Is Unconstitutional

This article falls into the trap of characterizing the issue as whether the Pledge is unconstitutional. Nobody has ever claimed that the text, or its recitation, is unconstiutional in itself. The issue is solely whether government agencies can constituionally recite or promote the Pledge. For example, this is misleading: "Prominent legal challenges have been based on the contention that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it violates one or both of the religion clauses in the First Amendment." Compelling it, or government recitation of it, are the basis of the legal challenges. Same problem here: "Other objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1954. Many critics, including some atheists, agnostics and polytheists, contend that this phrase violates protections against establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." ...and so on. The whole section "Criticism of the Pledge" needs to be cleaned up with an eye for inaccurate language of this type. Bsharvy 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No dispute about "Under God" in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

A contributor to this article who goes by ACE603 has repeatedly attempted to assert that there is controversy over whether Lincoln used the words "under God" in his speech at Gettysburg.

Mr. ACE603 is either unfamiliar with the scholarship or is proposing a "conspiracy" theory of his own that is preposterous. All scholars are clearly of one mind on this issue: there is simply no dispute.

The standard scholarly treatises on the Gettysburg Address are:

1. William E. Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg: What He Intended to Say; What He Said; What he was Reported to have Said; What he Wished he had Said (New York: Peter Smith, 1950).

2. Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).

Several independent news reporters were in the audience during Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg and they separately took down Lincoln's words verbatim. These reporters included (but were not necessarily limited to) 1. a reporter from the Associated Press (Joseph Gilbert), 2. a reporter from the Boston Advertiser (Charles Hale), 3. a reporter from the Cincinnati Commercial, and 4. a reporter from the New York Tribune.

All of these reporters heard and reported the words “under God.”

The scholars are firm on this point. Consider Barton:

"Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery. It will not do to say that Stanton suggested those words after Lincoln's return to Washington, for the words were telegraphed by at least three reporters on the afternoon of the delivery." (Barton, 138-139)

With regard to the integrity of reporter Charles Hale, Barton says:

“he had notebook and pencil, and as Lincoln spoke very slowly, Mr. Hale was positive that he caught every word. He took down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln’s address, and his declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved to be at its face value.” (Barton, 81)

Another “reporter” who was present at Gettysburg who later wrote down exactly what was said there was Abraham Lincoln. He was asked by several individuals (Historian George Bancroft, Alexander Bliss, and Edward Everett) to send them transcripts of what he said at Gettysburg. In each of those transcripts, written in the hand of Lincoln himself, the words “under God” are present.

According to the Library of Congress:

“three copies of the Address were written by Lincoln for charitable purposes well after November 19. The copy for Edward Everett, the orator who spoke at Gettysburg for two hours prior to Lincoln, is at the Illinois State Historical Library at Springfield; the Bancroft copy, requested by historian George Bancroft, is at Cornell University; the Bliss copy was made for Colonel Alexander Bliss, Bancroft's stepson, and is now in the Lincoln Room of the White House.” [[8]]

Each one of these transcripts, made by Lincoln himself, contains the phrase “under God.”

Mr. ACE603 seems to base his entire point of view upon the fact that the Nicolay manuscript, which some believe Lincoln had in front of him at Gettysburg, does not include the phrase.

In light of the collective reports of the eyewitnesses, the text of the Nicolay copy is irrelevant. It is entirely commonplace for speakers to interpolate words into speeches extemporaneously.

Case in point: the manuscript of the speech Martin Luther King, Jr. gave in Washington on August 28, 1963 does not include the words “I have a dream.” The manuscript of the speech, now at the Woodruff library in Atlanta, does not include the words “I have a dream.” According to the archivist, “King departed from the written speech and spoke spontaneously using the dream metaphor.” [[9]]) His son, Martin Luther King, III, confirmed--

“he [King] suddenly sort of veered off the speech and started preaching. And, actually, the part where he was preaching was the part where he really connected with the audience and may be the most memorable part of that speech, the ‘I have the dream’ part.”[[10]]

Hence, using Mr. ACE603’s logic, it is proper to say that there is controversy over whether King’s “I have a dream” speech included the words “I have a dream” since the manuscript that was in front of King does not include the words.

Ludicrous! There is video evidence that confirms exactly what King said. Mr. ACE603 should go on record saying that there is dispute over whether M.L. King said “I have a dream” in D.C. in 63. In doing so, his point of view would be exposed for its absurdity.

Just so, in November 1863, there were several independent stenographic journalists at Gettysburg whose independent corroboration of what Lincoln said is as reliable as video evidence.

In order for Mr. ACE603 to make a case that Lincoln did not utter the words “under God” at Gettysburg, he must provide evidence that the independent reporters from New York, Boston, Cincinnati, and the Associated Press combined in some fantastic conspiracy to put words into Lincoln’s mouth that he never really said; and then, their greatest feat was to get Lincoln himself in on the conspiracy!--so that later Lincoln would even claim that he said those words at Gettysburg, when he knew, in fact that he did not.

The bottom line is this: it is not proper or scholarly to say that the Gettysburg Address is “thought to” contain the words “under God.” And it is not proper or scholarly to say that there is “dispute” over whether the words were in the Address. And it is not proper or scholarly to say that only one written transcript included the words. In fact, to make these assertions is, at best, amateurish, but more likely, an exhibition of buffoonery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't make those changes. I just reverted to them when you deleted them without providing any proof. There was a freaking picture on the page of the speaking text without the words Under God. Sorry that I didn't accept your almightly word without proof. I didn't realize that Lincoln actually said this is one country Under Hilltoppers. ACE603

Location of writing

There has been some reference to the "Pledge of Allegiance Building" by the current tenants of 209 Columbus Ave, Boston. Can anyone verify that this is where it was written? -- Beland 02:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Omissions from "under God"

The history section makes no mention of Congress' desire to add "under God" (in the Pledge and on US currency) to distance itself from the atheist Soviet system, instead implying that the only reason the phrase was added was Eisenhower liked what a couple of religious ministers said. This is a pretty serious omission, isn't it? -- Hux 08:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3