Do you agree with the Pledge of Allegience?
486095
Yes, because many great Americans have sacraficed personal freedom and thier brave lives for these devine principles, the good that we stand for.I still get tears  when I hear this pledge.
147620
Will everyone please stand, and say the pledge of allegiance .
806990
I do so agree.I lived in Muslim countries for many years and adhered to their code of conduct.I feel the old adage 'when in Rome do as the Romans do' is as true today as it ever was.\nWe are a Christian country and welcome people from  all over the globe to live here and benefit from living here so please do not shove your beliefs in our faces as a way of saying thank you!\nWe respect your beliefs so why cannot you respect ours and leave your veils at home
611114
No, it's not.  I had to think about this for awhile, and recite the pledge to myself, before I came to this answer.  Nowhere in the pledge does it say that the US is better, or that we should place the flag above everything.  It is simply saying that the individual is forming an alliance with the US of A.  The country supports you, and you support the country.\n\nI pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America.  To the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.\n\nI will say this daily, and mean every word of it.
716177
I would if I could but I am not registered.\n\nRepublicans all the way!
704862
Here ... check this:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance\n\nAnd here is one on the ACLU's challenging of a proposed law in Colorado (proposed by Republican Representative Bill Crane) to make reciting the pledge mandatory.\nhttp://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3005\n\nAnd there are many state laws like this one (Washington state, passed, March 13, 1919):\n\n"Every board of directors of the several school districts of this state shall procure a United States flag, which shall be be replaced with a new one whenever the same becomes tattered, torn or faded, and shall cause said flag to be displayed upon or near each public school building during school hours, except in unsuitable weather, and at such other times as to said board may seem proper, and shall cause appropriate flag exercises to be held in every school at least once in each week at which exercises the pupils shall recite the following salute to the flag: 'I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.' "\n\n[1919 Washington State  Senate Bill 93, School Code Amendments, Section 4, Laws of Washington, Chapter 90]\n\n(Note that "under God" is not in that version of the Pledge ... that was added in 1954.)\n\nWhat does all that mean?  Well the laws *require* schools to lead children in the pledge.  Would a chlid be prosecuted if he/she declined? ... not by law.  But if enough students declined to participate, then technically the *school* could be sanctioned.  So the pressure on children would not come from the law, but from the school and the teacher.  \n\nAnd finally, saying that a 2nd-grader has the "First Amendment right not to participate" is all well and good ... but what 2nd-grader will go up against the peer pressure of his classmates, and so much as an angry glare from a teacher or visiting principal?\n\nBy the way ... can someone explain to me why "pledge of allegiance" doesn't literally mean "loyalty oath"?\n\nP.S. Rebecca ... your great aunt sounds like a great lady. Kudos.
763530
It should be mandatory in order to prove your sincerety. Assimilate or get lost... You wanna have a better life ??? PROVE IT !!!!! What a great idea.... Solves so many problems simply !!! Those sincere should be afforded the express lane( citizenship ) for their willingness to support their new home. No more than right !!! Those that disappear when the announcement is made, well, we pretty much know where they are coming from...Forget the wall, we would no longer need it.....
509812
yes. i do agree with u.
64816
I vote for that. Just have everybody agree with all of my views and we're there.
289523
to end slavery. unite the nation
38658
It depends, do you want to exclude the people who don't believe in God from being able to pledge allegiance with their full conviction?  If not, then the pledge should revert back to it original form with it's reference to religion omitted.\n\nIn order to pledge allegiance to your country you shoud not have to agree that your country is subservient to any supernatural beings.  It's one nation under the people.  \n\nIf people must pledge loyalty to God in order to pledge loyalty to their country, then we are not truly indivisible, and it's not liberty and justice for all, just those who believe in God.\n\nAnd to the genius who said to rewrite the constitution, IT DOESN'T CONTAIN THE WORD GOD.  Also to the history impaired, the founding fathers didn't put UNDER GOD in there.  It was added by Catholic groups during the McCarthy era to separate us from the godless Commies.  A proud era in our history.
