Born, Preborn

[JoeyWarren]

This past Saturday, I encountered another Life Changing experience toward my Catholicity.

I underwent the “4th Degree Exemplication” for the Knights of Columbus. This event robbed me of all of my inherent Liberalness.

After the ceremony we had a Social Dinner. After the pledge of Allegience one of the keynote speakers spoke about the Knights involvement in adding “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. I did a double take and was dazed for the remainder of the dinner.

So after I arrived home I did some searching to verify this information that was presented. I as well as others were under the impression that the current state of the Pledge of Allegience has always been. Not so. So here is a brief History.

Francis Bellamy and James Upham concocted the Pledge of Allegience which was enacted by law in 1892 on Columbus Day on the 400th Anniversary.

This is what it looked like at it’s original draft:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Before it was enacted, it was changed again within the same year:

**I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to **the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Plus we orginally saluted using the Bellamy salute with arm outstretched with palm up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nce2.jpg/250px-1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg
However, during the war the outstretched arm became identified with Nazism and Fascism, and the custom was changed: today the Pledge is said from beginning to end with the right hand over the heart.

In 1923 it was changed again. There was fear that anyone could use the Pledge as their own so it was changed and enacted on Flag Day as follows:

** I pledge allegiance to -]my**/-] the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

There was still fear that it could be used by other countries so it was changed again and enacted on Flag Day of 1924:

** I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America**,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Then

The Knights of Columbus in Alabama in the mid 1940s believed that “Under God” should be inserted into the Pledge after “One Nation”. And they did so. The State of Alabama Knights of Columbus passed a resolution adding the insert. This resolution spread to other states in which 4 other states(Florida, South Dakota, New York and Michigan adopted resolutions in 1951)

The Supreme Council adopted it for the whole and started to petition the Federal Goverment by sending letters to the President, Vice President, and every Congressman and Senator.

The efforts by the Knights failed even after Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. This was just one of 17 resolutions submitted to Congress as a result of the Knights of Columbus lobbying.

Care to speculate why it failed when Catholics were pushing it?

Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill in 1954 after the President attended a sermon by a Presbyterian Minister that suggested that some reference to God should have been in the Pledge. Side note: President Eisenhower was a Presbyterian.

On Flag Day in 1954, the Pledge of Allegience was once again changed and enacted on Flag Day in 1954 as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Continued:

Later the Knights of Columbus were vindicated twice.

In a message to the Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart at the meeting of the Supreme Council in Louisville, August 17, 1954, President Eisenhower, in recognition of the initiative of the Knights of Columbus in originating and sponsoring the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, said:

“We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful.”

In August, 1954, the Illinois American Legion Convention adopted a resolution whereby regocnition was given to the Knights of Columbus as having initiated, sponsored and brought about the amendment to the pledge of Allegiance; and on October 6, 1954, the National Executive Committee of the American Legion gave its approval to that resolution.

Now the Knights have introduced a new resolution for an addition to the Pledge of Allegience:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all, born and unborn.

GODSPEED THIS RESOLUTION, BILL, AND LAW!

Good Day and God Bless.

 

[rayne100]

Continued:

Later the Knights of Columbus were vindicated twice.

In a message to the Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart at the meeting of the Supreme Council in Louisville, August 17, 1954, President Eisenhower, in recognition of the initiative of the Knights of Columbus in originating and sponsoring the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, said:

In August, 1954, the Illinois American Legion Convention adopted a resolution whereby regocnition was given to the Knights of Columbus as having initiated, sponsored and brought about the amendment to the pledge of Allegiance; and on October 6, 1954, the National Executive Committee of the American Legion gave its approval to that resolution.

Now the Knights have introduced a new resolution for an addition to the Pledge of Allegience:

GODSPEED THIS RESOLUTION, BILL, AND LAW!

Good Day and God Bless.

I am happy that you had an experience and that it lead you to research the origins of our pledge of allegience, however in regards to this next proposed bill to alter the pledge, it think it’s ****.
I mean we didn’t add " black or white, yellow or red" We did not add “over and under 18 years of age” and we did not add “man or woman”
Where does it end?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I am happy that you had an experience and that it lead you to research the origins of our pledge of allegience, however in regards to this next proposed bill to alter the pledge, it think it’s ****.
I mean we didn’t add " black or white, yellow or red" We did not add “over and under 18 years of age” and we did not add “man or woman”
Where does it end?

That is a very good question. While doing my research, there is some proposals from some Liberals(I guess) that want to insert “Equality”

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty, Equality and Justice for all.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I like it and I don’t think it’s garbage. In today’s society, where people more and more are pushing for having things as inclusive as possible–man/woman, gay/straight, white/black/polkadot–when one comes right down to it, the ones who have spent the last 40 years with no voice and a holocaust of unpredecented proportions have been the unborn. The unborn ARE men/women, gay/straight, white/black/etc. etc. just as the born are; it’s just that the born can speak out. The unborn can’t. They need us to speak for them.

