I have many views on this topic, and still haven't swayed to a side.
Ever since grade school we've been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. When we're younger, we haven't yet developed personality and independent free choice well enough to understand the significance of common place activities that we might do. I remember in Elementary school, the educators of my school would make a show out of reciting the Pledge, possibly to catch the attention of younger children. Having students participate in singing songs such as "I believe I can Fly," by R.Kelly. I do not ever recall feeling any importance at this activity, it was just something we've always done since entering school.
Once into Middle School, the atmosphere of reciting the Pledge had more meaning. Not a drastic change, but there was never any fooling around while reciting it. Yet, never did we really took the time to understand why we did this action. At least I didn't. Again, it was just common. Every school from my knowledge recites the Pledge for their everyday morning announcement. Why would we question an activity we've done since we were little children? But why not question it?
September 11th, 2001. I was sitting in my 6th Grade English class. We hadn't yet switched periods for something was on the news. My teacher at the time said that a plane flown into one of the World Trade Centers... that we are now leaving history. I hadn't the slightest clue what she was talking about until as the days went by, we discussed terrorism. None the less, with an uncaring mind at the time, I felt it had nothing to do with me. I never once thought about the Nation as a whole.
A few months into high school, I wasn't surprised in how many people at first recited the Pledge. Its normal after all, right? Not long after that, there was more and more talk about free will and we could decide whether or not we wanted to recite the Pledge. It didn't take long for many students to decide not to stand for the Pledge. I fully understand the rights of the people. What is and is not allowed when it comes to free will. But doesn't it feel unpatriotic of those living in the United States of America not to recite the national pledge? Yes, God is mentioned within the Pledge, but if your history courses have slipped the mind currently, isn't it correct that the Pledge was first written under a nation mainly of Baptists, Protestants, and Roman Catholics? Not to mention that Francis Bellamy, whom wrote it, was a Christian Socialist and a Baptist Minister. Of course it will mention God, for at the beginning of our nation's history, the leaders and settlers were ruled by their religion which then rules the country and had been for centuries to come.
I feel that it is none the less disrespectful not to recite the pledge for the simple mentioning of God. Couldn't you exclude that part, either by not saying it at all or possibly adding your views (God(s)) within that space? I have nothing against religions separate from my own. It just feels that more and more students have become unappreciative of the country they live in. Why "bash" the country that you live in so much? If you're so dissatisfied, why not move to another country... wouldn't that make sense?
I admit that while I was younger I didn't appreciate the significance of the Pledge. I was one of those students from time to time that wouldn't stand for my attention was drawn else where. But the more I get older and understand the hard-ships this nation has gone through just for me to live a less stressful life than I might have had, I truly become more grateful. And I would hope that as each generation that passes, maybe they would put a little more effort into providing the country with the support whether mentally, physically, or emotionally. And I feel that with that simple recitation of the Pledge, puts the small percentage of effort into the world.
But on the other hand, I wouldn't want to force that option onto people. I still feel that some of the above opinions should apply, just not the part where foreigners should have to adopt our nations customs even though it is The United States of America and not any other country. I debate back and fourth with myself whether I should believe in some of my own words, but it feels empty in a sense for there to be a country full of foreigners whom do not follow that countries customs. If Americans, I what I've witness, for to foreign countries, the majority try their hardest to adapt the country they're visting customs in order to not offend the people. Why can that not happen for foreigners that come into America as well? Then again, it would be wrong to force foreigner students to adopt the ways of Americans.
Its just hard for myself to see the disunity among the students because of religion, as well as many other factors. You'd think we would be more welcoming then we are. There are still many among us today that discriminate against both small-scale and even large-scale religion groups. I'd hope for in the coming generations that we could become more unified than we "think" we are today. Starting in the school, and the students. If the students were to learn more of historical content each year then maybe they'd understand the significance of the Pledge. Understand that a nation as a whole is stronger than a nation divided.
-Jenn
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
A RESOUNDING "NO"! Not a chance.
I consider it disrespectful to expect me to proclaim allegiance to a non-existent "god" along with my nation. "Under god" has absolutely no legitimate place in the Pledge.
I served this country in the military 21 years. That gives me more than enough right and justification to refuse to utter the Pledge until "god" is taken back out. Citing September 11th is a pathetic and evil tactic to demonize those who don't believe and refuse to acquiesce to the creeping Christian fascism threatening our country.
I understand. As I've said, I haven't really decided a side. My mother was the first to bring this observation to me. I started to notice what she was saying and recalled what happened in the past to come to what I had said. But as it stands, I myself am an Agnostic, go figure, thats why I had said replacing "god" with their own religious belief. But the more I look at it, it doesn't matter either way. From a comment before, I had no idea that the original pledge did not have "under god" within it. So, I decided now it is all up to the person and how they wish, as it should be. I never really had a strong opinion on this topic, I just felt like getting some thoughts off my mind.
Thank you. ^^
Thank you for your comments. They are very interesting. There is a lot that people do not know about the Pledge.
Pledge of Allegiance pictures http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg and Swastikas pictures http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg expose shocking secrets about American history.
Socialists in the USA originated the Nazi salute, mechanical group-chanting to flags, Nazism, flag fetishism, and the modern swastika as "S" symbolism for "Socialism." http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
Much of that history is the history of the Pledge Of Allegiance. A new documentary video movie exposes the shocking facts on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BssWWZ3XEe4
and teacher tube http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=77b16a03aa81f09499f2
Those historical facts explain the enormous size and scope of government today, and the USA's growing police state. They are reasons for massive reductions in government, taxation, spending and socialism.
The "Nazi salute" is more accurately called the "American salute" as it was created and popularized by national socialists in the USA. It was the early salute of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy. http://rexcurry.net/pledgetragedy.html Francis Bellamy was cousin and cohort of Edward Bellamy. http://rexcurry.net/pledgebackward.html Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy were self-proclaimed socialists in the Nationalism movement and they promoted military socialism.
They wanted the government to take over education and use it to spread their worship of government. When the government granted their wish, the government’s schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. The official racism and segregation was a bad example three decades before the National Socialist German Workers Party, and decades afterward.
The Pledge was mandated by law in government schools for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. http://rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-karl-marx.html
Many people do not know that the term "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party." Members of the horrid group did not call themselves Nazis. In that sense, there was no Nazi Party. They also did not call themselves Fascists. They called themselves socialists, just as their name indicates.
The historian Dr. Rex Curry showed that the early Pledge Of Allegiance did not use an ancient Roman salute, and that the 'ancient Roman salute' myth came from the Pledge Of Allegiance. The discoveries have been reviewed and verified on wikipedia http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html
Thank you. There was actually a lot I didn't know. I appreciate it.
> But doesn't it feel unpatriotic of those
> living in the United States of America
> not to recite the national pledge?
Sometimes, yes. But since the Pledge has been transformed into a recitation that no longer represents the actual ideals upon which this country was founded, and in fact rather dramatically contradicts the precept of the freedom of conscience that is the very basis for the first individual right of citizens enumerated in our Bill of Rights, I think that it is actually more patriotic to refuse enable the propogation of the unconstitutional demands that the current Pledge presumes to make of the citizens who speak it.
> Yes, God is mentioned within the Pledge,
> but if your history courses have slipped
> the mind currently, isn't it correct that the
> Pledge was first written under a nation
> mainly of Baptists, Protestants, and Roman
> Catholics? Not to mention that Francis
> Bellamy, whom wrote it, was a Christian
> Socialist and a Baptist Minister. Of course
> it will mention God,
There's just one little problem with your argument, which is of course that Francis Bellamy did not include the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge that he wrote. The original Pledge actually written by Mr. Bellamy read as follows...
