Under God is not acceptable

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:22 am

I wonder why NBC would edit out the words under god from a shot of children reciting the pledge of allegiance.

I think if any broadcaster edited out "peace be upon him" from a muslim honoring the mention of the prophet Muhammad, or the mention of Allah himself, you would hear lots of complaints from liberals saying it was hateful and of course you would probably have some islamo-fascists talk of jihad against the infidels for disparaging their fearless prophet.

I don't want to debate god or religion or separation etc....those things have been done to a circular death here already.

I want to know how you think the thought process works in a production crew at work broadcasting a golf tournament or an editing room where the clip was produced to play later (not sure if the pledge portion was a live event), where they feel the need, and act upon that need, to remove the words "under god" from the broadcast.
And the follow up to that, how do they reconcile that act with the need they feel to protect the Muslim faith from any kind of similar tampering or criticism.

To me it says they are not making these decisions based on anything other than ideological grounds. A need to knock Christians followers down a peg or two and a need to support Islamic followers where ever they conflict with Christians because that will agitate the Christian right.
It clearly isn't a consistent concern with the overall public expression of all religions that fuels their acts. This is not the imposition of political correctness upon us, that would be the excuse they would offer. It is disguised as political correctness but it is just liberal partisan crap at it's core.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:38 am

"under god" was only added as a form of protection against communism.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:39 am

Ferno wrote:"under god" was only added as a form of protection against communism.

So what part of my questions does that have any relevance to?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:42 am

I agree Will. why edit it unless it was for those reasons.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:45 am

Ferno wrote:"under god" was only added as a form of protection against communism.

does that matter?? it is still part of the Official pledge. do you get to omit a part of an oath because it was added at a later date?. the pledge has been modified several times over the course of it's history. why omit just the "Under God" part except for ideology

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:50 am

Ferno, if you are implying the 'under god' portion is no longer needed since communism is dead so they made an editorial decision to make the verbage of the pledge more up to date I think you are really reaching!
I can see editing a hurricane evacuation map in a public service announcement to remove a route that no longer exists...that would serve the public's interest.

But to edit out the words 'under god' in a children's recital of the pledge of allegiance because the original reason for those words inclusion is now moot therefore grammatically or lyrically superfluous?!?
Come on!! (nice try though...in a defense attorney kind of slimy way

)

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:13 am

Do you have video, I couldn't see it on link. Did they just open with th pledge and cut away.....or did they litterally just remove that section and come back to the end?

If its the first one then its just another case of fnc creating a story. If its the katter, then ya that is weird.

[ Post made via Android ]

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:39 am

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

Man, I could go on and on but just by this statement you can see the goal is and always was one of World Government. This is what I see. Read that statement again that was met with approval at the UN when said. To do that seems malevolent as hell, yet I read this years ago and can systematically see it coming to fruition, or actually already has now. Here they are in big group discussing how "to achieve world government" and these are the methods by which they chose to use.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:07 am

Gooberman wrote:Do you have video, I couldn't see it on link. Did they just open with th pledge and cut away.....or did they litterally just remove that section and come back to the end?

If its the first one then its just another case of fnc creating a story. If its the katter, then ya that is weird.

[ Post made via Android ]

removed the words and came back at the end

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:44 am

Airtime is expensive.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:54 am

I agree. it is, but NBC chose to keep playing video without the words under God and music only before resuming the pledge so this was not a Money issue.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:20 am

Maybe they're trying to make a statement.

I think the entire Pledge of Allegiance is silly.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:56 am

null0010 wrote:Maybe they're trying to make a statement.

I think the entire Pledge of Allegiance is silly.

Too bad all those troops who died believing in the Pledge gave you the right to say it is "silly". Hopefully there are enough people who think saying the Pledge is something to be honored so you can continue thinking the country you live in is Silly.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:05 pm

Yep, freedom sure is cool, isn't it?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:22 pm

I think the entire Pledge of Allegiance is silly.

