Have you seen this one https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/have-you-seen-this-one <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Red Skelton Pledge of Allegiance.<br /><a target="_blank" href="https://youtu.be/TZBTyTWOZCM">https://youtu.be/TZBTyTWOZCM</a> Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:51:43 -0400 Have you seen this one https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/have-you-seen-this-one <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Red Skelton Pledge of Allegiance.<br /><a target="_blank" href="https://youtu.be/TZBTyTWOZCM">https://youtu.be/TZBTyTWOZCM</a> SA Harold Hansmann Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:51:43 -0400 2015-09-17T01:51:43-04:00 Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 2:48 AM https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/have-you-seen-this-one?n=971516&urlhash=971516 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I have now. Thanks for Sharing! 1SG Private RallyPoint Member Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:48:17 -0400 2015-09-17T02:48:17-04:00 Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 8:12 AM https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/have-you-seen-this-one?n=971755&urlhash=971755 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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'..."<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />CPT L S | <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="286254" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/286254-88m-motor-transport-operator-1245th-transpo-345th-cssb">SGT Private RallyPoint Member</a> | <a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="347548" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/347548-msgt-lowell-skelton">MSgt Lowell Skelton</a> MAJ Private RallyPoint Member Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:12:54 -0400 2015-09-17T08:12:54-04:00 2015-09-17T01:51:43-04:00