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
Mr. Bellamy did not intend the Pledge of Allegiance to be a religious exhortation. He did however intend for it to be a unifying recitation that would appeal to all of our citizens. Mr. Bellamy wrote about his process of thought while composing the Pledge. In his own words...
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
The phrase "Under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954...sixty-two years after Mr. Bellamy's original Pledge was published. The Bellamy Family stringently opposed this change, and stated openly that they did not feel that that he would have approved of the addition.
> for at the beginning of our nation's history,
> the leaders and settlers were ruled by their
> religion which then rules the country and
> had been for centuries to come.
This is rather dramatically inconsitent with the acutal founding history of our country. In the words of my favorite founding father...
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. ~ from the autobiography of Thomas Jefferson
Most of the founding fathers were at least nominally christian, though the bulk of the most prominent men in that assemblage (Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Adams, and others) were more prone to deism than christianity. In fact, our founding fathers were quite specific in their understanding that citizenship in this nation had absolutely nothing to do with the religion of the citizen, and even went so far as to specifically forbid religious establishments as one of the most vital assurances of personal freedom to be found in our Constitution. The current Pledge represents a blatant abrogation of the citizens' enumerated immunity from State-sponsored religion.
> I feel that it is none the less disrespectful not
> to recite the pledge for the simple mentioning
> of God. Couldn't you exclude that part, either
> by not saying it at all or possibly adding your
> views (God(s)) within that space? I have
> nothing against religions separate from my own.
We could, but that would rather effectively defeat the whole point of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Pledge is not a spontaneous recitation of patriotism invented on the spot by Americans who wish to show support for our Nation. It is an official oath of allegiance that has been established by statute. For our government, which is supposed to remain completely neurtal in regards to religious opinion to include a statement that requires citizens to pledge their submission to a particular religion's deity is constitutionally unacceptable.
percivale
-------------------------
"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Thank you! That sure clears up a few things for me! I had no idea that the original pledge didn't have "under god" in it. I suppose I should do a little more research before I babble on, no?
Thank you again. The history recap was nice. ^^
Thanks for the comments. There is more to the other comments about "under God" in the Pledge.
The first website to publish Francis Bellamy's "Address for Columbus Day" (1892) entitled "The Meaning of the Four Centuries" which accompanied the first publication of his Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in the "Youth's Companion" magazine was RexCurry.net at http://rexcurry.net/pledgespeech.html
It also led to the historic discovery by Dr. Rex Curry that the phrase "under God," though not in the original Pledge, was in the original Pledge program and used by Bellamy in this accompanying article promoting his totalitarian society of "Christian socialism." http://rexcurry.net/francis%20bellamy.jpg
All of the above occurred during a time when (and this was known by Bellamy) government schools imposed particular forms of daily group-prayer and Bible-reading along with mechanical chanting to the flag. Francis Bellamy is not known to have ever objected to such practices. An objection would not have been in consistent with his personal beliefs, and hi general attitude about government schools and indoctrination.
http://rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-the-religion-of-solidarity.html
At that time, government schools also imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. Francis Bellamy is not known to have objected to those practices either. http://rexcurry.net/pledge-jesus-the-socialist.html
I would suggest caution in using the website of "Dr." Rex Curry. For one, his credentials as the historian he claims to be seem mystiously lacking. "Dr." Curry has something of a terrible reputation for self-promotion and disreputable scholarship that has led him to be banned from some sources (like Wikepedia, for example).
I also think that it is interesting that "Dr." Curry makes the following statement in regards to his claims concerning the presence of "under God" in the material surrounding the Pledge in the original Youth's Companion Magazine...
The first publication of the Pledge of Allegiance preceded the article below in "The Youth's Companion" of September 8, 1892, evidently written by Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, most people might not even notice the bolded (by me) qualifier that "Dr." Curry uses. But, the reason for it is the fact that we really don't know for sure who wrote "The Meaning of the Four Centuries" (which is the article to which Curry is referring). The reason why we don't know for sure is that The Youth's Companion magazine published its articles anonymously, and the author of this article has never actually been (to my knowledge at least, and I spend several hours this evening trying to verify these claims) confirmed.
Its really not very likely that Bellamy wrote this article. I think that it is more likely that it was written by James Bailey Upham or one of his editorial staff. For one, we know that it conflicts with some of Bellamy's reported personal veiws about education.
Sally Wright, Bellamy's great-granddaughter, wrote a letter to The New York Times last year saying her ancestor was a strict believer in the separation of church and state, that he even opposed parochial schools on the grounds that the state should educate its children.
"As a regular churchgoer who has voted both Democratic and Republican, I believe that my great-grandfather got it right," she added. "A Pledge of Allegiance that does not include God invites the participation of more Americans."
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that Francis Bellamy did write the article in question, which contains the following passage...
We, therefore, on this anniversary of America present the Public School as the noblest expression of the principle of enlightenment which Columbus grasped by faith. We uplift the system of free and universal education as the master-force which, under God has been informing each of our generations with the peculiar truths of Americanism. America, therefore, gathers her sons around the schoolhouse to-day as the institution closest to the people, most characteristic of the people and fullest of hope for the people.
Note that this passage is specifically discussing public schools, and does't really support the notion that he intended the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag to be a religious exhortion. In fact, Bellamy was known to be extremely defensive about any suggested change in the poetry and meaning of his original words...
"There's a little irony in the fact that his profession was a Baptist minister," says Francis Bellamy's great-grandson, 50-year-old Scott Bellamy, who runs a restaurant outside Memphis, Tenn. "You'd think immediately he would not have had bad feelings about having `under God' in the pledge. But he was not even happy about them adding `to the United States of America.' "
John Bellamy, Francis' grandson, now 82 and living in northern California, says his grandfather's words were chosen with extraordinary care. The elder Bellamy once wrote him a letter outlining the pledge's creative process.
"He thought (the changes) spoiled the poetry of it," John Bellamy said. "He was a pretty stern guy. Everybody has some sense of humor, but I don't think he had much."
Based on Mr. Bellamy's own explanation of his train of thought when he wrote the pledge, which would seem to completely contradict the suggestions of "Dr." Curry, I think that this man is a source that can be easily discounted.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Use caution re: Percivale
Use caution re Percivale. He is not a "Dr." and his website reveals no knowledge that he has about the topic being discussed. His website is about a roleplaying game in which he dresses in costumes. Percivale lists himself as a "formerly an ordained wiccan priest" along with other bizarre comments of his own. Unlike, Dr. Curry, Percivale has no credentials as a historian. Yet, any actual dispute he has about Dr. Rex Curry's work is mysteriously lacking. Percivale has something of a terrible reputation for self-promotion and disreputable scholarship in that he does not actually dispute any of Dr. Rex Curry's work. Percivale just uses insults and evasion. Percivale shows his disreputable scholarship when he names as a source an anonymous bulletin board (wikipedia) where people deliberately delete the truth and where they post, repost and maintain lies and myths that they like. Percivale also lies about wikipedia in that Dr. Curry's work is some of the most referenced historical work on wikipedia (people often use it without attribution in apparent attempts to boost their own credibility).
I also think that it is interesting that ex-wiccan priest Percivale concedes that Dr. Curry is correct to have used the term "evidently" in the statement that "The first publication of the Pledge of Allegiance preceded the article below in "The Youth's Companion" of September 8, 1892, evidently written by Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance."
Percivale embarrasses himself by saying "Its really not very likely that Bellamy wrote this article. I think that it is more likely that it was written by James Bailey Upham or one of his editorial staff." Percivale does not realize that is a similar same argument was made about the Pledge itself (the argument that James Upham wrote the Pledge). Percivale does not realize that Bellamy was "one of his editorial staff" and specifically assigned to handle the Pledge and the program. Bellamy openly declared that he was in charge of the Pledge program and wrote the material. Bellamy is the only one listed at the end of the Youth's Companion article, and listed as "Chairman, Executive Committee" of the Superintendants of Education in charge of the project.