1123981
I believe nder God should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance\n\nIf you do not wish to Pray and do not wish to say the Pledge that is fine with me but don't deny rights to those who wish to do so.\n\nThe right to refuse to say the Pledge was established in 1945 when Jehovah's Witnesses refused to say the Pledge not to be Unpatriotic but because they believe allegiance belongs to Jehovah God and no one else.\n\nIn fact after 9-11 when Jehovah's Witnesses were asked on the News about Patriotism they said "we are patriotic by obeying Caesar (the Govt) to the best of our ability."\n\nNow if ya notice 1945 was when the right to refuse to say the Pledge was established you should also note that it was in 1954 when Congress added Under God to the Pledge (this was 9 years after the right to refuse to say it was already established by a fair ruling in the Supreme Court that did not ban the Pledge but rather said you can refuse to say it).\n\nMany people know about the 1963 ruling banning Prayer in Public Schools but few know that in 1993 the Supreme Court restored a thing called Voluntary Prayer.\n\nI believe in Creation not Evolution, I believe that if a School is gonna teach Evolution they should teach it as Theory not fact.\n\nI also believe Public Schools should allow for Creation and Evolution to be optional courses in Schools (allowing students to decide which they would study).\n\nI believe Homosexuality is a SIn and I thus oppose Gay Marriage.\n\nI do hold a don't ask don't tell policy on the Homosexuality issue so thus I will never ask anyone if they are a Homosexual (not even if I suspect they are) and im not going to stop any Gays from holding a Fake Wedding in their own Home but I will not be forced to approve of Homosexuality and I will not be forced to approve of Gay Marriage not now not ever.\n\nEven though I disapprove of Homosexuality I do not approve of the whole God Hates Fags thing from Fred Phelps (everyone deserves a chance to repent of their Sins regardless of what the Sin is).\n\nI believe in the right to keep and bear Arms, I think if you wanna ban Guns then you are wanting to be sealed up in a Concentration Camp (sorry to say that but Hitler confiscated Firearms and stuffed people into Concentration Camps, loads of Democrats wanna do the same but they can't till Guns are taken from Civilians).\n\nI am opposed to Abortion except for Threat to a Mother's Life, however I am willing to allow Abortion to be legal in cases of Rape in a compromise deal on banning most Abortions and what exceptions are allowed.\n\nI think the Democrats do not really stand up for the Little guy at all especially the very rich ones who moan and groan that the Republicans care only for the rich when in reality the Republicans know that raising Taxes will not make the Rich pay more Taxes because the Rich hire Lawyers and Accountants to lower their Taxes.\n\nNot to mention the Rich already make contributions to a good chunk of the Tax Pool anyways considering they have the most Money.\n\nI am also sick of hearing that all the Republicans are Rich Whites when #1 not all Republicans are White, ok yes im White but im like gee I didn't know that being a White Republican means you are Rich, if that is the case show me the Bank account with my alleged Wealth.\n\nLast I checked Colin Powell and Condi Rice are not the only Black Republicans there are many more Black Republicans who all wrongfully get called Tyrants only because these Black Republicans have truly freed themselves from the shackles of Slavery that were foisted upon their Ancestors.
983785
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." \n\nTheodore Roosevelt 1907 \nTwenty-sixth President of the United States
56012
Of course not. You should be the first one to obey the constitution because you swore to abide by it
177394
Teddy Roosevelt said this many years ago and I beleive it is still very true today. I think that anyone should be welcomed to America so long as they respect American values. What language a person chooses to speak in their own homes is their choice, but every should AT LEAST know how to speak English and be able to navigate their way around the country without us having to post everything in several languages for them. \n\nMr. Roosevelt said the following in 1919.  What do you think?\n\n"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...\n\nThere can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."\n\n--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919
968912
Yes, I Agree\n\nI Also Agree With These Words \n\n\n"In the first place, we should insist \nthat if the immigrant who comes here in good faith \nbecomes an American and assimilates himself to us, \nhe shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, \nfor it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man\nbecause of creed, or birthplace, or origin. \n\nBut this is predicated upon the person's becoming \nin every facet an American, \nand nothing but an American ... \nThere can be no divided allegiance here. \nAny man who says he is an American, \nbut something else also, \nisn't an American at all. \n\nWe have room for but one flag, the American flag ... \nWe have room for but one language here, \nand that is the English language ... \nand we have room for but one sole loyalty \nand that is a loyalty to the American people." \n"If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin \nand separated from the rest of America, \nthen he isn't doing his part as an American. \n--Theodore Roosevelt 1907 \n\n\n\n\nThere is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. \nThe one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin,\nof preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all,\nwould be to permit it to become \na tangle of squabbling nationalities. \n— Theodore Roosevelt, \nspeech before the Knights of Columbus, 1915, New York\n\n\n\n“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, \ncitizens who are not only prepared to take arms, \nbut citizens who regard the preservation of freedom \nas the basic purpose of their daily life.” \n-- John F Kennedy\n\n \n\n“The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive. \nWe ignore America's lost sovereignty at our peril.” \n-- Ronald Reagan
110974
First, the pledge has only said "One nation, under God" since 1954 when it was added by Congress.\n\n"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, an inspired but non-binding governmental document.\n\nYour liberties are judged as determined by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, both at the federal and state level. The government rules by the power granted it by the governed. There have been cases where the governed have made their case known and the government responded, such as granting women the right to vote, granting blacks equal rights in the 60's, or repealing Prohibition. \n\nMy subjective take on law is that it generally restates over and over again a simple premise: do no harm. Criminal laws cover doing harm to another in forms of personal or property damage, or even harm to oneself. Environmental law covers doing harm to the planet, financial laws cover doing harm to clients, etc. I think everyone has an equal stake in ensuring that no harm come to them or those around them and, as a result, have enlisted the aid of the government and the law in that struggle.