Talk:Pledge of Allegiance/Archive 1

message: The prayer at issue in Engel v. Vitale is several times referred to as a "poem" in this article. What sort of accommodationist doubletalk is that? Engel is frequently cited as the decision that banned prayer in public schools. I have never once seen any credible source refer to the recitation in that case as a "poem." Here's the text (which can also be found in the article), for those who are interested: 
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
Now, can any person reasonably say that's not a prayer? 
I'll also note that in the dicussion of Engel, the article notes that "the Supreme Court has banned some expressions of "God" from public schools." Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth--the Court has only stated that certain religious utterances may not be given state endorsement by having state employees (teachers) lead students in their recitation. Any student or teacher who wishes to talk about God or pray to God may do so, just not as part of an official school routine. This whole section seems to be seriously biased.
:You're very right. The lines in Engel are a prayer, or more specifically an invocation (a beseeching of divine intervention). Edited. --FOo 03:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poem? 

message: Removed from ==opposition and controversy== section:
:Currently the United States is the only western country with a loyalty oath for schoolchildren.
This is a troll. The Pledge is not an oath, and no-one has to take it. Ellsworth 23:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one? Are you certain? A friend of mine had to take the pledge as part of becoming a U.S. citizen in the late 1980s. It may be different now, it may not be strictly required, but she eventually "took the pledge" for pragmatic reasons.--EmmetCaulfield 17:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The oath of US citizenship may require the pledge (I wouldn't know), but the pledge itself is non-mandatory in other circumstances and is legally meaningless. Emmett5 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyalty oath? 

message: If someone has time, we could act some info on Sensenbrenner's Pledge Protection Act. 
Sander123 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pledge Protection Act 

message: I'll need to do some research, but I think that this section needs a little tweaking. It should include the fact that some of the opposition to the phrase included some conservatives and Christians. Their biggest complaint is that including the phrase trivializes God, and using it could be considered sacrilegious. gK ¿? 09:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Under God" ruling

message: There are some people on Wikipedia who knowingly engage in personal attacks and deletions (even of links) of anyone who explains the connection between the pledge of allegiance and the national socialism of its author Francis Bellamy and his cousin Edward Bellamy, the author.  It is behavior that breaks the wikipedia rules.  What kind of people cover-up for Nazis and that horrid ideology? The cover-ups include the top media cover ups: They cover up many historic photos the Pledge of Allegiance showing the original straight-arm salute and the fact that the the Bellamys were National Socialists, and that the Pledge's straight arm salute was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis)  As part of their cover-up they perpetuate the Roman Salute myth.   And they lie about the oath of the horatii as an absurd support for a Roman connection They cover up for the swastika and its use as a sick socialist symbolThey cover up for the socialist trio of atrocities. They cover up the fact that socialists helped start WWII with the National Socialist German Workers' Party & the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as allies.They cover up for and are deniers of the socialist Wholecaust, of which the monstrous Holocaust was part  They cover up for the National Socialist German Worker's Party and always try to use the hackneyed shorthand "Nazi" hThey repeat the most common cover-ups of the media and  And they cover up the newer U.S. Supreme Court case that exposes the socialist history of the Pledge 
As an example, most of the "Roman Salute" page on Wikipedia is pure poppycock, especially near the top "The Roman salute is a closed finger, flat-palm-down hand raised at an angle (usually 45 degrees) and was used by the Roman Republic. It was also the historical civilian salute of the United States, from 1787?-1934?, known since 1892 as the Bellamy salute. It was also the historical salute among armies of the Middle East and South America. When the Nazi party of Germany adopted the Roman salute from the Italian fascists."  The foregoing is all incorrect and of course without any attribution nor support on the Wikipedia page because there is no support. It is not a Roman salute and never was.
Similar criticisms apply to the Wikipedia pages on Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance.
*Date: The pledge was recognized on June 22, 1942. Section 7 of the Flag Code:  56 STAT 379. 
*National Socialism: Describing Francis Bellamy as a Nazi is scurrillous. Edward Bellamy was a Baptist minister, an unlikely occupation for one.Septentrionalis 08:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the links to this guy's website. He's been spamming them all over Wikipedia, presumably to get improved Google ranking. — Matt Crypto 07:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal attacks and threats to block against the whole story. 