Aside from that, Upham and Bellamy worked together, like each other, and shared the same beliefs.
Percivale is incorrect in stating that "we know that it conflicts with some of Bellamy's reported personal veiws about education."
The best that Percivale can do is cite hearsay from Sally Wright, Bellamy's great-granddaughter,who did not even actually know Francis Bellamy, the person she is wrote about. Wright is simply repeating a myth. Bellamy was chased from the pulpit for sermons on the topic "Jesus the Socialist." Percivale accidentally concedes that Dr. Curry's work is correct when Percivale writes "He even opposed parochial schools on the grounds that the state should educate its children." Bellamy opposed parochial schools for the same reason Bellamy opposed ALL NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, on the grounds that the state should educate all children. Bellamy was a totalitarian socialist and wanted the government to take over education and end all other alternatives.
Bellamy was a regular churchgoer. And he voted both Democratic and Republican because he was a socialist and would vote for whoever he thought promoted socialism the most. It is clear that Wright is expressing her own opinion when she says " I believe that my great-grandfather got it right," she added. "A Pledge of Allegiance that does not include God invites the participation of more Americans."
Today, the entire Pledge program could not be performed in a government school because of its religiousness. The only thing left in litigation are the two word in the Pledge itself, added in 1954 when it was becoming clear that the entire pledge program could no longer be performed, and while the other habits of Bellamy's time, daily praying and bible reading in government schools, were no longer able to be performed (or near so).
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that Francis Bellamy did write the article in question, which contains the following passage...
Percivale also references Dr. Curry's discovery that the phrase "under God" though not in the original Pledge, was in the original Pledge Program, along with various other religious references.
Again, all Percivale can do is cite hearsay from people who did not actually know the man, such as Bellamy's great-grandson. And that quote supports Dr. Curry's work: "There's a little irony in the fact that his profession was a Baptist minister," says Francis Bellamy's great-grandson, 50-year-old Scott Bellamy, who runs a restaurant outside Memphis, Tenn. "You'd think immediately he would not have had bad feelings about having `under God' in the pledge. But he was not even happy about them adding `to the United States of America.' "
Percivale is conceding exactly what Dr. Curry has said on the site that archives Dr. Curry's work. The Pledge program was replete with religious references, including "under God." Francis was long dead in 1954 when "under God" was added to the Pledge part. The only thing that irritated Bellamy that he did not like it when other people changed his Pledge.
Again, Percivale can only quote hearsay from elderly relatives talking about things written by an elderly Francis Bellamy, late in his life, and yet that information supports Dr. Curry's work.
"He thought (the changes) spoiled the poetry of it," John Bellamy said. Yes, it spoiled the poetry of it, the beat. That is correct. It did. That concedes that Dr. Curry's work is correct.
Based on Mr. Bellamy's own explanation of his train of thought when he wrote the pledge, which would seem to completely support the suggestions of Dr. Curry, it is clear that Percivale is a source that can be easily discounted.
That was an excellent hatchet job, there. It is unfortunately, non-responsive to any of the criticisms that I actually offered in my previous comment. For example, I am not a doctor, but unlike "Dr." Curry, I do not claim to be. I do not pretend to have credentials that I obviously lack. I do not call dishonestly refer to myself myself a noted historian on hundreds of websites despite the lack of any such actual recognition in the field of Historical Study, again quite unlike "Dr." Curry. Whenever I do attempt to make a "historical" statement, I am sure to accurately reference the material in question. "Dr." Curry obviously does not do this, and draws wild conclusions based on sources that cannot (conveniently) be definitively verified. I on the other hand turn to the normal sorts of sources that most credible historians use...primary sources when available, and secondary sources when not.
And criticizing my comments because I enjoy LARPing as a hobby? Please, that's a pretty sad ad hominem. At least give us something good if you're going to attempt personal attacks. Honestly, your interpretation of my post is possible the most disingenuous spin on a comment that I have ever witnessed. One rarely sees such a pure attempt at using personal attacks as a means of distracting from the lack of intellectual depth behind the attacker's position.
I also have to note that your comments oddly follow the exact same form as those I have observed on other websites that in fact originate from "Dr." Curry's own hand, and I suspect that we have the good "doctor" here with us now, or one of his close followers.
In any case, I think it is prudent to point out that while many "under-godders" seem to enjoy pointing out that Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister, they very consitently fail to point out that this was a position that Mr. Bellamy abandoned, having left the church entirely later in his life because of the racism that he felt pervaded the christian sects of his day. In fact, he spent the later years of his life completely estranged from any sort of religious worship.
Here, I'll make this simple for you. Can you provide us a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, the hundreds of websites and web postings make by "Dr." Curry himself promoting his own work and pointing back to his own website) that would verify "Dr." Curry's interpretations of the Pledge and its History? Can you also please provide us with a list of "Dr." Curry's PhD's, along with a list of the institutions from which he obtained them?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Percivale concedes that was an excellent hatchet job against Percivale after Percivale of course started with the insults and attacks. It was also, fortunately, completely responsive to every weak comment that Percivale actually attempted. For example, Percivale concedes that he is not a doctor. Dr. Curry is a doctor. Percivale does not dispute that. Percivale concedes that he has no credentials. Dr. Curry does. Percivale concedes that he is not a a historian and does not have any knowledge concerning the history of this topic especially. Dr. Curry is and does. Unlike Dr. Curry, whenever percivale attempts to make a "historical" statement, Percivale is sure to inaccurately reference the material in question. Dr. Curry on the other hand turns to the normal sorts of sources that most credible historians use...primary sources when available, and secondary sources when not.
Percivale uses pretty sad ad hominem and then is upset when reciprocation occurs. At least give us something good if you're going to attempt personal attacks Percivale. Honestly, your interpretation of my post is possible the most disingenuous spin on a comment that I have ever witnessed. One rarely sees such a pure attempt at using personal attacks as a means of distracting from the lack of intellectual depth behind the attacker's position. And you make it so easy to mock you. Your pointless comments actually do acquire a point (and humor) when they are repeated back to you to mock you. Percivale has no relevant website, no fan mail page (as Dr. Curry does) and no close followers. It is no wonder.
Percivale continues to misrepresent. Contrary to Percivales wish, it is relevant to the topic that Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister. All Percivale can do is state that was a position that Mr. Bellamy abandoned, when the reality is that he was pushed from the pulpit by others for sermons on topics like "Jesus the Socialist" and Bellamy pursued the same dogma, just no longer as a baptist minister where he had been rejected. Bellamys original Pledge program is replete with religious references. That all shows the remarkable depth of Percivales attempts to mislead. Percivale says "having left the church entirely later in his life because of the racism that he felt pervaded the christian sects of his day. In fact, he spent the later years of his life completely estranged from any sort of religious worship." Of course he provides no support because there is none. Bellamy left one particular church and the story goes that it was because of racism (not because he rejected religion). On top of it all, that was late in his life (long after his Pledge mess), a life in which Bellamy's desire to have government take over all schools had resulted in government schools that imposed segregation by law and that taught racism as official policy. It is interesting to note that the late-in-life church story contains no remark about that practice in Bellamy's government schools. Of course, it is hoped that Bellamy would have felt remorse for what he had wrought via government school socialism.
Here, this will make it simple for Percivale. Can you provide us a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, your own ramblings) that disputes the many photographs of the early Pledge of Allegiance on the website that archives the work of Dr. Rex Curry? You don't dispute the actual photographs do you? Can you provide us a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, your own ramblings) that disputes the points stated in the previous post about the original Pledge program article, or can you even show us that article if you claim that it states something else? Can you also please provide us with a list of your PhD's, along with a list of the institutions from which you obtained them, or (as on the site that archives Dr. Curry's work) a fan mail page and another page filled with references to media (about your claims)? There is no need to respond because those are all rhetorical question to which everyone knows your answer: NO.
