Our Founders, if they were alive, would say we shouldn't pledge our allegiance to a flag

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If our nation ever decides its a good idea to narrow down the symbol of our flag from the representation of thirteen colonies and the fifty states to just representing the fifty states alone, surely many soldiers would balk at the idea with the complaint that, good or bad, they fought for the red, white, and blue flag.
The same is true of our pledge of allegiance. But why do we pledge our allegiance to a flag that represents fifty states and thirteen colonies? First off, the stripes need to go. Second, we shouldn't be giving our allegiance to a damned flag. Whoever sold the American people on the pledge of allegiance surely saw us coming a mile away with binoculars.

WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THINGS BASED ON THE LONG TRADITIONS OF LEGAL PRECEDENCE, BUT WE SHOULD BE DOING THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE'S CIVIL PURPOSE!

If anything, the soldiers who gave their lives defending our nation and the workers who gave their lives establishing our nation's economy died for the fifty stars on the flag and nothing else. But in their hearts I think they died for a purpose beyond what the U.S. flag represents.
See, we can talk until we are red, white, and blue in the face and thats not going to stop tyranny from setting up shop for a thousand years. The only way we will ever make an impact is to risk our necks.

[YumYum]

Jehovah's witnesses refuse to say the pledge of allegiance because it is a form of forced idolatry. While I don't agree with the majority of their teachings, I think they are correct on this issue.

[Elwar]

There are some religions that follow the Ten Commandments. The second commandment says something about not worshiping false idols.

Those religions should not be "pledging allegiance" to a flag.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Jehovah's witnesses refuse to say the pledge of allegiance because it is a form of forced idolatry. While I don't agree with the majority of their teachings, I think the are correct on this issue.

Look, the way I feel is this. When our Founding Fathers set the people free, it was like an old pimp wising up at the end and instead of passing on his prostitutes to his sons as an inheritance, he decided to set them free. But what happened? Well, the young pimps stepped in immediately after that in contempt of their father to round us back up!
What is the significance of what I am saying? Well, it was the desire of our Founders that the people be set free from the law so that we could live, somehow and in someway, according to a greater idea.
By the use of laws based on the long established traditions of legal precedence, the lawyers have us restricted today to aiming directly at the apple in the tree - all for their financial benefit. There is no longer a higher idea of a blue sky to aim for making us always come up short of our heart's desire in the end.
As it was the desire of our Founders that we be set free, the tyrants now in charge of us will one day be held to a higher standard and have to pay a higher penalty!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There are some religions that follow the Ten Commandments. The second commandment says something about not worshiping false idols.

Those religions should not be "pledging allegiance" to a flag.

This is true, but I'm talking about a flag that has never represented what our Founding Fathers originally intended for the people. You know, those thirteen stripes on that flag, the oringally thirteen colonies, no longer have the will to be part of a great nation in my opinion. It is almost as if they have a secret agreement with Mexico to give all the border states back to that tyranny. And, you know, I've got to think to myself, well, if they haven't the will to protect my state of Texas, then how must it be for the far flung states like Alaska and Hawaii?
This flag is no longer representative of the people of the United States, but now represents a nation of whoremongerers. That's right! Our flag represents pimpdom.
As we have done in the past during times of crisis, our nation needs another American Movement. We don't need change for the sake of change as the greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations. Words have meaning and we should consider any method favoring the people to be coherent and anything against them as extremist.

[Sola_Fide]

There are some religions that follow the Ten Commandments. The second commandment says something about not worshiping false idols.

Oh yeah. That's why the second commandment and the second amendment are inextricably linked.:)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Oh yeah. That's why the second and commandment and the second amendment are inextricably linked.:)

Wow, could you please elaborate on this?

[Sola_Fide]

Wow, could you please elaborate on this?

Well, its not a theological connection or anything, more a coincidental one:). The 2nd amendment is there to ensure that the worship of government is never enforced without a fight.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, its not a theological connection or anything, more a coincidental one:). The 2nd amendment is there to ensure that the worship of government is never enforced without a fight.

That is a great way of putting it. Most think the second ammendment is to protect people from religion, but the primary reason was to protect the little faiths from having to follow after a religion established by the state.
From what I perceive from the Word in the Book of Acts, Jesus, the Miracle, came to abolish all authority by setting up a marriage. This is a mystery which isn't easily understood. The catholic church is an abomination because it is a religion based on the old authority which is in contempt of the Miracle.
Literally, the Book of Acts is a depiction of both a new authority on earth and the abolishment of all authority on it as well.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Okay, so I've reduced the flag down from the stars and stripes to just the fifty stars. I've done away the colors of red, white, and blue and replaced them with gold and white. I've even created a new pledge of allegiance.
Am I a traitor? Well, in order to commit treason, one has to have an enemy. In order to establish an enemy, Congress has to declare war. Right now, the enemy is a mysterious thing. It is sort of an Anti-Christ figure for sure. A lot of the times, these same evil antagonists wind up being the same persons who used to be our very best friends.
As it stands, the Muslims are the new (N) word people of the day. They are certainly perceived in Puritan like fashion as animals without a conscience.
Actually, I myself think a Muslim phantom has been made by being stirred up into a frenzy.
Remember how Obama kept saying over and over day after day endlessly that he didn't want to anger the Muslim community by releasing the photos of the dead Osama? Then remember how he continued traveling around the nation congratulating the Navy Seals for their brutal killing of the terrorist? Yet, most Muslims have about as much to do with Osama bin Laden as most Catholics had anything to do with Adolph Hitler. But he was still pissing them off. No, better yet, I think he has been pissing off just about everybody!
Look, as a nation we need to make a change. If the president (think of General Washington) wants to go to war, let him lead it. When the kings wanted to go to Holy War with the Muslims, they had to lead voluteers into the battles. This way the nonsense will end, or the real issue will be addressed to the extent that we will finally win or lose a war.