message: Another argument against the Pledge of Allegiance is that allegiance itself is a feudal concept (i.e., obedient servitude, as of a serf to a liege lord), not a democratic one, and that to pledge allegiance to an emblem is to turn it into a bearer certificate of political authority. In other words, by taking the Pledge of Allegiance, one is swearing to serve and obey, without question, anyone who wraps himself up in the U.S. flag. This turns dissent into treason, and in spirit runs contrary to the freedom of conscience enshrined in the Constitution.
--Geenius at Wrok 01:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument in opposition: The Pledge is flawed per se 

message: Quote: Many object to the exploition of children by leading them in a pledge that even adults have difficulty agreeing upon. They feel that having children recite the pledge trivializes the serious commitments it requires, and the constant repetition insults the honor and wastes the time of those children who view their first recitation as binding. Many parents object to this trivialization of the pledge and emphasize the pledge's seriousness by insisting that their children wait until their majority before making any such pledge.
Personally, I would probably agree with those that express concern of trivializing the pledge by encouraging or even requiring children to recite it daily.  However, I think the first sentence of this selection is using unfairly biased language, specifically "exploition."  First, I'm pretty much positive that's not a word, at least, according to Dictionary.com it isn't (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exploition).  Assuming the intended meaning/word is "exploitation," I don't think that's a fair sentence.  This first sentence is introducing the audience to a group's idea, because, unless I'm mistaken in my assessment of Wikipedia, the goal is to provide quality, unbiased articles in the same way a commercial encyclopedia would (if not better) and is therefore not a view held by the article.  The first sentence is saying that children are exploited, which I know is not an accepted fact.  I believe a far better sentence would be something like, "Many believe leading children in a pledge that even adults have difficulty agreeing upon is exploitation."  This separates the encyclopedia from the opinions of others a great deal more.  I would even go so far as to suggest using a word other than exploitation or at least saying "comparable to exploitation" or something less harsh.  Suggesting even indirectly that children are being exploited is a heavy charge and sure to evoke negative feelings in readers.  This type of language is better suited to a persuasive speech than an encyclopedia entry, in my opinion.
I'm not by any means any kind of expert, and I'm by no means a regular contributor on Wikipedia, but I think the issue needs to be addressed.  I often cite Wikipedia in homework, but the troublesome wording in this article makes me hesitant to use it as a reliable, unbiased source in an upcoming speech.  
Thanks so much for your work, time, and attention.
4:50, 31 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have corrected the spelling of exploitation.  The statements about exploitation are in the criticism and opposition section.  Thanx for pointing to the "adults agreeing upon" point, because that does not seem complete, because for some of those who consider leading children in the pledge, it would be an issue even if there wasn't the multiple interpretations.  The issue for them is, that if the pledge is even if understood, to consent to such an important commitment, the child should be older. We have ages of "consent" for sex and marriage, but not for an even more important pledge. --Silverback 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Concern 

message: I have removed an allegation that Libertarians believe that the wording of the pledge obligates voters to vote Libertarian.  As a party officer I can tell you that that is patently false and that I have never met any libertarian who believes any such thing. --Dfranke
Removing it again.  Whomever reinserted it, I suggest you post here explaining why. --Dfranke
:Now you've met someone.  Tell me what other party's positions are consistent with the liberty clause.--Silverback 03:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken.  However, the idea that such a pledge could be considered binding at all is itself rather inconsistent with liberty.  I'm changing 'some' to a 'few', and we'll leave it at that.  --Dfranke
::Hmmm, pledges are nonbinding (meaningless?) is an interesting defense of pledges.  Perhaps leading pledges then is a good use of government employee time.  I doubt there would be so much contention over the wording if the pledge did not imply some moral obligation. --Silverback 05:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:'Some' may be preferable as not making a statistical statement.  I know a Libertarian Congressional candidate whom I believe would agree with the opinion being disputed. (And there is a serious and ancient argument that binding pledges are more important in the condition of statelessness) Septentrionalis 23:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians and the pledge 

message: " Communists have been criticized as undemocratic, because they intend the election they win will be the last fair election with any choice, yet supporters of the indivisibility clause hold the same view about the elections which result in statehood."
The second clause of this sentence is objectionable. It puts words in other people's mouths - and it does so in error.  Many supporters of indivisibility believe that the Union could be made divisible - it merely has not been. Therefore electing entry into the Union is not in principle irrevocable.
If this is removed, the sentence is almost entirely redundant. 
 