...is a stream of personal attacks interspersed with disingenous evasions of the facts.
If "Dr." Curry is a doctor, please provide his credentials for review. This is a perfectly reasonable request, and your evasion on this accout says a great deal about your position. I have not claimed to be a doctor, so your request for my PhD's are obviously just an attempt to deflect the fact that "Dr." Curry is making dishonest claims about his credentials in order to give himeself a false veneer of credibility where none actually exists.
Also, please refrain from claiming concessions where none have been offered. Your attempts in this regard are indicated of a high degree of personal and intellectual dishonesty.
Also, I have to note that the pictures that you reference on your website do not actually relate in any direct manner to the speculative relationship of the words "under God" in the article that you cannot even confirm was written by Mr. Bellamy in the first place. It is further interesting to note that no credible historian would electronically alter photographs, and then offer them as "evidence" of anything, and that is exactlty what "Dr." Curry has done, by superimposing a great deal of his own text and opinion over the images in those pictures. Even the article your website presumes to attribute to Mr. Bellamy states very clearly that the intent of purpose is one transitioning education away from the faith-based guardianship of our ancestors and towards a government which very specifically instructs that religious estabishments are forbidden.
The simple fact is that Mr. Bellamy did not include "under God" in his original pledge, and it is extraordinalry disingenous to claim that he intended that sentiment to be included, when his credibly recorded positions denote him clearly as a suporter of the separation of church and state.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Percivale only posts a stream of personal attacks interspersed with disingenous evasions of the facts.
P cannot provide a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, your own ramblings) that disputes the many photographs of the early Pledge of Allegiance on the website that archives the work of Dr. Rex Curry. P does not dispute the actual photographs. P cannot provide a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, your own ramblings) that disputes the points stated in the previous post about the original Pledge program article, nor can P even show the article if P claims that it states something else.
P cannot provide a list of his PhD's, along with a list of the institutions from which P obtained them, or (as on the site that archives Dr. Curry's work) a fan mail page and another page filled with references to media (about your claims)?
P shows again that he is incapable of the slightest competent research in that he must constantly whine to other to provide research about the many qualifications of Dr. Rex Curry, which P really doesnt' dispute, P just uses it in the hopes of evasion. P fools no one but himself.
The simple fact is that Mr. Bellamy did include "under God" in his original pledge program, and it is extraordinalry disingenous for P to claim that he did not intend that sentiment to be included, when his credibly recorded positions denote him clearly as a religious wacko and a suporter of religion and of religion in government schools.
Percivale concedes that was an excellent refutation of Percivale after Percivale of course started with the insults and attacks. It was also, fortunately, completely responsive to every weak comment that Percivale actually attempted. For example, Percivale concedes that he is not a doctor. Dr. Curry is a doctor. Percivale does not dispute that. Percivale concedes that he has no credentials. Dr. Curry does. Percivale concedes that he is not a a historian and does not have any knowledge concerning the history of this topic especially. Dr. Curry is and does. Unlike Dr. Curry, whenever percivale attempts to make a "historical" statement, Percivale is sure to inaccurately reference the material in question. Dr. Curry on the other hand turns to the normal sorts of sources that most credible historians use...primary sources when available, and secondary sources when not.
Percivale uses pretty sad ad hominem and then is upset when reciprocation occurs. At least give us something good if you're going to attempt personal attacks Percivale. Honestly, your interpretation of my post is possible the most disingenuous spin on a comment that I have ever witnessed. One rarely sees such a pure attempt at using personal attacks as a means of distracting from the lack of intellectual depth behind the attacker's position. And you make it so easy to mock you. Your pointless comments actually do acquire a point (and humor) when they are repeated back to you to mock you. Percivale has no relevant website, no fan mail page (as Dr. Curry does) and no close followers. It is no wonder.
Percivale continues to misrepresent. Contrary to Percivales wish, it is relevant to the topic that Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister. All Percivale can do is state that was a position that Mr. Bellamy abandoned, when the reality is that he was pushed from the pulpit by others for sermons on topics like "Jesus the Socialist" and Bellamy pursued the same dogma, just no longer as a baptist minister where he had been rejected. Bellamys original Pledge program is replete with religious references. That all shows the remarkable depth of Percivales attempts to mislead. Percivale says "having left the church entirely later in his life because of the racism that he felt pervaded the christian sects of his day. In fact, he spent the later years of his life completely estranged from any sort of religious worship." Of course P provides no support because there is none. Bellamy left one particular church and the "story" goes that it was because of racism (not because he rejected religion). On top of it all, that was late in his life (long after his Pledge mess), a life in which Bellamy's desire to have government take over all schools had resulted in government schools that imposed segregation by law and that taught racism as official policy. It is interesting to note that the late-in-life church story contains no remark about that practice in Bellamy's government schools. Of course, it is hoped that Bellamy would have felt remorse for what he had wrought via government school socialism.
...it's like you just feed your opponent's comments into some sort of machine that lifts quotes and tries to spin them into the mirror image of whatever was actually said to you. I must say, you are one of the most dishonest posters I have ever encountered here, and your credibility is at this point virtually non-existent.
These attacks accomplish nothing for you since it is I think quite obvious to everyone that you are completely avoiding the the challenges that have been posed to you.
I will once again point out that your insistence that I find a website that actively disproves the photographs to which you link is a rather obvious aberration from the normal burden of scholarly proof in discussions of this manner. It is not your opponents' responsibility to prove that your claims are false. It is however your responsibility to provide evidence that they are in fact accurate and linked in a reasonable fashion to the subject at hand. That you have not done.
As for the credentials of "Dr." Curry (or should we say, you), it is quite reasonable to expect those who present themselves as an expert in a field to be provide their credentials for review before attempting to speak with authority. That you are unwilling to do this merely deepens the void of credibility with which you surround yourself.
As for "Dr." Curry's "research," it isn't really "research" when the only source that you cite is yourself. All credible scholars present their work for open review by their peers. I was unable to find any such publication by "Dr." Curry, and I doubt very seriously that you could provide one.
I'm not really "upset" at the ad hominems. They can be quite entertaining, especially when they are as colorful and transparently desperate as yours. It is undoubtedly your hope that your pointless thrusts will somehow anger or unhinge me, but I have found that when confronted with those with your particular electronic penchants, there are far more effective (and entertaining) ways to respond.
I find it interesting that you seem to think that you have some sort of "special" inside view of Mr. Bellamy's life, even though your opinions contradict rather significantly with Mr. Bellamy's own writings and even the reports of his closest remaining family members. Without some sort of objective form of comparison, your wildly divergent interpretations simply do not carry the same weight.
And yes, I am suggesting that Mr. Bellamy did not write the entire Pledge program, based primarily on the previously cited incident in which the then editor of the Youth's Companion said. No matter how loudly you make your claim that Bellamy was the author of the article which you so blatantly misinterpret in any case, the simple fact is that the article is not signed by him, nor did he ever claim to have been its author. If you are aware of such a claim, published in a credible historical journal or similar source, please provide it. I will be happy to revise my opinion IF you can actually provide some sort of credible support for you positions.
Once again, I will ask you do provide us with independent evidence that supports your radical, conspiracy-laden ideas. I will also ask you again to provide us with "Dr." Curry's credentials--his PhD's and the institutions from which they were earned. If your source (you) is actually a doctor, it should be neither difficult nor unexpected for you to be asked to provide them.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Is Percivale know so dishonest that he wants to assert that Francis Bellamy did not write the Pledge, and had nothing to do with the Pledge? Or does P assert that Francis Bellamy wrote ONLY the Pledge in the original program and had NOTHING to do with anything else about the program. Does P wish to even dispute what Bellamy himself said about the original program and pledge? Is P now going to reargue whether James Upham wrote the pledge, and not Bellamy? If not why not? P makes no sense at all.