 

[rayne100]

I like it and I don’t think it’s garbage. In today’s society, where people more and more are pushing for having things as inclusive as possible–man/woman, gay/straight, white/black/polkadot–when one comes right down to it, the ones who have spent the last 40 years with no voice and a holocaust of unpredecented proportions have been the unborn. The unborn ARE men/women, gay/straight, white/black/etc. etc. just as the born are; it’s just that the born can speak out. The unborn can’t. They need us to speak for them.

You are missing the point “For ALL” includes all.
There cannot be a laundry list attached to this pledge or else it becomes rediculous. it would take a half hour to list all of the individuals that are included in this statement.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You are missing the point “For ALL” includes all.
There cannot be a laundry list attached to this pledge or else it becomes rediculous. it would take a half hour to list all of the individuals that are included in this statement.

There are those that believe that the “All” only pertains to those outside the womb.

Soon every Knight meeting in the USA will be adding “Born, Pre-Born” to the end of the Pledge. The real question is whether or not the addition is a futile effort giving today’s non-christian population.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Rayne, if “for all” means all, how do you explain that abortion is legal? If ‘all’ are given unalienable (sic) rights as Jefferson expressed, where is the unborn right to life defended with constitutional proclamation of a ‘right’ to abortion?

It is hardly ‘ridiculous’ to point out that, for more than 30 years now, ‘all’ has meant ‘all born’ , not ‘all, born and unborn’–whatever your personal belief might be.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. . .

 

[rayne100]

There are those that believe that the “All” only pertains to those outside the womb.
quote]

Irrelevant argument… I’m sure there are those still in the country today who believe that all pertains only to white males. Again where do you draw the line?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Rayne, further, since when does a fundamental truth on something rest on how long it ‘takes to recite it’ or how ‘ridiculous’ it ‘appears’ to someone–anyone??

Either something is true or false–real or unreal. If what it takes to get rights for the unborn means a half hour recitation of a pledge, then morally speaking it is not just our job but our sacred duty to recite that half hour.

And remember, you’re only speculating about what you THINK might happen–what we are actually ADDRESSING is three words. It isn’t as though the pledge hadn’t had words added before (see previous posts) and it didn’t appear that there had to be ‘a half hour recitation’ added on. Despite what the 9th Circuit court in CA states, the world didn’t come to an end when “under God” was added and all the atheists were scandalized. Why are we worried about a very unlikely scenario which involves at most a ‘perception’ or a few minutes worth of time from our important lives if it even HAPPENED, as compared to the right to life for the unborn??

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With charity to all. . .

I respectfully submit that “where do we draw the line” has become (unconsciously and with good intent I’m sure) the latest way to dodge the issue.

We are not ‘drawing the line’ when we attempt to point out that the unborn have a right to life. That ‘line’ was drawn by Almighty God.

What have ‘white males’ or any other issue to do with that?

Personally, some people might feel uncomfortable with having to ‘add’ words or feel that we’re on a slippery slope to having to dot every i and cross every t and include every single possible scenario/item/possibility. Well, I understand that discomfort. Certainly bureaucracy has risked that sort of verbiage in other cases.

But again, we are not talking about whether if we add “born or unborn” to the pledge of allegiance that we would then ‘have’ to add plethoras of ‘inclusions’ just because some people don’t realize that ‘all’ means ‘born and unborn’. That’s a speculation. That is not the issue.

The issue is that for more than 30 years, this country has not given equal rights to the unborn and in fact has presided over the killing of 40 million unborn. The issue is that, no matter what you or I might think “all” equals, governmentally speaking, “all” in a legal sense has been ‘all born’ and not “all, born and unborn”.

For over 30 years we have stood by in silence and apathy because we ‘don’t want to get involved.’ “Rights are already there”. “It isn’t my issue.” “I can’t tell somebody else what to do with her body”. And now, “If we start adding in ‘born’, we’ll have to add a bunch of other classes too and that is just too much.”

With respect. . .no, it’s the very LEAST we can do, to attempt to put right a great wrong and evil that has plagued this great country for a generation and more.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

P.S. Rayne, just to clarify, I am not attacking you at all and I do understand and appreciate your comments. God bless. I hate to have people come down on me when I think that I am just making an innocent response so I got worried you might think that I was coming down on you.

God bless.

 

[rayne100]

With charity to all. . .

I respectfully submit that “where do we draw the line” has become (unconsciously and with good intent I’m sure) the latest way to dodge the issue.

We are not ‘drawing the line’ when we attempt to point out that the unborn have a right to life. That ‘line’ was drawn by Almighty God.

What have ‘white males’ or any other issue to do with that?

Personally, some people might feel uncomfortable with having to ‘add’ words or feel that we’re on a slippery slope to having to dot every i and cross every t and include every single possible scenario/item/possibility. Well, I understand that discomfort. Certainly bureaucracy has risked that sort of verbiage in other cases.

But again, we are not talking about whether if we add “born or unborn” to the pledge of allegiance that we would then ‘have’ to add plethoras of ‘inclusions’ just because some people don’t realize that ‘all’ means ‘born and unborn’. That’s a speculation. That is not the issue.