Septentrionalis 23:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see no way to recast without constructions of the form, "opponents of the use of 'indivisible' believe that its supporters believe", which is intolerable syntax. Deleting; let him who can rephrase. Septentrionalis 19:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indivisibility 

message: I think there should be a mention that requiring teachers to lead the class disqualifies some teachers from employment; namely those whose religion or convictions prevent them engaging in such an exercise. In other words, this requirement is tantamount to state-sanctioned hiring discrimination on the basis of religion.
:I'm not familiar with the case law on the subject. If you have particular sources or cases in mind, please post 'em -- it is indeed a side of the issue that does not usually get aired, since it has to do with employment requirements and specifically employment with the government. --FOo 21:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the teachers 

message: I think something should be said about mandatory readings of the pledge, such as in my home state of minnesota, where the governor has mandated that the pledge be read every morning in school over a pa system or something. this doesn't mean you are required to recite the pledge, but t does mean you're going to hear it every week. Xunflash 20:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mandatory Reading

message: The 9th circuit court from what I've read stated in it’s opinion the words “under god” appear to be a unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism over polytheism and atheism. I think the article should mention this and cover any debate over this interpretation. A cursery search of google brings up a number of articles mentioning this monotheism issue. --Cab88 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheism vs. polytheism and the pledge

message: I'm a bit concerned about the Dorothea Lange photograph being featured so prominently in the article. It's a fantastic photograph from an artistic point of view, and definitely should be included (although it is a cropped version of the original, which is much better), but it seems to me that the article should begin with a photograph with less of a "message". Something, in other words, that you couldn't imaging being placed on a pro-pledge campaign poster with America the Beautiful playing in the background. The initial photograph, I think, also would ideally show the flag in the foreground, and there should be at least some adults. It should probably be something like the other pictures in the article, simply showing the act of saying the pledge, without implicit commentary. Anybody have any suggestions? COGDEN 19:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I suggest the 1899 Flag Day photograph and the Lange photograph be switched. The Flag Day photograph is a little more ambiguous -- it could be taken as pro-Pledge in that it depicts recitation in a traditional environment, but it could also be taken as anti-Pledge for the somewhat military or conformist appearance. However, it's a better choice than the 1892 image as that one uses the Bellamy salute which is likely to confuse readers since it's more readily recognized as the Hitler salute. --FOo 20:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of Dorothea Lange photograph 

message: "Currently the United States is the only western country where the majority of schoolchildren take a pledge of allegiance daily."
Pretty certain this is false, I'm under the assumption that Japan has a nationwide policy _mandating_ a daily oath; seem to remember this from a recent New York Times article.
24.29.130.37 11:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan has a westernized economy if not a western economy or location—the term is ambiguous. It seems the article is trying to compare the US to countries in a similar economic/cultural situation. Rather than comparing the US to "western" countries, it would be better to compare it to developed countries. Theshibboleth 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the only country with a daily pledge 

message: I made several changes in the paragraph that begins "Some people believe that the American judges are repressive", which was seriously flawed:
*It linked to the wrong lawsuit, Wallace v. Jaffree, instead of Edwards v. Aguillard.
*It misrepresented Justice Scalia's position. Scalia held that Edwards v. Aguillard was not about God, but about "creation science", and he gave credit to affidavits filed by the appellants which stated that "creation science" "is essentially a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that the physical universe and life within it appeared suddenly and have not changed substantially since appearing" and "a strictly scientific concept that can be presented without religious reference". This is of course controversial, but it was the Court majority, not Scalia, who took the position that this was a decision about "God", so it shouldn't be portrayed as such in describing Scalia's position.
*It seriously misrepresented the case by saying the lower court refused to hear evidence on "God". What the lower courts did, and the Supreme Court majority approved of, was to disregard the above-mentioned affidavits and instead construe "creation science" as essentially Christian creationism, and therefore they struck down the law because they construed it as mandating teaching evidence about God in school -- not giving evidence about God in court.
:Joriki 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards v. Aguillard 

message: Why are we splitting the article in half, with part going to Pledge of Allegiance Criticism? Tha seems like it might be a POV fork. I don't see any discussion here. -Will Beback 08:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a subsection of the article is larger and more detailed (about 60% here with as deep a hierarchy as the rest of the article) the entire article, it's appropriate to consider moving it into a separate article.  There has been criticism of the pledge throughout its history and the nature of that criticism has changed substantially over time, it's definitely a worthwhile subject for an article focused on the criticism.  This being said, the criticism article needs more information on criticisms other than the most recent.  It's very detailed on recent criticism and court cases, but very deficient about historical criticisms and criticisms other than the "Under God" criticisms that have been prominent since the 1990s.  Daniel Quinlan 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A split is fine, but the text in the Criticism "section" now is just strange.  All it says is:
"Over the course of the history of the pledge, the pledge has been the subject of criticism for various reasons."  Surely, that's not the right way to refer to the other article.  Why not a sentence or two about the major criticisms? Phiwum 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pledge of Allegiance Criticism 