...have progressed from mere dis ingenuity into outright lying. I have a no point suggested that Mr. Bellamy did not write the Pledge, and you are really being rather childishly naive if you think that the members of this site would be deceived by such blatant dishonesty.
It is further dishonest for you to continue to attribute writings to Mr. Bellamy without legitimate proof. I have provided a well-sourced, specific explanation from Mr. Bellamy about what he intended when he wrote the Pledge. Here, I will provide it for you again...
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
You have responded with an inaccurately sourced document that was neither signed to even claimed by Mr. Bellamy himself, and which doesn't even remotely express the interpretation that you have imagined in any case. At first, I thought you might be having difficulty with the actual language in the document, but I have since come to realize that you are simply obsessed with this issue, and willing to grasp at any bizarre interpretation that can be spun in order to support your pre-conceived and essentially baseless point of view.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Is Percivale now so dishonest that he wants to assert that Francis Bellamy wrote ONLY the Pledge in the original program and had NOTHING to do with anything else about the program? Does P wish to even dispute what Bellamy himself said about the original program? Is P now going to assert that James Upham had nothing to do with the Pledge but that Upham had everything to do with the rest of the pledge program? That in 1892 the Christian socialist Bellamy only embraced the Pledge and renounced everything else about the Pledge program? If not why not? P makes no sense at all.
Percivale only posts a stream of personal attacks interspersed with disingenous evasions of the facts.
P cannot provide a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, your own ramblings) that disputes the many photographs of the early Pledge of Allegiance on the website that archives the work of Dr. Rex Curry. P does not dispute the actual photographs. P cannot provide a link to any independantly credible historical source (which does not include, obvously, your own ramblings) that disputes the points stated in the previous post about the original Pledge program article, nor can P even show the article if P claims that it states something else.
P cannot provide a list of his PhD's, along with a list of the institutions from which P obtained them, or (as on the site that archives Dr. Curry's work) a fan mail page and another page filled with references to media (about your claims)?
P shows again that he is incapable of the slightest competent research in that he must constantly whine to other to provide research about the many qualifications of Dr. Rex Curry, which P really doesnt' dispute, P just uses it in the hopes of evasion. P fools no one but himself.
The simple fact is that Mr. Bellamy did include "under God" in his original pledge program, and it is extraordinalry disingenous for P to claim that he did not intend that sentiment to be included, when his credibly recorded positions denote him clearly as a religious wacko and a suporter of religion and of religion in government schools.
Percivale concedes that was an excellent refutation of Percivale after Percivale of course started with the insults and attacks. It was also, fortunately, completely responsive to every weak comment that Percivale actually attempted. For example, Percivale concedes that he is not a doctor. Dr. Curry is a doctor. Percivale does not dispute that. Percivale concedes that he has no credentials. Dr. Curry does. Percivale concedes that he is not a a historian and does not have any knowledge concerning the history of this topic especially. Dr. Curry is and does. Unlike Dr. Curry, whenever percivale attempts to make a "historical" statement, Percivale is sure to inaccurately reference the material in question. Dr. Curry on the other hand turns to the normal sorts of sources that most credible historians use...primary sources when available, and secondary sources when not.
Percivale uses pretty sad ad hominem and then is upset when reciprocation occurs. At least give us something good if you're going to attempt personal attacks Percivale. Honestly, your interpretation of my post is possible the most disingenuous spin on a comment that I have ever witnessed. One rarely sees such a pure attempt at using personal attacks as a means of distracting from the lack of intellectual depth behind the attacker's position. And you make it so easy to mock you. Your pointless comments actually do acquire a point (and humor) when they are repeated back to you to mock you. Percivale has no relevant website, no fan mail page (as Dr. Curry does) and no close followers. It is no wonder.
Percivale continues to misrepresent. Contrary to Percivales wish, it is relevant to the topic that Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister. All Percivale can do is state that was a position that Mr. Bellamy abandoned, when the reality is that he was pushed from the pulpit by others for sermons on topics like "Jesus the Socialist" and Bellamy pursued the same dogma, just no longer as a baptist minister where he had been rejected. Bellamys original Pledge program is replete with religious references. That all shows the remarkable depth of Percivales attempts to mislead. Percivale says "having left the church entirely later in his life because of the racism that he felt pervaded the christian sects of his day. In fact, he spent the later years of his life completely estranged from any sort of religious worship." Of course P provides no support because there is none. Bellamy left one particular church and the "story" goes that it was because of racism (not because he rejected religion). On top of it all, that was late in his life (long after his Pledge mess), a life in which Bellamy's desire to have government take over all schools had resulted in government schools that imposed segregation by law and that taught racism as official policy. It is interesting to note that the late-in-life church story contains no remark about that practice in Bellamy's government schools. Of course, it is hoped that Bellamy would have felt remorse for what he had wrought via government school socialism.
Dude...you seem to be completely unable to respond to the comments that are actually offered to you. Your attempts to re-write my comments so that they are easier for you to rebut is frankly, laughable.
Let me try once again to make this even more simple for you.
Your source lacks credibility. Can you or can you not provide this supposed "doctor's" credentials, or are you simply a conspiracy nut that will glom onto any incredible supposition on the internet, simply because it happens to align with your pre-conceived notions.
Mr. Bellamy wrote the pledge. This is well-documented, and Mr. Bellamy himself has left a very plain account of that fact. Oddly enough, however, he did not also claim to have written the piece that you erroneously (or at least irresponsibly) continue to attribute to him, and which is not attributed to him by any known, credible source. Your claims are wildly unsupported, and your continuing childishness is noting more that a feeble ploy to avoid the gaping chasms in the credibility of your make-believe history.
Your claims are not supported by primary documentation, and there is no credible historical journal or similar publication that could substitute and serve as adequate secondary documentation of the interpretation you present. And, since we know that A) the position you suggest is directly opposed to the position that Mr. Bellamy adopted elsewhere in varioius writings that we can accurately attribute to him, I find it highly unlikely that the source that you offer is relevant. Even if I did concede the connection, it would stil not really help your case, however, since the plain language in the passage in question does not even remotely imply what you suggest, and it fact is constructed to suggest exactly the opposite, which is to transition a service away from the faith-based community (i.e. "under god") and into the secular arms of the State.
Your further comments in regards to socialism are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. You have hijacked this thread in an attempt to pimp your own website (which is, I believe, a possible violation of the ToS for the website), and your dogged insistence of its validity is apparent only to you, I assure you. If you wish to continue with these pointless and credibly one-sided exchanges, I shall be happy to entertain you ad infinitum. Sometimes to only way to deal with stubborn ignorance such as your own it to meet it with equally stubborn information.
percivale
P.S. Conspiracy theorists sure are fun!
P.P.S. Oh, and please use the reply button.
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Percivale again concedes that Francis Bellamy was a leader in the Society of Christian Socialists. P you are only fooling yourself with your evasions and no one else. P you have no credibility. P shows his complete incompetence at basic research and P is praying that no one google the terms: society of christian socialists and francis bellamy. For it will be more humiliation for P and more support of Dr. Rex Curry's work.
Ex-wiccan priest Percivale concedes that Dr. Curry is correct about what is stated in the first publication of the Pledge of Allegiance program in "The Youth's Companion" of September 8, 1892. Percivale embarrassed himself by saying "it is likely that it was written by James Bailey Upham or one of his editorial staff." Percivale does not realize that is a similar argument made about the Pledge itself (the argument that James Upham wrote the Pledge). Percivale does not realize that Bellamy was "one of his editorial staff" and specifically assigned to handle the Pledge and the program. Bellamy openly declared that he was in charge of the Pledge program and wrote the material. Bellamy is the only one listed at the end of the Youth's Companion article, and listed as "Chairman, Executive Committee" of the Superintendants of Education in charge of the project. It was a long-term project that included meeting with the president of the USA at that time and prepping for the Chicago World's fair..