Sure thing. Once this country is gone you won't have to worry about it- or, well, the freedoms it once had.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:29 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:
I think the entire Pledge of Allegiance is silly.
Sure thing. Once this country is gone you won't have to worry about it- or, well, the freedoms it once had.

Explain to me the chain of logic that leads from either "Null doesn't care about the Pledge" or "NBC censored the Pledge" down to "the entire country will be destroyed."

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:01 pm

null0010 wrote:
Explain to me the chain of logic that leads from either "Null doesn't care about the Pledge" or "NBC censored the Pledge" down to "the entire country will be destroyed."

Not making that assertion- just that many people (even citizens of our own country) hate the USA so much, they wouldn't mind its destruction or dissolution.

You don't know what you have lost until its gone.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:10 pm

Thinking the Pledge is a silly thing is not equivalent to hating the United States.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:25 pm

I'm right there with null -- I think the whole pledge is silly.

Not that there's anything wrong with people who think otherwise, just... don't expect everyone to put a great deal of stock in it.

That said, if you're going to air it, don't edit it. That's just dumb. If you take it seriously enough to give it airtime, take it seriously enough to do it right. And definitely don't cut pieces out of it, especially if it's kids reciting it, to "make a statement". That's disrespectful to your viewers, to the kids in the video, and to the pledge itself. Either air it as an unedited whole, or skip it entirely, don't go halfway.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:29 pm

I'm still trying to figure out how you thinking the pledge is silly, has anything NBC censoring the pledge

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:36 pm

Well, I believe in this country and the Americans in it and come what may I'll be right there, but I quit saying the pledge years ago. It has gotten me many bad stares in church and public events, yet in good conscience, I felt the words were empty now and my allegiance is ONLY to God. I realize people don't want to hear this ★■◆● and I've become a broken record. It's been on my mind since I was a kid and it's become my own private obsession

.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:39 pm

I don't know.

"Under God" in the pledge could lead to radicalization of Christian militants:

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:46 pm

CUDA wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how you thinking the pledge is silly, has anything NBC censoring the pledge

I was trying to dismiss the entire topic as silly.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:50 pm

Well, some people are gonna get pissed, no doubt. I just hate the way they distort things. She states that women have the right to choose abortion, that it is law here. Agreed. Then she tries to turn the table saying that anyone who disagrees with that is potentially trying to undermine the country and is a militant without ever being specific. It's akin to labeling anyone who is against abortion as being against this country. I say THAT kind of dishonesty exhibited by her and many others is what is undermining this country. I'm no militant, but at least I know bull★■◆● the moment I see it.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:25 pm

null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how you thinking the pledge is silly, has anything NBC censoring the pledge
I was trying to dismiss the entire topic as silly.

I think your attempted dismissal is silly.

NBC took something a lot of people take seriously, chose to included it in their coverage and treat it seriously, and then screwed with it anyway. They could've played the pledge straight, or chosen not to include the pledge at all, or done an opinion segment discussing the words "under God" in the pledge, or aired a South Park style cartoon mocking the pledge. IMO all of those would've been better than what they actually did. It's just plain dumb to take something that a lot of people think is important, treat it as important 99% of the way, and then screw with it the last 1%.

Imagine somebody doing that with, say, an important religious writing. Like, for example, airing a reading of the Ten Commandments and treating it very respectfully throughout, but bleeping out the part about "thou shalt not steal". Unless there were special circumstances (like, it was part of a documentary about a religious leader who was also a thief) this would be a very bad idea. It comes off as some mix of insensitive, careless, and stupid.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:51 pm

Did NBC ever edit the song the kids sang, "Obama, mmmm, mmmm , mmmm" ?

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:03 pm

Did NBC ever edit the song the kids sang, "Obama, mmmm, mmmm , mmmm" ?

No, and to see our own children setup to sing praises of a politician brought back some pretty scary images from the past. I've got nothing against Obama, except I think he's a groomed and made man, but just the actual direction that could go possibly go, that way of thinking should be squashed immediately.