The issue is that for more than 30 years, this country has not given equal rights to the unborn and in fact has presided over the killing of 40 million unborn. The issue is that, no matter what you or I might think “all” equals, governmentally speaking, “all” in a legal sense has been ‘all born’ and not “all, born and unborn”.

For over 30 years we have stood by in silence and apathy because we ‘don’t want to get involved.’ “Rights are already there”. “It isn’t my issue.” “I can’t tell somebody else what to do with her body”. And now, “If we start adding in ‘born’, we’ll have to add a bunch of other classes too and that is just too much.”

With respect. . .no, it’s the very LEAST we can do, to attempt to put right a great wrong and evil that has plagued this great country for a generation and more.

I appreciate your comments and do not take offense to them, however in the interest of not getting myself into trouble, I will refrain from this argument further.
I leave you with one question, what will adding Born or Unborn to the pledge of allegiance accomplish, if the government does not recognise unborn as having civil rights.
I believe you hit the nail on the head that we are starting sown the slippery slope of dotting each i and crossing each t.
While I commend your willingness to do whatever it takes for what you believe in, you cannot impose your beliefs on another person. The Government is the one who decides who For all is in regards to. At the moment that is extended to all persons born, with no regard to religion, race, sex or sexual orientation.
I don’t see what the Knights of Columbus adding these words will do if the Government still defines the rights and who they are extended to.
It seems like a backend way to try and get what you want. If you want something to change bring it up against the supreme court, not in the pledge of allegiance.
I seriously doubt that we want our children reciting the pledge of allegiance for a half hour each morning, I’m sure there are other things they can be learning about that would be a better use of taxpayers money.
If you feel the need to expound upon the issue of abortion with your first grader, do so at home.
(please do not think that this is directed to you Tantum, it was meant as a general statement not an attack)
Personally, I will refrain from stating my own views on the subject as I am sure what I have already written will get me into enough hot water

 

[Valke2]

so the proposal is for the words of the pledge to exceed the laws of the land. Or I suppose you could look at is as the “preborn” already have justice, since their legal status is such that they can be terminated before they become born.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I leave you with one question, what will adding Born or Unborn to the pledge of allegiance accomplish, if the government does not recognise unborn as having civil rights

.20/20 hindsight, if we had added “Born, UnBorn” when we added “Under God” do you think we would have pictures like these?:

http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPictures/images/abortion-11-03.jpg

or this one?:

http://www.ucmpage.org/articles/abortion and cross.jpg

Yeah, leave out the “Born, Unborn”…

 

[JoeyWarren]

bump

 

[rayne100]

.20/20 hindsight, if we had added “Born, UnBorn” when we added “Under God” do you think we would have pictures like these?:

or this one?:

Yeah, leave out the “Born, Unborn”…

I appreciate the point that you were trying to make, however I find objection to the pictures that you posted and respectfully request that next time you post them as a link with a precurser stating that there is graphic material involved.
At the time I was reading this post earrlier I had a mouthfull of food and since have thrown away my diner.

I also suggest that you do so for the sake of younger children who may be reading these boards.

On a personal note, I automatically put up my defenses and stop discussing issues when pictures like these arise because my grandfather in his infinite wisdom chose to force these images down my throat when I was 10 years old!

Your tactics do not help me to continue a diologue regarding these issues, since I have no desire to view these images again, I will most likely not return to this topic.

One does not expect to encounter pictures like these when discussing the wording of the pledge of allegience.

I am seriously upset about this. I could have had young children in the house that might have inadvertantly seen these pictures.

If you have anything further to say to me, I suggest you PM me since I will most certainly not come back to this thread.
Rayne

 

[JoeyWarren]

I appreciate the point that you were trying to make, however I find objection to the pictures that you posted and respectfully request that next time you post them as a link with a precurser stating that there is graphic material involved.

Those afraid of the reality of truth find the pictures objectionable.

At the time I was reading this post earrlier I had a mouthfull of food and since have thrown away my diner.

Good. I hope the pictures were sobering.

I also suggest that you do so for the sake of younger children who may be reading these boards.

I say buffalo chips to that. Expose the child to the pictures so they may be well aware of the satanic nature of abortion.

On a personal note, I automatically put up my defenses and stop discussing issues when pictures like these arise because my grandfather in his infinite wisdom chose to force these images down my throat when I was 10 years old!

I applaud your grandfather.

Your tactics do not help me to continue a diologue regarding these issues, since I have no desire to view these images again, I will most likely not return to this topic.

Yes, go bury your head in the sand…

One does not expect to encounter pictures like these when discussing the wording of the pledge of allegience.

You are the one that wants to keep the pledge of allegience watered down. Just like those that want to keep the crucifix watered down by showing an unbloodied corpus.

I am seriously upset about this. I could have had young children in the house that might have inadvertantly seen these pictures.

II offer no apologies. I will not play a part in watering down abortion.