Aside from that, Upham and Bellamy worked together, liked each other, and shared the same beliefs. P does not dispute any of that.
Bellamy was chased from the pulpit for sermons on the topic "Jesus the Socialist." Percivale accidentally concedes that Dr. Curry's work is correct when Percivale writes "He even opposed parochial schools on the grounds that the state should educate its children." Bellamy opposed parochial schools for the same reason Bellamy opposed ALL NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, on the grounds that the state should educate all children. Bellamy was a totalitarian socialist and wanted the government to take over education and end all other alternatives.
Bellamy was a regular churchgoer. And he voted both Democratic and Republican because he was a Christian Socialist and would vote for whoever he thought promoted socialism the most.
Today, the entire Pledge program could not be performed in a government school because of its religiousness. The only thing left in litigation are the two word in the Pledge itself, added in 1954 when it was becoming clear that the entire pledge program could no longer be performed, and while the other habits of Bellamy's time, daily praying and bible reading in government schools, were no longer able to be performed (or near so).
Percivale also references Dr. Curry's discovery that the phrase "under God" though not in the original Pledge, was in the original Pledge Program, along with various other religious references and rituals.
That your comments are essentially without any credible basis. The man whom you cite (yourself) apparently does not have the credentials to back up the title of "Dr." This alone is sufficient to bring any further claims into question, especially when those claims are as unsupportable as the ones that you make. You also continue to dishonestly attribute statements and positions to me that I have not in fact made. This is also a dishonest tactic, though it is one that we have grown accustomed to in your posts.
The simple fact is that your claims cannot be supported by any established historical fact. Mr. Bellamy's belief in christian socialism does not carry with it an automatic agreement with the idea that church and state should be combined, and in fact we know from sources far more credible than the ones that you invent that such a position was directly contrary to Mr. Bellamy's stated beliefs.
You are also assuming that I am unaware of the history of Mr. Bellamy, Mr. Upham and the Youth's Companion Magazine, but I am not. Mr. Upham did in fact claim to have contributed to the Pledge, which Mr. Bellamy denied. Mr. Bellamy did not however contest the claim that he was not the author of the speech that you inaccurate attribute to him, which seems to be rather odd since both charges were made at the same time.
Let us review for a moment, the statementsThe true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the “republic for which it stands.”... And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all. — Francis Bellamy, giving his reasons for writing the Pledge in the first place, quoted from Dr. John Baer, “The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History (1992)
“In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools’ quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute his ‘Pledge of Allegiance.’” — Dr John Baer, in his essay, “The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History” (1992), see also Baer, “The Strange Origin of the Pledge of Allegiance,” from Propaganda Review (Summer, 1989)
“Bellamy’s granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change ... In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.” — Dr John Baer, in his essay, “The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History” (1992)
There’s a little irony in the fact that his [Francis Bellamy’s] profession was a Baptist minister. You’d think immediately he would not have had bad feelings about having “under God” in the Pledge. But he was not even happy about them adding “to the United States of America.” — Scott Bellamy, explaining what he knew of the author’s intentions for the Pledge of Allegiance, quoted in Kate Santich, “Writer was protective of his ‘poetic’ Pledge” (The Orlando [Florida] Sentinel: October 25, 2003)
As a regular churchgoer who has voted both Democratic and Republican, I believe that my great-grandfather [Francis Bellamy] got it right. A Pledge of Allegiance that does not include God invites the participation of more Americans. — Sally Wright, explaining in a 2002 letter to The New York Times what she knew of the author’s intentions for the Pledge of Allegiance, quoted in Kate Santich, “Writer was protective of his ‘poetic’ Pledge” (The Orlando [Florida] Sentinel: October 25, 2003)
He [Frances Bellamy] thought [the changes] spoiled the poetry of it. He was a pretty stern guy. Everybody has some sense of humor, but I don’t think he had much. — John Bellamy, explaining what he knew of the author’s intentions for the Pledge of Allegiance, quoted in Kate Santich, “Writer was protective of his ‘poetic’ Pledge” (The Orlando [Florida] Sentinel: October 25, 2003)
There’s a little irony in the fact that his [Francis Bellamy’s] profession was a Baptist minister. You’d think immediately he would not have had bad feelings about having “under God” in the Pledge. But he was not even happy about them adding “to the United States of America.” — Scott Bellamy, explaining what he knew of the author’s intentions for the Pledge of Allegiance, quoted in Kate Santich, “Writer was protective of his ‘poetic’ Pledge” (The Orlando [Florida] Sentinel: October 25, 2003)
Regardless of the venom and vitriol of your responses, the fact remains that you are citing a man who appears to have lied about his credentials, and who has exercised some very shaky scholarship in order to arrive at an interpretation of events that not contradicts the broader, known history of the Pledge and its surrounding material.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Percivale continues as a liar here even while he concedes that Francis Bellamy was a leader in the Society of Christian Socialists. P you are only fooling yourself with your evasions and no one else. P you have no credibility.
Here is more on the topic that P does not dispute
Christian Socialism & Social Gospel of Bellamys
http://rexcurry.net/christian-socialism-social-gospel.html
Christian Socialism & Jesus the Socialist ?!?!
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-jesus-the-socialist.html
Christian Socialism & the KKK, Ku Klux Klan
http://rexcurry.net/kkk-ku-klux-klan-christian-socialism.html
Christian Socialism & the Swastika in Germany
http://rexcurry.net/swastikacross.html
Christian Socialism,& the Socialist Cross
http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter3a1d.html
Pledge of Allegiance to the Christian Flag
http://rexcurry.net/christian-socialism-Jesus-Camp-the-movie.html
The Religion of Solidarity
http://rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-the-religion-of-solidarity.html
Republicans are the Society of Christian Socialists ?
http://rexcurry.net/commentary/Bellamy.html
P shows his complete incompetence at basic research and P is praying that no one google the terms: society of christian socialists and francis bellamy. For it will be more humiliation for P and more support of Dr. Rex Curry's work.
Ex-wiccan priest Percivale concedes that Dr. Curry is correct about what is stated in the first publication of the Pledge of Allegiance program in "The Youth's Companion" of September 8, 1892. Percivale embarrassed himself by saying "it is likely that it was written by James Bailey Upham or one of his editorial staff." Percivale does not realize that is a similar argument made about the Pledge itself (the argument that James Upham wrote the Pledge). Percivale does not realize that Bellamy was "one of his editorial staff" and specifically assigned to handle the Pledge and the program. Bellamy openly declared that he was in charge of the Pledge program and wrote the material. Bellamy is the only one listed at the end of the Youth's Companion article, and listed as "Chairman, Executive Committee" of the Superintendants of Education in charge of the project. It was a long-term project that included meeting with the president of the USA at that time and prepping for the Chicago World's fair..
Aside from that, Upham and Bellamy worked together, liked each other, and shared the same beliefs. P does not dispute any of that.
Bellamy was chased from the pulpit for sermons on the topic "Jesus the Socialist." Percivale accidentally concedes that Dr. Curry's work is correct when Percivale writes "He even opposed parochial schools on the grounds that the state should educate its children." Bellamy opposed parochial schools for the same reason Bellamy opposed ALL NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, on the grounds that the state should educate all children. Bellamy was a totalitarian socialist and wanted the government to take over education and end all other alternatives.
Bellamy was a regular churchgoer. And he voted both Democratic and Republican because he was a Christian Socialist and would vote for whoever he thought promoted socialism the most.