[libertybrewcity]

You are right. They were more loyal to their own state rather than the larger "United States" which really didn't exist in the form it does today.

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay, so I've reduced the flag down from the stars and stripes to just the fifty stars. I've done away the colors of red, white, and blue and replaced them with gold and white. I've even created a new pledge of allegiance.
Am I a traitor? Well, in order to commit treason, one has to have an enemy. In order to establish an enemy, Congress has to declare war. Right now, the enemy is a mysterious thing. It is sort of an Anti-Christ figure for sure. A lot of the times, these same evil antagonists wind up being the same persons who used to be our very best friends.
As it stands, the Muslims are the new (N) word people of the day. They are certainly perceived in Puritan like fashion as animals without a conscience.
Actually, I myself think a Muslim phantom has been made by being stirred up into a frenzy.
Remember how Obama kept saying over and over day after day endlessly that he didn't want to anger the Muslim community by releasing the photos of the dead Osama? Then remember how he continued traveling around the nation congratulating the Navy Seals for their brutal killing of the terrorist? Yet, most Muslims have about as much to do with Osama bin Laden as most Catholics had anything to do with Adolph Hitler. But he was still pissing them off. No, better yet, I think he has been pissing off just about everybody!
Look, as a nation we need to make a change. If the president (think of General Washington) wants to go to war, let him lead it. When the kings wanted to go to Holy War with the Muslims, they had to lead voluteers into the battles. This way the nonsense will end, or the real issue will be addressed to the extent that we will finally win or lose a war.

You're right, and this is one of your better threads. However, you should keep in mind that even if a modern president also led troops into battle, it couldn't be done with the current so-called "war". It is not a war-as RP aptly put it, it is an invasion. (also, Washington never led troops during his presidency. He ceased being general after he was elected. This just a technical point-your argument is still compelling)

[Feeding the Abscess]

Personal tidbit:

I was sent to the principal's office because I refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. In fifth grade.

I was much more badass as a kid than I was as a teen/young adult.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You're right, and this is one of your better threads. However, you should keep in mind that even if a modern president also led troops into battle, it couldn't be done with the current so-called "war". It is not a war-as RP aptly put it, it is an invasion. (also, Washington never led troops during his presidency. He ceased being general after he was elected. This just a technical point-your argument is still compelling)
Think about it this way. First off there really isn't a clear enemy out there to fight against but an abstract animation of one. Indeed, he or she seems to be a terrorist. He or she doesn't do any of the terrorism themselves, but they influence younger people to do it for them.
Gangs in the United States work this way. Terrorists over in the middle east work this way. And the United States government works this way.
If minors in gangs in the United States were given immunity to encourage them to turn in older gang members as the ones behind the scenes influencing them to commit the crimes, another social norm typically comes into play applying pressure to keep them from snitching. Snitching can be determined to be treason or treachery with a penalty of death. This becomes an insidious problem.
The gangs, the terrorists, and the Washingtonians all use this same tactic and the only way to stop it is to blow them out of the water: When the king is willing to lead his men into battle, we might volunteer to go. When congress declares war, the whole nation converts over to war.
When considering the office of the president, it was created by our Founders to be a strong position with George Washington in mind as the model. It was George Washington himself who set a rather paradoxical precedent of a more restrained adminstrator in regards to the kingly powers he was originally intended to have at his disposal.
Read about the kings Richard the Lion Heart and Barbarossa the Gray of Germany! The Turks like to brag that they are the only nation to have never been conquered by a foreign army, but they forget that they were once knocked to the side by Barbarrosa and his German army who had to do battle with other armies just so they could get to where the fighting was taking place for the independence of the Holy land. These kings didn't just design the strategy for the wars, but they led their men into battle!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Personal tidbit:

I was sent to the principal's office because I refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. In fifth grade.

I was much more badass as a kid than I was as a teen/young adult.

I'm not saying we should be rebellious, but thoughtful. As Americans, we should accept Liberty as a given, as it is the Truth alone that sets us free; likewise, we should accept Justice as a given as well, as the deceptive practice of manipulative persecution is a false power when compared to the real power of the Truth.
Don't fear him who can take your life, but fear him who can take your soul and caste it into hell fire.
When a Christian woman marries a man as her husband and takes his last name, she is gaining authority as she is given a face in the marriage. When one is made a slave to another, they lose their face of authority as they are called by whatever name their master chooses. They no longer even own their own soul as their master can end their life at anytime for whatever reason.

In my opinion, here is a more thoughtful pledge of allegiance:

I don't pledge my allegiance to any flag or to the traditions of legal precedence; but, I pledge my allegiance to the American people's Civil Purpose, to the self evident truths declared by our Founding Fathers, and to the unalienble natural right within us all to Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness.