The Pledge and the Truth

This is a repost from my Myspace in response to a post from some other people.  The text of the original post can be found in the Snopes.com response.



A couple of people have posted the bulletin calling for some sort of boycott of Pepsi’s supposed new can. I feel that I need to say a few things on this so forgive my soapbox, but I just think in this day and age these things need to be said.

First, this posting is a hoax. Pepsi has absolutely no plans to introduce this can and never did. The genesis of this hoax comes from a Dr. Pepper can which was briefly put into production after September 11th, but was pulled after the public objection to the exclusion of the words “under God”. Dr. Pepper is not a Pepsi product, it is an independent company. All the information can be found on Snopes.com here.

Second, I know that there are a lot of things floating around the internet, My Space in particular. I have personally seen so many messages come by that are outright lies about a whole variety of subjects. The internet can be a great tool for communication and education, but we have to be responsible users, and responsible citizens. It doesn’t take much time at all to do a little bit of research on any posting and find out if it is valid or not. There are even a number of websites that are dedicated to debunking internet hoaxes from financial to political. www.snopes.com is one of them, as is http://urbanlegends.about.com. Or you can simply Google the main idea and come up with a whole set of valuable information.

Third, I want to take a moment and talk about one of the main ideas in the Pepsi hoax, and in this is a history lesson. The pledge was originally published anonymously in 1892 in The Youth’s Companion, the Reader’s Digest of its day. Though it was published without an author, it is believed to have been written by Francis Bellamy, a Socialist Baptist Minister. I won't go into great detail but the pledge was actually based in his Socialist ideals and inspired by the French concept of liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality and fraternity) which was the motto of their revolution.

The original language of the pledge was: ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ By 1924 the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution were successful in changing ‘my Flag’ to ‘the flag’ and adding ‘of the United States of America’ to the pledge.

Please note that until 1954 (62 years from its creation), it did not include the words ‘under God’. It was only after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus that the United States Congress added the two words and solidified the pledge as we know it today.

So, what does all this mean? Well, it seems that the only time the pledge is questioned is the inclusion or exclusion of the two words ‘under God’, which were not part of the original spirit of the pledge. It was written to focus on a shared community and the hope of liberty and justice for all, in a nation that is united for the common cause. It had nothing to do with God.

For the record, I don’t believe that ‘under God’ should be in the pledge, nor should it be printed on our money, on our courtrooms or on any surface associated with our Government. I find it odd that a deeply religious Bellamy, saw fit to leave God out of the pledge as the founding fathers saw fit to leave it out of the Constitution. We are nation of the people first and their Gods second, and we should not forget that.

Read more here.

I'm Trying, Really I Am

I am attempting something this semester that I have never done before: be a C student. After my having stressed way too much over environmental sciences last semester and getting an A-, I decided to take my final science class as pass/fail. So now, all I have to do is get a C in the class and it will have the same impact as an A in my GPA. Sounds great right?

The problem seems to be that I don't know how to do C level work. As it is, most of my classes aren't that hard and I haven't given them my all in study power but have still maintained a high GPA. Long story short, I just don't know what level of work to do in order to get a C.

The real sad thing is that because I am such an over-achieving geek, I will do the A level work anyway. Oh well..

Yeah... um...

OK, so I haven't had a lot to say on this blog lately. I have sat down a few times to write brilliant things about the war in Iraq, the Presidential election, same-sex marriage, etc... but haven't really been able to finish a single thought.

It isn't any kind of writers block, just more of a can't put words together block. Well that and MySpace, but that is a whole other addiction.

Of Man and Reason

Hobbes begins Chapter V of Of Man writing: “When a man reasoneth, hee does nothing else but conceive a summe totall, from Addition of parcels; or conceive a Remainder, from Subtraction of one summe from another: which (if it be done by Words,) is conceiving of the consequence of the names all the parts, to the name of the whole; or from the names of the whole and one part, to the name of the other part” (110). Hobbes words illustrate the shift from a metaphysical pursuit of ideal Truth, to the dissection of reality in order to determine mechanical explanations for the world around us. Considering his views of practical reasoning in mechanical terms, it isn’t very surprising that he has a very negative opinion of the “ancient” Philosophers’ metaphysical view of reality. After all, our purpose is not to define reality, but to explain reality as has been defined by G-d. While on one hand it does give rise to the idea of humanism, the individual’s relationship to the world and the pursuit of knowledge, it also seems to limit the possibilities of such a pursuit.

Perhaps I am an idealist, but it seems to me that the purpose of man having reason isn’t to simply understand the world as it is but imagine how it can be. When our reason is limited to only what is before us, then how can we truly begin to understand what it means to be human. “What is our purpose? What is my purpose?” These questions haven’t gone away after centuries of the new paradigm of thinking. If the answer to all metaphysical questions lies within God then why are we still asking those two central questions? The mechanical paradigm has seemed to ignore the really difficult questions instead, leaving their answers to an ubiquitous deity, which may or may not exist. How can we as humans ever hope to evolve or progress if our path is one of mechanical definitions and needs and not the path of Truth. Honestly, we may never return to the higher ideals, as there is no financial profit in philosophy and life is so much easier to live if we leave the hardest questions up to someone else to answer.

A Moment to Relax

Ok really...I'm just avoiding writing.

Todays Warm and Fuzzy Thought

Gods grant me the serenity to change the things I can,
accept the things I cannot,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

-- The Serenity Prayer