The Poor Pledge (by Cameron)

In case you were worried about being worried about this country’s future without cause, don’t worry I say, because the USA just took a step back. Can you believe the irony here? The patriotic Pledge of Allegiance is ruled unconstitutional. How long until they move to have “In God We Trust” taken off of all the bills and coins? Why stop there? Perhaps the Constitution itself is unconstitutional because the Founding Fathers believed in God.

Ok, I’m stepping down from my soapbox now, but it makes you think. It’s impossible to make everyone happy, so do you take what the noisy minority wants (no mention of God in this case), or what the quiet majority wants? As a big fan of God, I hope he gets to stay in the USA.

Oh, and hello to everyone. This is my big debut, and while I haven’t found the funny bull, I came across one of its droppings:

A couple is driving down the highway, the man at the wheel. The woman finally blurts out, “George, I have something to tell you; I’m having an affair.” George doesn’t say anything and just keeps on driving, speeding up a little. The woman, Doris, then says, “George, I want a divorce.” George just nods and keeps on driving, again speeding up. Doris, feeling confident, continues, “I want the house and the car.” George simply replies, “Yes Dear.” Doris, confused by the lack of response, asks Geoge, “Did you hear me? I want a divorce and I want the house and car.” Again, George just nods his head and presses down harder on the gas pedal. Doris then asks, “Well, isn’t there anything you want?” George replies, with a smile, “I have everything I need.” “What’s that,” asks Doris? “The airbag,” says George, as he goes off the road and heads into a wall at 50 mph.


 (Post a comment) | Comments RSS feed
  1. That was way funny,but a little to

    Comment by Tammie on June 26, 2002 @ 8:37 pm
  2. Yes, it was a little on the extreme side, but that was intentional — to have the effect of making one think about possible outcomes, even though they sound rediculous. Who’d ever think the Pledge of Allegiance would be unconstitutional?

    Comment by Cameron on June 26, 2002 @ 11:32 pm
  3. Uh oh, watch out, Cameron’s at the wheel. This could mean trouble!

    I think it’s important to look at a couple of points about the court decision referenced here. First of all, it doesn’t declare the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. It merely states that forcing children to recite it in public schools is unconstitutional as it is essentially requiring them to swear under oath that they recognize the existence of God. This is a sticky point due to the separation of church and state.

    The second point, which I think is particularly interesting, is that the original pledge did not contain the phrase ‘under God’. It was added in 1954 by a paranoid administration to combat communism, which is atheistic in nature. In my opinion, that’s a silly reason to add such a phrase to the nation’s pledge of allegiance, and I would not be opposed to returning it to its original form, if only to get rid of the sticky issue from my first point.

    I’m all for patriotism and the principles upon which the nation was founded. I’m especially grateful for the separation of church and state, as it’s made for a much more diverse religious climate than exists in most European nations. Although the people pushing this case may be taking things a bit far, it’s just this sort of testing things through the legal system that keeps our freedoms intact.

    Comment by Levi on June 27, 2002 @ 1:03 am
  4. Good ol’ Ike signed the legislature to add the phrase, and I can see the problem for atheists. I guess what I was trying to imply was the anti-God sentiment which seems to keep growing in this country and how it seems to conflict with the Founding Fathers of the country who very much believed in God. I’ve been told there are suits under way to remove the “In God we trust” from money, and while I don’t think that was added by any of the nation’s founders, I can’t help but wonder if they see the country slipping away.

    Comment by Cameron Harr on June 27, 2002 @ 8:12 am
  5. Frankly, I think the founding fathers could find a lot more reasons to think the country is slipping away than the removal of God from currency. I’m sure some of them would be downright unhappy with how things turned out. But they designed the constitution to adapt, and adapt it has. Unfortunately, when the people rule and there are lots of stupid people, poor decisions are made.

    Comment by Levi on June 27, 2002 @ 9:42 am
  6. Chicken chicken chicken I love to eat it!!!
    Chicken chicken chicken is the best!!!
    Sing it with me now!!!
    Chicken chicken chicken I love to eat it!!!
    Chicken chicken chicken is the best!!!

    Comment by Anonymous on May 27, 2003 @ 12:20 pm
  7. bologna is better

    Comment by Anonymous on May 27, 2003 @ 12:50 pm
  8. That comment used way too many exclamation marks and I disagree, between chicken and bologna, I choose chicken.

    Comment by dan on May 27, 2003 @ 10:04 pm
  9. Anyone who thinks bologna is better than chicken is missing a few eggs from his carton. However, I’m not sure that chicken is the best; it’s got some pretty stiff competition in beef.

    Comment by Levi on May 28, 2003 @ 8:54 am
  10. Mmmm. Beef. I like beef. I had a nice big New York Strip steak last night. Oh, and bologna doesn’t cut it; no how, no way.

    Comment by Cameron on May 28, 2003 @ 8:59 am
  11. my comment is are we talking about bolona or chicken or the constitution and the pledge THE PLEDGE you dumb people this is the reason why we have all of these stupid problems in the united states cause no one takes things serious you people think and get your shyt straight.

    Comment by jd on February 10, 2004 @ 12:15 pm

Comments are closed