Today, the entire Pledge program could not be performed in a government school because of its religiousness. The only thing left in litigation are the two word in the Pledge itself, added in 1954 when it was becoming clear that the entire pledge program could no longer be performed, and while the other habits of Bellamy's time, daily praying and bible reading in government schools, were no longer able to be performed (or near so).
Percivale also references Dr. Curry's discovery that the phrase "under God" though not in the original Pledge, was in the original Pledge Program, along with various other religious references and rituals.
...but unlike you, all of the claims that I make are actually backed up by the facts.
I have made none of the concessions you claim, and it continues to be a frank dishonestly for you to say otherwise. And, I see once again that your ONLY source for the things that you say come from the same, irresponsible, credential lacking "scholarship" of Rex Curry (who is you). You lack any credibility in this debate, my friend, and are quite obviously deranged. After all, I'm not the one who is lying about his credentials.
The actual facts are simple.
We know what Mr. Bellamy meant when he wrote the pledge because he wrote a specific testament in which he described the process.
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
~ From Story of the Origination of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, by Francis Bellamy
Notice that he makes no mention of religion at all in his explanation. This is a primary source confirmation that contradicts your incredible speculative interpretation of the events, and it does not stand alone. A wide variety of secondary sources, including the entire Bellamy family, agree that he would not have supported the addition of the phrase "under God" into his Pledge. And, despite your sly evasion in suggesting that some of Mr. Bellamy's descendants did not know him, this group does in fact include his Grandson, John Bellamy, who did in fact know the man personally.
The bottom line is simple, you interpretation of events is not historically supportable. It is wild speculation based on poor scholarship and is in fact contradictory to the collected primary and secondary sources, all of which consistently run counter to your little pet theory.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Every smart person knows once again that you have only one source that you quote, a source that to this very day does not display a single photograph of the early stiff-arm salute. Worse still, that single source you rely on for your quotes also likes to rely on one source (Margarette S. Miller) and her one oddball book that also does not display a single photograph of the early stiff-arm salute. Worse still, your sad single source is so intellectually dishonest that he has never even addressed the topic of the Pledge as the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers Party (and neither did Miller) (in addition to not displaying the early gesture). You all are so much alike. You cherry pick quotes from that source when you have in fact never actually asked those quoted people the question here. Those quotes, which are hearsay you lift from your source, are not even represented by your source to address the issue here, aside from being in fact double hearsay, in that the people quoted did not know Francis Bellamy (nor was Bellamy addressing the topic for which you are trying to misuse him). And otherwise the quotes support Dr. Curry. Indeed, your single source supports Dr. Curry and states the very points that you have evaded about the full Pledge program and Francis Bellamy's promotion of the Society of Christian Socialists. You don't even have the guts to contact your single source. You are an irresponsible, credential lacking liar. You continue to publicly humiliate yourself as you are envious and jealous of the scholarship and discoveries made by the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of Pledge of Allegiance Secrets). You lack any credibility in this debate, and your are quite obviously deranged. After all, you are the one who is obsessed about credentials when you have none, which you pretend to whine about, showing everyone that you cannot do the slightest research (it is your continual excuse to evade). It is no different than your refusal to do research on Bellamy.
The actual facts are simple. Notice that your quotes make no mention of religion at all and thus do not even address the topic as you continue to evade. You have again picked out partial quotes from your single source, and you pray that no one will google "Society of Christian Socialistts" and "Francis Bellamy. " And you know (now thanks to Dr. Curry's work) what the original Pledge program shows, as stated above, as it is replete with his religous dogma including the phrase 'under God." That is a primary source confirmation that contradicts your incredible lies and misrepresentations in how you pick out an irrelevant quote that does not even address the topic because you have nothing. You are only fooling yourself.
Everyone knows you have been edumacated here.
Here are other things about P that P will not dispute -
P was so ignorant that he did not even know that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party" until he learned it in the course of reading Dr. Curry's historical work. http://rexcurry.net/swastikaweb.html
He did not even know (until he learned of Professor Curry's work) that German National Socialists did not call themselves "Nazis." Similar to most people, He suffered from ignorance of the etymology of the word "Nazi" and he did not know that Party members called themselves "National Socialists," not "Nazis."
He is so intellectually challenged that, despite being relieved of his previous ignorance, he still persists in the exclusive use of the hackneyed shorthand, as if to cover-up the actual name of the Party, or perhaps to rehabilitate the ideas. http://rexcurry.net/socialistmedia.html
He was so ignorant of history, that until he learned of Dr. Curry's research, he did not know that the early Pledge of Allegiance used a straight-arm salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
He had never viewed the historic photographs of the early pledge as researched on Dr. Curry's site. http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
He did not know that the USA's Pledge was the origin of the gesture of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party until he was schooled by Dr. Curry's discoveries. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1a.html
He did not know that the original Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Professor Curry showed that, due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute. Historic photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html and at http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html
He used to be ignorant about the "ancient Roman salute" myth until he learned of Dr. Curry's work. Dr. Curry helped established that the straight-arm salute is not an ancient Roman salute, and that the "ancient Roman salute" is a myth. The myth is still repeated in modern efforts by envious people to cover-up Dr. Curry's discoveries. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html
He did not know that the phrase "Roman salute" is a modern phrase, not found in ancient texts, until he was educated by Dr. Curry's research.
He is so intellectually challenged that, despite being relieved of his previous ignorance, he still persists in the use of the hackneyed "Roman salute" phrase.
He was completely ignorant of the fact that the Bellamys were self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, the "Nationalist Educational Association," and their dogma of "military socialism," and Edward inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists in Germany. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1h.html
His bizarre behavior probably sprung from his jealousy toward Dr. Curry's professional successes in cryptology and symbology. He did not know (until he learned of Dr. Curry's discoveries) that the swastika, although an ancient symbol, was a cryptogram that was sometimes used to represent meshed "S" letters for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. That is, he did not decipher the encryption until he learned that the real-life symbologist Dr. Curry had already made the discovery. Curry has cult status among symbology fans thanks to his work deciphering the swastika, which completely redefined conventional notions of symbology.
He did not know that the leader of the NSGWP altered his own signature to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist." The head of the NSGWP turned his symbol 45 degrees to the horizontal and oriented it to always point clockwise. The leader of the NSGWP used similar alphabetic symbolism for his SS Division and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on Volkswagens. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
He was so ignorant that he believed that the reason that the NSGWP used the swastika was because they only liked the meaning of "swastika" as common translation in sanskrit as "good luck."
He did not know (until he reviewed Dr. Curry's research) that German National Socialists did not call their symbol a "swastika." Under the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, a type of cross was worshiped as the notorious symbol of the Party. The group called their symbol the Hakenkreuz, not the swastika. Hakenkreuz means "hooked cross." With a 45 degree turn of his Hakenkreuz, and pointing newer uses clockwise to highlight the "S" shapes, the leader of German National Socialists combined the cross with collectivism, merged church and state, meshed religion and socialism, and mandated the worship of government.
He still has difficulty seeing or conceding that the letters "V" and "W" are in the VW logo! He even claims that the SS Division under German National Socialism actually had nothing to do with "S" letters. He pretends to see no "S" in the Trabant logo!
He is so intellectually challenged that, despite being relieved of his previous ignorance, he still persists in the exclusive use of the term "swastika" as if to perpetuate the widespread ignorance about its German name and meaning, or to perpetuate the "swastika myth" that the symbol was used by the NSGWP only because it was an Indian "good luck" symbol.
