1
1
0
Red Skelton Pledge of Allegiance.
https://youtu.be/TZBTyTWOZCM
https://youtu.be/TZBTyTWOZCM
Posted in these groups: 
United States
Freedom
United States Freedom
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
It's been a while since I saw that. He makes a good point about the general meaning and concept of each of the phrases. Of course, his ending comment about "two words" being added (and everything that goes with it) misses it by a long shot and always has.
First, making something *not mandatory* is not the same as eliminating it. For example: bible reading can not be made *mandatory* in school, but there has never been a prohibition on a student bringing and reading one on their own. Somehow, "freedom-loving" conservatives nearly 100% of the time miss that freedom against compulsion. The pledge is *not mandatory*, but it has never been (nor will it be) eliminated.
Second, there's a *very* strong argument, rooted in the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause and supported by court precedent, that the mandatory (or compulsive through peer pressure) recitation of *any* pledge is a violation, whether referencing religious sentiments directly or not.
Third, the courts uniformly recognize a higher bar for Establishment Clause violations in schools, specifically *because* children are susceptible to coercion and group-think in a more profound manner and are still in the process of developing mentally. It has *never* been that those words turn the pledge into a prayer; it doesn't, and few argue that it does. But, by making it mandatory to recite, even apart from the Free Exercise violation, it also violates the Establishment Clause.
Fourth, as I like to say about the insertion of "under god" in the pledge at the height of America's 1950's paranoia of the Red Scare: "Only religion could find a way to to divide the phrase 'One Nation Indivisible'..."
Fifth, I think it's hilarious that those who rush to have the pledge said everywhere forget that it was written by a Socialist. And no, I don't mean the faux scare-word usage that is common today, but an honest-to-goodness *Socialist*! (And as a fascinating side-note, the writer, Francis Bellamy, also envisioned a "salute" to go with it that is indistinguishable from a Nazi salute.)
CPT L S | SGT (Join to see) | MSgt Lowell Skelton
First, making something *not mandatory* is not the same as eliminating it. For example: bible reading can not be made *mandatory* in school, but there has never been a prohibition on a student bringing and reading one on their own. Somehow, "freedom-loving" conservatives nearly 100% of the time miss that freedom against compulsion. The pledge is *not mandatory*, but it has never been (nor will it be) eliminated.
Second, there's a *very* strong argument, rooted in the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause and supported by court precedent, that the mandatory (or compulsive through peer pressure) recitation of *any* pledge is a violation, whether referencing religious sentiments directly or not.
Third, the courts uniformly recognize a higher bar for Establishment Clause violations in schools, specifically *because* children are susceptible to coercion and group-think in a more profound manner and are still in the process of developing mentally. It has *never* been that those words turn the pledge into a prayer; it doesn't, and few argue that it does. But, by making it mandatory to recite, even apart from the Free Exercise violation, it also violates the Establishment Clause.
Fourth, as I like to say about the insertion of "under god" in the pledge at the height of America's 1950's paranoia of the Red Scare: "Only religion could find a way to to divide the phrase 'One Nation Indivisible'..."
Fifth, I think it's hilarious that those who rush to have the pledge said everywhere forget that it was written by a Socialist. And no, I don't mean the faux scare-word usage that is common today, but an honest-to-goodness *Socialist*! (And as a fascinating side-note, the writer, Francis Bellamy, also envisioned a "salute" to go with it that is indistinguishable from a Nazi salute.)
CPT L S | SGT (Join to see) | MSgt Lowell Skelton
(1)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
Spot on, MAJ (Join to see)! Furthermore, the country was never meant to be indivisible. Each state has its own Constitution and its own culture and history, and was not simply intended to be an agency of centralized power. "These United States" expressed an alliance, which is why so many, who wish to recast history, want it to be changed forever in our minds to "THE United States".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google