That it was intended to be indoctrination and that it amounts to exactly that:
Even if we take your claim that it was intended to be indoctrination as true at face value (it may or may not be, I don't really know, but note that I am taking it as an assumption because you've not actually proven it) that still leaves your claim that it successfully amounts to indoctrination unproven, in my experience and in the experience of MANY other Americans:Originally Posted by Dezaad
The bottom line is that you've failed to prove either point to any real degree of sufficiency.
As it stands you're simply making claims, not proving points.
Now, the claims you're making may be very true and very accurate for all I know.
I see things, and have experienced things contrary to your claims, but I don't insist that my anecdotal experience is absolute proof of anything.
But you've yet to prove them (note: making claims does not prove them as true, nor does insisting that they're true absent any supporting evidence prove the claims are true).
“Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”
It was only added because the Soviet Union was very atheistic so we used religion to make kids even more anti-communist without them even knowing. Anyone who argues that it should be there is completely ignoring the constitution and the separation of the church and the sate. As other users have posted above, put any other religion was put in place and people would riot up in arms against it.
Again (in new, and probably better, words): The aim of the 'under god' words in the pledge were and are intended as indoctrination. A person can demonstrate this satisfactorily to themselves by both looking at the history of the addition and by doing a little bit of thought experimentation. Imagine replacing 'under god' with 'under no god'. The reaction from advocates of the 'under god' provision would be immediate and virulent. The best explanation for that inevitability would be that they know that the reason they want it in there is indoctrination, and just won't admit it until they are confronted with a stark alternative.
Now, this does not of course constitute proof in a social science sense. Nevertheless, it is a worthy way to examine the matter. When someone trots in here and doesn't address your point, but instead acts like an ass, you are within the rights of social discourse to assume you have proven your point sufficiently with regard to that person's sensibilities, and that they are just pissed off about it. Doing what I did was a common, and warranted, reaction. Basically I was telling him that I take his foolishness as conceding the point. That assessment still stands.
As to your points: I concede that successful indoctrination is not proven. I comment again that I don't care, as it really isn't part of my point. I still contend that there is plenty of evidence to tentatively accept that the intent is indoctrination.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
Last edited by Hard Truth; 06-12-14 at 12:31 PM.
Legally no one can make you say the prayer, but if you're the kid not saying the prayer, it's as awkward as Rosa in the front if the bus. Kids aren't going to think for themselves, they're going to do what everyone else is doing. And by the time that they can think for them self the pledge is already ingrained into their mind.
Get rid of it, and get god off our money too.
Who left the fridge open?