He did not know (until Dr. Curry’s work enlightened him) that the National Socialist German Workers' Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were allies in 1939 during WWII and together invaded Poland in a written pact to divide up Europe. http://rexcurry.net/socialists.html
He was not aware of some comparative death tolls in the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): ~60 million dead under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million dead under the Peoples' Republic of China; ~20 million dead under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Is he both a denier of the Holocaust, and also a denier of the Wholecaust? http://rexcurry.net/socialism.html
He did not know that Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance") and Edward Bellamy (author of the novel "Looking Backward") and Charles Bellamy (author of "A Moment of Madness") and Frederick Bellamy (who introduced Edward to socialistic "Fourierism") were socialists. Edward and Charles were brothers, and Francis was their cousin. Francis and Edward were both self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, the "Nationalist Educational Association," and their dogma of "military socialism," and Edward inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists worldwide (including Germany) via “Nationalist Clubs.” http://rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-german-connections.html
Unlike you, I have acutally cited a rather wide variety of sources, and have gone to great pains to ensure that the sources I cite actually adhere to the acceptable standards of scholarship that you avoid like a roach, scurrying away from the light. This just goes to demonstrate that you aren't really reading what has been presented to you, and aren't really all that familiar with the body of reputable scholarship that surrounds the history of the Pledge.
In any case, I see that now you are trying to change the subject entirely, since I have never made any comment at all regarding the "stiff armed" salute which would have been and is totally irrelevant to the actual thread of this discussion, which is whether or not Mr. Bellamy acutally wrote the article that you fraudulently attribute to him, and whether or not he ever intended or would have objected to the addition of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. None of the pictures to which you point have anything to do at all with the idea that Mr. Bellamy actually intended exactly the opposite of what he said when he wrote about his work on the Pledge (which is of course what you claim).
You also continue to cite the alledge "Dr." Curry (whom we all know is you), but continue to refuse to produce the credentials that would acutally justify the use of that title by this irreputable, self-promoting conspiracy theorist. Your refusal offers us great insight into the now obvious lack of credibility behind your work.
Mr. Bellamy has told us in his own words what he meant when he wrote the Pledge, the "secrets" of the Plede that you cite appear to be so secret that not even Mr. Bellamy was aware of them.
Your source is fraudlent. Your scholarship is non-existent. Your conclusions are speculative. Your presentation is disingenous.
You will not prevail in your quest to invent and promote your own imaginary version of events, my friend, try though you might.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Oh and Bellamy was actively promoting his Pledge in Churches late in his life. Every smart person knows once again that the source that you quote is a source that to this very day does not display a single photograph of the early stiff-arm salute. Worse still, that source you rely on for your quotes also likes to rely on one source (Margarette S. Miller) and her one oddball book that also does not display a single photograph of the early stiff-arm salute. Worse still, your sad source is so intellectually dishonest that he has never even addressed the topic of the Pledge as the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers Party (and neither did Miller) (in addition to not displaying the early gesture). You all are so much alike. You cherry pick quotes when you have in fact never actually asked those quoted people the question here. Those quotes, which are hearsay you lift, are not even represented by their source to address the issue here, aside from being in fact double hearsay, in that the people quoted did not know Francis Bellamy (nor was Bellamy addressing the topic for which you are trying to misuse him). And otherwise the quotes support Dr. Curry. Indeed, your single source supports Dr. Curry and states the very points that you have evaded about the full Pledge program and Francis Bellamy's promotion of the Society of Christian Socialists. You don't even have the guts to contact your source. You are an irresponsible, credential lacking liar. You continue to publicly humiliate yourself as you are envious and jealous of the scholarship and discoveries made by the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of Pledge of Allegiance Secrets). You lack any credibility in this debate, and your are quite obviously a deranged fraud. After all, you are the one who is obsessed about credentials when you have none, which you pretend to whine about, showing everyone that you cannot do the slightest research (it is your continual excuse to evade). It is no different than your refusal to do research on Bellamy.
The actual facts are simple. Notice that your quotes make no mention of religion at all and thus do not even address the topic as you continue to evade. You have again picked out partial quotes from your single source, and you pray that no one will google "Society of Christian Socialistts" and "Francis Bellamy. " And you know (now thanks to Dr. Curry's work) what the original Pledge program shows, as stated above, as it is replete with his religous dogma including the phrase 'under God." That is a primary source confirmation that contradicts your incredible lies and misrepresentations in how you pick out an irrelevant quote that does not even address the topic because you have nothing. You are only fooling yourself.
Everyone knows you have been edumacated here.
Here are other things about P that P will not dispute -
P was so ignorant that he did not even know that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party" until he learned it in the course of reading Dr. Curry's historical work. http://rexcurry.net/swastikaweb.html
He did not even know (until he learned of Professor Curry's work) that German National Socialists did not call themselves "Nazis." Similar to most people, He suffered from ignorance of the etymology of the word "Nazi" and he did not know that Party members called themselves "National Socialists," not "Nazis."
He is so intellectually challenged that, despite being relieved of his previous ignorance, he still persists in the exclusive use of the hackneyed shorthand, as if to cover-up the actual name of the Party, or perhaps to rehabilitate the ideas. http://rexcurry.net/socialistmedia.html
He was so ignorant of history, that until he learned of Dr. Curry's research, he did not know that the early Pledge of Allegiance used a straight-arm salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
He had never viewed the historic photographs of the early pledge as researched on Dr. Curry's site. http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
He did not know that the USA's Pledge was the origin of the gesture of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party until he was schooled by Dr. Curry's discoveries. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1a.html
He did not know that the original Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Professor Curry showed that, due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute. Historic photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html and at http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html
He used to be ignorant about the "ancient Roman salute" myth until he learned of Dr. Curry's work. Dr. Curry helped established that the straight-arm salute is not an ancient Roman salute, and that the "ancient Roman salute" is a myth. The myth is still repeated in modern efforts by envious people to cover-up Dr. Curry's discoveries. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html
He did not know that the phrase "Roman salute" is a modern phrase, not found in ancient texts, until he was educated by Dr. Curry's research.
He is so intellectually challenged that, despite being relieved of his previous ignorance, he still persists in the use of the hackneyed "Roman salute" phrase.
He was completely ignorant of the fact that the Bellamys were self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, the "Nationalist Educational Association," and their dogma of "military socialism," and Edward inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists in Germany. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1h.html
His bizarre behavior probably sprung from his jealousy toward Dr. Curry's professional successes in cryptology and symbology. He did not know (until he learned of Dr. Curry's discoveries) that the swastika, although an ancient symbol, was a cryptogram that was sometimes used to represent meshed "S" letters for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. That is, he did not decipher the encryption until he learned that the real-life symbologist Dr. Curry had already made the discovery. Curry has cult status among symbology fans thanks to his work deciphering the swastika, which completely redefined conventional notions of symbology.
He did not know that the leader of the NSGWP altered his own signature to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist." The head of the NSGWP turned his symbol 45 degrees to the horizontal and oriented it to always point clockwise. The leader of the NSGWP used similar alphabetic symbolism for his SS Division and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on Volkswagens. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
He was so ignorant that he believed that the reason that the NSGWP used the swastika was because they only liked the meaning of "swastika" as common translation in sanskrit as "good luck."
He did not know (until he reviewed Dr. Curry's research) that German National Socialists did not call their symbol a "swastika." Under the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, a type of cross was worshiped as the notorious symbol of the Party. The group called their symbol the Hakenkreuz, not the swastika. Hakenkreuz means "hooked cross." With a 45 degree turn of his Hakenkreuz, and pointing newer uses clockwise to highlight the "S" shapes, the leader of German National Socialists combined the cross with collectivism, merged church and state, meshed religion and socialism, and mandated the worship of government.
He still has difficulty seeing or conceding that the letters "V" and "W" are in the VW logo! He even claims that the SS Division under German National Socialism actually had nothing to do with "S" letters. He pretends to see no "S" in the Trabant logo!
He is so intellectually challenged that