TED Conversations

Parker Heisler

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The Pledge of Allegiance should be changed

I don't really like the pledge of allegiance. America has sunk so far below what it SHOULD stand for and lost sight of what the forefathers and all Americans should aim for.
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America."
This was an amazing line when the flag stood for a new, powerful, and good country. It seems like this once magnificent symbol has been stripped of its meaning and is now just a piece of fabric.
"And to the republic, for which it stands,"
Like I said above, I don't think that it DOES stand for the republic. I think that it is just something that everyone recognizes and associates with one thing or another, like the Apple Logo, or the golden arches of McDonald's, which is almost as representative of America as the flag is nowadays. Which is depressing if we're going to be honest. The pledge continues with the "controversial" line,
"One nation, under God."
Now the fact that the whole country has to be so "politically correct" that THIS is controversial sort of shows that we've lost sight of what this country should stand for. If its such a big deal to you personally, don't say the line, or even the word "God". If you have such strong personal convictions that it offends you to mention a being that may or may not exist, you should look at changing yourself as opposed to making a ruckus about a pledge that has a "God" in it.
"With liberty and justice for all."
This line is CLOSE to being what it ought to be. This is really the only line that I agree with and yet, it still has its problems. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are the unalienable rights that our constitution gives us. Why should we change something that was written in the document that our country was founded on? I propose this new Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance,
To the Constitution,
Of the United States of America.
And to protecting the rights
Of the people;
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Related Talks:
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • 0
    Dec 17 2012: I like your pledge. When people enter the military services, they take an oath to protect the Constitution.

    Perhaps just one tiny change: "Of all people"

    When called upon to recite the pledge, just recite yours. It may spread.

    • Parker Heisler

      • 0
      Dec 17 2012: Well, not all people HAVE those rights. Currently this pledge is solely focused on the citizens of America who would be reciting it. If it said all people, it would seem like a much broader pledge, which isnt a bad thing, but isn't the intention of this pledge. This is a pledge focused on America and American ideals/citizens. If it included of all people, then it would be focused more outwardly, which again isnt a bad thing, just not the intention here.

      • Barry Palmer 50+

        • 0
        Dec 18 2012: I see your point. There is certainly nothing wrong with "Of the people".

        My point was not so much to point outward as to focus on the foundation of the Constitution, which is human rights, which are (or should be) shared by all people..
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • +1
      Dec 19 2012: RE: "In the USA, God and politics should not be mixed." Agreed. The Pledge is not about politics but about defining a nation. It is a historical fact that the USA was conceived, designed, and constructed recognizing the effort was, and always would be "Under God", not under any specified religion, but under the God of the Holy Bible.
      RE: "Divisibility is a human right." The word "indivisible" was added to prohibit secession of any state from the union. I do not think the Pledge is intended to signify an American policy of fomenting civil unrest in other nations. I do think this amendment to the Pledge was not well though-out, because secession is a Constitutional right. Thank you!
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • 0
        Dec 21 2012: If you will read the Treaty of Tripoli (initiated by George Washington but finalized by John Adams with unanymouse consent of the senate), you will find that this nation is in no way founded upon the Christian religion. That's what the documentary evidence "says".
        • thumb

          edward long 100+

          • 0
          Dec 21 2012: Thank you for the reference. As you probably know the Treaty of Tripoli was short-lived. It was replaced by the Treaty of Peace and Amity which was signed in June of 1805. In it the erroneous clause in Article 11 stating that America was not a Christian nation is omitted. The factual, non-revisionist, history of the United States of America proves the fundamental importance and influence of the God of the Holy Bible. An honest, open-minded reading of history bears this out. Church (any specific denomination) and State are absolutely separate, and at the same time the God of the Holy Bible and America are, or were until recently, bound as one. Just the facts sir.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.