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:16 pm

What about "indivisible," huh? They left that out, too.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:25 pm

null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how you thinking the pledge is silly, has anything NBC censoring the pledge
I was trying to dismiss the entire topic as silly.

you were trying to characterize the topic as something it isn't so you could dismiss it. it isn't about the pledge. it is about the motive to edit a few select words out of it and I think you knew that from the start

I think you are right in that they are making a statement but it isn't. that they think the pledge is silly. they have issues with Christianity.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:27 pm

Regardless of the reasoning, that's a massively stupid move on NBC's part. Someone had to realize that editing it like that would wind up pissing people off.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:57 pm

Top Gun wrote:Regardless of the reasoning, that's a massively stupid move on NBC's part. Someone had to realize that editing it like that would wind up pissing people off.

Yea, that was probably the point…and probably removed “"indivisible" to put a much finer point on it.

(assuming Flatlander is correct)

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:30 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
null0010 wrote:
CUDA wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how you thinking the pledge is silly, has anything NBC censoring the pledge
I was trying to dismiss the entire topic as silly.
you were trying to characterize the topic as something it isn't so you could dismiss it. it isn't about the pledge. it is about the motive to edit a few select words out of it and I think you knew that from the start

I think you are right in that they are making a statement but it isn't. that they think the pledge is silly. they have issues with Christianity.

That is exactly what I was dismissing. As far as I am concerned, NBC can do whatever they want to whatever piece of footage they own, and broadcast it in any way (within FCC guidelines, of course) that they want to. No matter how stupid or offensive I or anybody else may think it is.

I meant those as two separate statements. I do not expect NBC to have the same view of the Pledge as I do.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:58 pm

null0010 wrote:As far as I am concerned, NBC can do whatever they want to whatever piece of footage they own, and broadcast it in any way (within FCC guidelines, of course) that they want to. No matter how stupid or offensive I or anybody else may think it is.

Nobody disputes NBC's right to do stupid things. This answer is a dodge.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:05 pm

null0010 wrote:...

That is exactly what I was dismissing. As far as I am concerned, NBC can do whatever they want to whatever piece of footage they own, and broadcast it in any way (within FCC guidelines, of course) that they want to. ....

Well if a broadcaster takes it upon themselves to cleanse Christianity from the activities of citizens when it is reporting on them by way of editing it out then it isn't silly to a lot of people and the motive for their doing it is of interest to them.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:29 pm

Lothar wrote:
null0010 wrote:As far as I am concerned, NBC can do whatever they want to whatever piece of footage they own, and broadcast it in any way (within FCC guidelines, of course) that they want to. No matter how stupid or offensive I or anybody else may think it is.
Nobody disputes NBC's right to do stupid things. This answer is a dodge.

A dodge of what?

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Heh, I used to love watching Abbot and Costello

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:04 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Ferno wrote:"under god" was only added as a form of protection against communism.
So what part of my questions does that have any relevance to?

it's relevant because you really shouldn't be worried about something that was manufactured. So if it's removed, it simply goes back to it's original version.

so chill man, getting worked up like this over two words really isn't worth it.

incidentally, this entire thread is just a mess. too many mexican jumping beans and not enough stability.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:34 pm

null0010 wrote:
Lothar wrote:
null0010 wrote:As far as I am concerned, NBC can do whatever they want to whatever piece of footage they own, and broadcast it in any way (within FCC guidelines, of course) that they want to. No matter how stupid or offensive I or anybody else may think it is.
Nobody disputes NBC's right to do stupid things. This answer is a dodge.
A dodge of what?

A dodge of the entire rest of the conversation. Try not to do that in the future.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:42 pm

Lothar wrote:A dodge of the entire rest of the conversation. Try not to do that in the future.

Ask me a question before accusing me of "dodging" something. I gave my opinion on the matter, that is not a "dodge."

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:47 pm

I get a sense of just how well my point resonates among some by the way they are purposely going into obtuse mode to avoid it.