P.C. Just Keeps Getting Weirder and Weirder

[tim8557]

Subject: DON'T BUY PEPSI IN THE NEW CAN!
Don't buy Pepsi in the new can. Pepsi has a new "patriotic" can
coming out with pictures of the Empire State Building , and the
Pledge of Allegiance on them.
However, Pepsi left out two little words on the pledge,
"Under God."
Pepsi said they didn't want to offend anyone.
In that case, we don't
want to offend anyone at the Pepsi corporate office, either!
So if we don't buy any Pepsi product, they will not be offended
when they don't receive our money that has the words
"In God We Trust" on it.
HOW FAST CAN YOU FORWARD THIS ONE?

 

[Chase-p]

Please check the veracity of things before posting. This is not true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/undergod.asp

 

[geoff]

Actually he has a good point.

They should really consider updating the currency; it could be offensive

 

[TimmyBoston]

Please check the veracity of things before posting. This is not true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/undergod.asp

Dang it, I bought those 16,000 cases of Coke for nothing!

 

[ouch]

And all this time I've been avoiding Pepsi simply because it stinks.

BTW- I ran this scam past my daughter. Her ten year old nose was able to sniff out a fake.

 

[TimmyBoston]

BTW- I ran this scam past my daughter. Her ten year old nose was able to sniff out a fake.

But she's an Ouch, she was groomed on sniffing out fakes.

 

[ouch]

But she's an Ouch, she was groomed on sniffing out fakes.

She obviously didn't inherit that ability from my wife, who should have been able to sniff me out from across the pacific.

 

[tim8557]

Please check the veracity of things before posting. This is not true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/undergod.asp[/QUOTE

Oooops....my mistake. I never knew about "snopes", but it's marked as a Favorite now.

 

[castlecraver]

Actually, I found that really interesting. I wasn't aware that "under God" was absent from the pledge up until 1954. Perhaps if there were internet forums back then, the topic title would read "state-supported theism just keeps getting weirder and weirder"

 

[Boogie]

Yeah, the “Under God” was put in as some kind of slap in the face to the “godless commies” during the Cold War. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

 

[analog_kid]

As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "under god" is in the pledge of allegiance, on my money, etc. This country was founded under certain values and beliefs and as a citizen of this nation I think it would be disrespectful to do otherwise. Unfortunately, not many others seem to share my opinion on this matter.

 

[rickw]

As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "under god" is in the pledge of allegiance, on my money, etc. This country was founded under certain values and beliefs and as a citizen of this nation I think it would be disrespectful to do otherwise. Unfortunately, not many others seem to share my opinion on this matter.

 

[scorpion]

I'm sure Pepsi employs just about as many Americans as coke - and they both make us equally fat. Assuming this were real, would you really not buy a soda product because they decided to honor the historical and original pledge of allegiance rather than the edited one? Isn't that at least as silly as taking out the 'under god' part? Is there one among us who honors the nation by drinking a soda?

 

[Chase-p]

Snopes makes the world a better place. Frankly, I would prefer the clause gone because it does smack of religious endorsement, but there are much more important things to fight about right now. When we get personal rights back, and a slew of other things done, then, maybe, I'll actually care about that.

 

[Boogie]

As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "under god" is in the pledge of allegiance, on my money, etc. This country was founded under certain values and beliefs and as a citizen of this nation I think it would be disrespectful to do otherwise. Unfortunately, not many others seem to share my opinion on this matter.

I agree wholeheartedly. I too am an atheist, and couldn’t give a rat’s *** about “Under God” being in the pledge, or on money, or wherever. It’s just such a non-issue with me I almost find it amusing to see others get so worked up over it.

 

[castlecraver]

I agree wholeheartedly. I too am an atheist, and couldn’t give a rat’s *** about “Under God” being in the pledge, or on money, or wherever. It’s just such a non-issue with me I almost find it amusing to see other get so worked up over it.

Although your point is very well taken -- I too don't oppose any such wording really -- the bigger issue, and the one I'm much more liable to get "worked up" over, is adding a religious context to something just for the sake of it.

We've recently had a small spat in Indiana about our license plates -- some think its so important that the state should offer special "In God We Trust" plates, at no additional cost (in contrast to the fees required if you want another of the 50-some other special interest plates), more easily available in at least some branches than the standard plate, and at a per-plate price to the state that's actually more than the standard plate. Not that I have a huge issue with any of that, but is it really that important? Should our state government be spending money on such frivolity? Is there a shortage of "Jesus fish" such that wearing your faith on your license plate is so necessary? I'd argue no.

Another great example would be the earlier issues with the placing of the Ten Commandments in courthouses. Does it deter crime? Is the historical context that meaningful that we should erect monuments to it? Once again, I say no. I could go on with the litany of wholly unnecessary promotion of religion that's permeated contemporary legislation -- school vouchers, faith-based initiatives, teaching of creationism, etc. But I think the people supporting such action are well aware of their true motivations -- further blurring the line between church and state.

It's important to note that this country was founded on the principles held by men of faith. God is invoked in the Declaration of Independence, but not the Constitution. In fact, there's that whole "establishment clause" that strict constitutionalists so often like to forget.

