I'm nuetral on the issue of the "under God" in the pledge. I personally like it in there, but I can appreciate the perspective that it wasn't there to begin with and perhaps should be returned to the original. I respect the opinion of both sides.

To me, if someone doesn't want to stand for the pledge, that's their right, as long as they don't let the issue get in the way of doing their job. This doesn't seem like something you recall someone for. Maybe not re-elect them for if you feel strongly about it, but to me nothing here says the person isn't doing their job.

A building I worked in once mandated that security light a menorah in the lobby during hannukah. I didn't mind it being there, but when they made it part of my duties to light it I felt it was an imposition and I refused. I don't see this any differently. There's no law or procedure that says this person has to stand and declare this a nation under God, so I don't think they should have to.

theres no reason to pledge allegiance to the flag or the president.  our current pledge was written by an dechurched socialist minister as a tribute to france around the turn of the 20th century

did he have to take an oath of office?  if so, hes already pledged where it counts

as far as goin along with the program, if people did that alla time we'd prolly be discussing this during a break in pyramid construction.

Reply #3 By: kingbee - 12/16/2004 3:58:29 AM theres no reason to pledge allegiance to the flag or the president. our current pledge was written by an dechurched socialist minister as a tribute to france around the turn of the 20th century did he have to take an oath of office? if so, hes already pledged where it counts as far as goin along with the program, if people did that alla time we'd prolly be discussing this during a break in pyramid construction.

Try 1892
Link

Reply #7 By: Citizen shadesofgrey - 12/16/2004 1:48:17 PM around the turn of the 20th century Try 1892 Isn't 1892 around the turn of the 20th century?

19th Century. (1800's = 19th century, 1900's = 20th century, 2000's = 21st century)

around the turn of the 20th century

Try 1892

Isn't 1892 around the turn of the 20th century?

As for whether or not this man should be forced to say the Pledge--I'm with Bakerstreet on this one. The first amendment gives us freedom of expression--that means the freedom to express ourselfs the way we want to express ourselves--this councilman is expressing his dismay with the phrase "under God" by not reciting the pledge. He is well within his rights, as articulated by law, to do so.

1892 is around the turn of the 20th century--ie, close to the 1900s...

thats the way it appeared to me.  thnx shades

Try 1954...

1954 is the year the congress officially added the 'under god' wording to the pledge...thus making it not only an oath but a public prayer.

a lot of things happened in 1954 that were motivated or driven by political correctness in its true and worst sense. what's referred to as politically correct today would more accurately be described as socially correct.  it may not be politically wise to trangress the unofficial and constantly shifting rules of the social correctness, but in 1954--with a rogue us senator accusing the administration of collusion with the soviets to the detriment of national security and the fbi actively enforcing 'patriotism' thru intimidation--being politically incorrect had much more tangible and dire consequences. 

my point in asking whether this person had taken an oath of office was to determine whether he'd sworn allegiance to the constitution.  it may not be socially correct nor politically wise to refuse to participate in a public pledge to the flag, but he's certainly not required to do so.

What the majority of traditionalists in the US don't realize is that the laws that allow people to differ with them also keep the Liberal huns at bay. God only knows what laws Billary and the rest would pass were their opinions about our own expression legislatable...

hopefully those laws will continue to keep us all free to differ with each other by keeping the repressive huns of all affiliations at bay.  it's difficult to imagine clinton (or anyone else for that matter) conjuring up anything more potentially dangerous than patriot act 2.

There's no law or procedure that says this person has to stand and declare this a nation under God, so I don't think they should have to.

True, he has every right to refuse to stand or recite the pledge. On the other hand, the voters have every right to decide whether they want to recall him for it.

Freedom works both ways.

Reply #9 By: mismos - 12/16/2004 1:31:20 PM Sorry Bakerstreet but I can not agree with this. When the pledge of Alligence is recited, you stand. Period! They don't want to say the words "under God"? Fine. Don't. But you will stand! They don't want to show their country it's due respect by standing for the pledge then they can take their butt on down the road. They should make it a law in your opinion I suppose (along with that flag burning law that tried to go it). But if you do you wouldn't be able to call your country the land of the free any longer. The idea of forcing people to stand is ridiculous

As far as I'm concerned, they have to stand for the national anthem (that's not a law but watch what happens if they don't) and if they're supposed to stand for that, what's wrong with standing for the pledge of alligence. And sorry mismos but since your not an american I would not expect you to understand. And *YES* they *should* make it a law. You do realize that you have to be able to recite the pledge to even become a citizen?

NOT ROSANNE!!!!!! ;~D

Reply #16 By: kingbee - 12/16/2004 11:18:16 PM (that's not a law but watch what happens if they don't the ghost of francis scott key enters their dreams and keeps playin a clip of roseanne singing the anthem?

Naw they're just as liable to have the poop kicked out of them.

Reply #20 By: kingbee - 12/17/2004 2:34:44 AM have the poop kicked out of them nothin like violently enforced patriotism. the first choice of mobs and tyrants everywhere.

Why is it that when you quote me on a post you never bother to quote all of what I say?

just as liable to have the poop kicked out of them.

I never said they would did I??? I said just as liable to. FYI that means "they might".

In '54 the under God insertion was a direct and paranoid reaction to "godless communism."

a publicity stunt

or, perhaps, a matter of principle?