message: Could someone give me a citation to an unbiased material documenting congress inserting "Under God" into the pledge because of the Soviets? I understand there was some mention of it by one or many individual(s) but I'm wondering if this was really the driving force behind the change as is often repeated as fact. -Casius 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Under God" change because of Soviets 

message: Perhaps a section could be added that includes the old light-hearted saying about how the last 2 words of the Pledge are, "Play Ball!"  Based on the occurance at organized baseball games in the U.S. (i.e., Major League Baseball).
But let us not add the Bart Simpson joke about the last 2 words of the Pledge being, "Hail Satan!"  That's just ridiculousness.
69.39.172.34 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing the Pledge with the Anthem.  Daniel Quinlan 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Last 2 Words of the Pledge

message: the removal of all criticism to a separate article Pledge of Allegiance Criticism, with no summary of that article here (not even a mention, other than in See Also) constitutes a POV fork. so i intend to tag this article as POV. Doldrums 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a "Criticism" section to summarize and link to the other article, and am thus deleting the one-liner in the introduction ("Over the history of the pledge, there has been much criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance.") 68.9.116.26 20:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where's the criticism 

message: One sentence in the article was:
: Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: [...] It was seen by some Brightonians as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War.
I removed the word "Brightonians" from the sentence as I couldn't find an explanation for what it meant. If you have one, please restore it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brightonians" 

message: Refer to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-10T021338Z_01_N09494500_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PLEDGE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
The article reads:
"Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government.
"The move by Orange Coast College student trustees, the latest clash over patriotism and religion in American schools, has infuriated some of their classmates -- prompting one young woman to loudly recite the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule."
Might want to reference this latest challenge to the Pledge in this Wiki.
--Sbroadwe 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another challenge to the Pledge 

message: I sincerely doubt that the caption under the first picture, "Japanese-American internees reciting the pledge during World War II (photo by Dorothea Lange)", is true.  I'll have to admit that my knowledge of Japanese-American internment and Dorothea Lange pictures is limited, but there are clearly white and black children in the background of that picture.  The other girl on the left also does not appear to be Japanese, but probably Filipino.  I'm fairly certain that very few, if any, white or black families were interned.  The only plausible explaination I can think of is that the child that is relatively centered in the foreground is from an interred family and she was allowed to attend a school nearby or the picture was taken after the internment was lifted.  Either way the caption is still very misleading.  I'm not absolutely certain though, so I would like to hear what other people think.
Here is a link to the source of the picture - http://www.freedomvoices.org/1langepx/wra78.htm . apparently the caption is not correct, and the children are not in fact interned Galaxydog2000 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the caption accordingly.  Thanks for spotting this error. --ScottMainwaring 07:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Veracity 

message: This article falls into the trap of characterizing the issue as whether the Pledge is unconstitutional. Nobody has ever claimed that the text, or its recitation, is unconstiutional in itself. The issue is solely whether government agencies can constituionally recite or promote the Pledge. For example, this is misleading: "Prominent legal challenges have been based on the contention that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it violates one or both of the religion clauses in the First Amendment." Compelling it, or government recitation of it, are the basis of the legal challenges. Same problem here: "Other objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1954. Many critics, including some atheists, agnostics and polytheists, contend that this phrase violates protections against establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." ...and so on. The whole section "Criticism of the Pledge" needs to be cleaned up with an eye for inaccurate language of this type. Bsharvy 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody Claims the Pledge Is Unconstitutional 