My point is this: I have no problem with recognizing religious freedom, or even invoking God in ways that have been observed for centuries in our country. Even "under God" in the pledge is fine with me -- although it was a late addition to the original verse, it now seems traditional and unobtrusive. So long as no child is required to recite it if he doesn't wish to. What I do have a problem with, however, is how it seems that there's always someone wishing to thrust God into everything (the Judeo-Christian God that is; imagine the uproar if a group of Muslims wished to erect a religious monument on state property!). At best, the deluge of arguments over the placement of religious messages becomes gratuitous and unnecessary, and at worst, the fact that my tax dollars now pay for religious schools and ministries is, frankly, unamerican.

 

[Boogie]

Wow, I couldn’t have written that better myself, well done.

 

[slcsteve]

From Harry Browne's column:

The California ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance can't be recited in government schools has given a much-needed lift to the conservative movement.

With George Bush devoted to increased spending on foreign aid, government schools, government health care, welfare, and every imaginable boondoggle, conservatives haven't had much to rally around.

But now they have a cause. They can trumpet their indignation, fret about the future of the country, and send out fund-raising letters galore. They have an issue.

A Google search of recent articles on the "Pledge of Allegiance" returned over 75,000 hits.

All this hysteria and alarm seems a bit strange, since tens of millions of Americans already oppose the ruling - and only one meager judge seems in favor of it.

Religious Freedom

The one thing being overlooked in all this is the reason the Founding Fathers created the 1st Amendment. They had no doubt that Americans could and would practice religion on their own, and so they were strongly opposed to agencies of government promoting religion in any way. In fact, an overwhelming number of colonists had come to America originally to escape state-sponsored religions in their home countries.

They knew that religion in government automatically meant government in religion.

Did the Founding Fathers intend for the 1st Amendment to keep religion out of the government schools?

How could they? There were no government schools - just as there was no government health care or foreign aid or corporate welfare or pork barrel projects.

They understood the tyranny that results when politicians and bureaucrats control the personal lives of citizens. And so they scrupulously limited government to a few functions they didn't believe could be handled outside of government.

In America's first century, there were only private schools - and most of them included some kind of religion without any controversy. But once the government moved into education in the mid-1800s, it was inevitable that religion in the schools would eventually become a constitutional issue.

But why should religion in some schools be a problem? Shouldn't you be able to choose between sending your children to a school that has prayer and one that scrupulously avoids it? You make similar choices in most other areas of your life.

The problem isn't education. Nor is it religion. The problem is government-run education. Wherever those with the most political power can impose their way on everyone else, you're bound to have pitched battles, acrimony, and enormous amounts of time wasted arguing over matters that each person should be allowed to decide for himself.

If the government ran the supermarkets, there would be bitter fights over whether the stores should sell kosher foods.

If government produced our computers, we probably couldn't access religious sites on the Internet. (Not to mention that your computer would be a Pentium .001 with 1K of RAM, a 78rpm phonograph record for your hard disk, and a megaphone instead of a modem.)

Anyone who thinks government should operate the supermarkets or produce computers is a candidate for a mental institution.

Why then would we want the government "educating" our children?

What the Pledge Is

Returning to the Pledge of Allegiance, it was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist, specifically to help young children become good little citizens of the Fatherland.

The idea that our children should be pledging allegiance to government smacks of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union - the very antitheses of what America was meant to be.

If you like big government, if you think people like Bill Clinton and George Bush are competent to make important decisions in your life, you might feel comfortable pledging allegiance "to the flag and to the republic [government] for which it stands."

But if you don't like politicians deciding how your children should be educated, how your doctor should treat you, or how much of your money African dictators are entitled to, maybe you should reconsider where you pledge your allegiance.

The Founding Fathers refused to pledge allegiance to a government that had "become destructive" of the "unalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." They pledged "to each other" their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor.

Shouldn't you be pledging your allegiance to yourself, your family, and your friends - to those who truly enhance your life?

And shouldn't you be pledging your allegiance to the concept of liberty - of freedom from a $2 trillion government in Washington and its look-alikes in state capitals?

That lovely lady in New York harbor with her torch held high isn't called the Statue of a Super Power, or the World's Policewoman - or the Statue of Big Government, Universal Health Care, or Compassionate Conservatism.

She's called the Statue of Liberty.

Isn't liberty - rather than a flag and its government - where your allegiance belongs?

 

[ScottS]

imagine the uproar if a group of Muslims wished to erect a religious monument on state property!).

We don't have to imagine it. There's an ongoing to-do about the addition of footbaths in restrooms at state universities to accommodate the needs of Muslim students-- and a footbath is hardly a monument.

 

[Chase-p]

Why then would we want the government "educating" our children?

Easy. What good is that liberty to the poor when they are stuck in the tyranny of ignorance? If there are only private schools, then many people cannot afford the education, or would squander the tax break on themselves rather than thinking of their child. Education is one space that the government should help to make sure all have an equal opportunity to make the best of themselves, regardless of the mistakes of the parents. Anyway... back to the thread's main emphasis...