message: A contributor to this article who goes by ACE603 has repeatedly attempted to assert that there is controversy over whether Lincoln used the words "under God" in his speech at Gettysburg.
Mr. ACE603 is either unfamiliar with the scholarship or is proposing a "conspiracy" theory of his own that is preposterous. All scholars are clearly of one mind on this issue: there is simply no dispute.
The standard scholarly treatises on the Gettysburg Address are: 
1. William E. Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg: What He Intended to Say; What He Said; What he was Reported to have Said; What he Wished he had Said (New York: Peter Smith, 1950).
2. Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).
Several independent news reporters were in the audience during Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg and they separately took down Lincoln's words verbatim. These reporters included (but were not necessarily limited to) 1. a reporter from the Associated Press (Joseph Gilbert), 2. a reporter from the Boston Advertiser (Charles Hale), 3. a reporter from the Cincinnati Commercial, and 4. a reporter from the New York Tribune.
All of these reporters heard and reported the words “under God.”
The scholars are firm on this point. Consider Barton:
"Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery. It will not do to say that Stanton suggested those words after Lincoln's return to Washington, for the words were telegraphed by at least three reporters on the afternoon of the delivery." (Barton, 138-139)
With regard to the integrity of reporter Charles Hale, Barton says:
“he had notebook and pencil, and as Lincoln spoke very slowly, Mr. Hale was positive that he caught every word. He took down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln’s address, and his declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved to be at its face value.” (Barton, 81)
Another “reporter” who was present at Gettysburg who later wrote down exactly what was said there was Abraham Lincoln. He was asked by several individuals (Historian George Bancroft, Alexander Bliss, and Edward Everett) to send them transcripts of what he said at Gettysburg. In each of those transcripts, written in the hand of Lincoln himself, the words “under God” are present.
According to the Library of Congress:
“three copies of the Address were written by Lincoln for charitable purposes well after November 19. The copy for Edward Everett, the orator who spoke at Gettysburg for two hours prior to Lincoln, is at the Illinois State Historical Library at Springfield; the Bancroft copy, requested by historian George Bancroft, is at Cornell University; the Bliss copy was made for Colonel Alexander Bliss, Bancroft's stepson, and is now in the Lincoln Room of the White House.”
[]
Each one of these transcripts, made by Lincoln himself, contains the phrase “under God.”
Mr. ACE603 seems to base his entire point of view upon the fact that the Nicolay manuscript, which some believe Lincoln had in front of him at Gettysburg, does not include the phrase.
In light of the collective reports of the eyewitnesses, the text of the Nicolay copy is irrelevant. It is entirely commonplace for speakers to interpolate words into speeches extemporaneously.
Case in point: the manuscript of the speech Martin Luther King, Jr. gave in Washington on August 28, 1963 does not include the words “I have a dream.” The manuscript of the speech, now at the Woodruff library in Atlanta, does not include the words “I have a dream.” According to the archivist, “King departed from the written speech and spoke spontaneously using the dream metaphor.” []) His son, Martin Luther King, III, confirmed--
“he [King] suddenly sort of veered off the speech and started preaching. And, actually, the part where he was preaching was the part where he really connected with the audience and may be the most memorable part of that speech, the ‘I have the dream’ part.”[]
Hence, using Mr. ACE603’s logic, it is proper to say that there is controversy over whether King’s “I have a dream” speech included the words “I have a dream” since the manuscript that was in front of King does not include the words.
Ludicrous! There is video evidence that confirms exactly what King said. Mr. ACE603 should go on record saying that there is dispute over whether M.L. King said “I have a dream” in D.C. in 63. In doing so, his point of view would be exposed for its absurdity.
Just so, in November 1863, there were several independent stenographic journalists at Gettysburg whose independent corroboration of what Lincoln said is as reliable as video evidence.
In order for Mr. ACE603 to make a case that Lincoln did not utter the words “under God” at Gettysburg, he must provide evidence that the independent reporters from New York, Boston, Cincinnati, and the Associated Press combined in some fantastic conspiracy to put words into Lincoln’s mouth that he never really said; and then, their greatest feat was to get Lincoln himself in on the conspiracy!--so that later Lincoln would even claim that he said those words at Gettysburg, when he knew, in fact that he did not.
The bottom line is this: it is not proper or scholarly to say that the Gettysburg Address is “thought to” contain the words “under God.” And it is not proper or scholarly to say that there is “dispute” over whether the words were in the Address. And it is not proper or scholarly to say that only one written transcript included the words. In fact, to make these assertions is, at best, amateurish, but more likely, an exhibition of buffoonery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dispute about "Under God" in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 

message: There has been some reference to the "Pledge of Allegiance Building" by the current tenants of 209 Columbus Ave, Boston.  Can anyone verify that this is where it was written? -- Beland 02:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of writing 

message: The history section makes no mention of Congress' desire to add "under God" (in the Pledge and on US currency) to distance itself from the atheist Soviet system, instead implying that the only reason the phrase was added was Eisenhower liked what a couple of religious ministers said. This is a pretty serious omission, isn't it? -- Hux 08:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Omissions from "under God"