DescentBB

It was a stupid business decision. The only remaining question is on what level did NBC decide to "make a statement?" Some guy with editing power, higherups?

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.

Thats one hell of an extrapolation. The pledge is not solely religious, nor is "God" specific. I do think in time it will be removed or the pledge abandoned; but from a business standpoint you should follow social movements, not try and lead them.

Ferno wrote: 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.

knowledge is a powerful thing Ferno

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892

I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1923

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1924

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1954

so by removing the words "Under God" it does not send it back to its "original" version

Well the deeper question is, if NBC can so blatantly edit out what they did, one has to wonder what other important items they edit out. By doing what they did, NBC has only diminished their trust worthiness to the viewing public.

Gooberman wrote:...

Thats one hell of an extrapolation. The pledge is not solely religious, nor is "God" specific. ....

I'm open to suggestions as to what other motive might be behind it. It doesn't seem like the pledge itself was the offensive part to them or they wouldn't have chosen to show children reciting it. So what reason can you give for their decision to remove the "under god" portion?

As to it not being "God" specific, I think it's a fair assumption that Christians are the ones most likely to think it is 'their god' that the pledge refers to. It was written by Christians and history supports the notion that the god mentioned in the pledge of allegiance in the U.S. would be the Christian god. Any movement to remove that portion has mentioned as one reason to do so is that people of non-Christian faith will feel alienated by it because conventional wisdom holds it is the Christian god it was referring to.

So, now that all the straw men and red herrings have propped up and knocked down, back to the original question, what motive could they have for selecting those few words for removal? I'm open to an interpretation other than my own but I'm having a hard time coming up with anything believable.

Gooberman wrote:...

Thats one hell of an extrapolation. The pledge is not solely religious, nor is "God" specific. ....

Seems there are plenty of people out who thinks it is.

http://atheism.about.com/od/pledgealleg ... er_God.htm

null0010 wrote:

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."

No, you gave your opinion on another matter, one you introduced to the thread, so you could dodge the stated point of the thread.

What, are we so much more "Godly" than other countries that we need to proclaim it in our pledge? Look at us world, God likes us best! We say so in our pledge of allegiance! Phbbbbbbffffffft! Yep, the Empire of God's chosen ones who have the righteousness to rule and control the world. We're better than all those Godless countries. We're the chosen nation of the world!

tunnelcat wrote:What, are we so much more "Godly" than other countries that we need to proclaim it in our pledge? Look at us world, God likes us best! We say so in our pledge of allegiance! Phbbbbbbffffffft! Yep, the Empire of God's chosen ones who have the righteousness to rule and control the world. We're better than all those Godless countries. We're the chosen nation of the world!

With all due respect where did you pull that out from "One Country, Indivisible, Under God"?

tunnelcat wrote:What, are we so much more "Godly" than other countries that we need to proclaim it in our pledge? Look at us world, God likes us best! We say so in our pledge of allegiance! Phbbbbbbffffffft! Yep, the Empire of God's chosen ones who have the righteousness to rule and control the world. We're better than all those Godless countries. We're the chosen nation of the world!

Start a new thread if you want to discuss something completely different....

Typical. is there anyone on the left that would like to discuss this issue without running off on Rabbit trails?

I wouldn't say "under god isn't acceptable", IMO it 's not necessary.

Why would the words "under god" be included if not for approving religion ? Why alianate a loudmouth portion of the population ? The pledge would be more readily accepted today if the latest change was reversed and it wouldn't change its meaning or purpose one bit. Get rid of it and concentrate on the discussion if forcing students to recite it is a sign of totalitarian nationalism.

Pretty much all disputes boil down to religion I guess. This country was started over religious disputes, and so was the Cold War. All your ideologies you develop in your mind will be based in a belief or disbelief of God. That is the cornerstone.

Grendel wrote:I wouldn't say "under god isn't acceptable", IMO it 's not necessary.

Why would the words "under god" be included if not for approving religion ? Why alianate a loudmouth portion of the population ? The pledge would be more readily accepted today if the latest change was reversed and it wouldn't change its meaning or purpose one bit. Get rid of it and concentrate on the discussion if forcing students to recite it is a sign of totalitarian nationalism.

How about we set aside discussions on the merits of the pledge, allegiance to country, god, religion etc. etc. etc. and discuss NBC's motives for editing the words from the pledge? Is there a reasonable alternative to my suspicion of pure political partisan gamesmanship?

The only other thing I can come up with, which if so is an even worse offense, that is they have taken it upon themselves to attempt to hide Christianity from the public view like it is an embarrassment to them.

At the risk of sounding redundant

To Remove From The Minds Of Men.............

I don't know what else to add, the motive seems clear.

If things were a bit different, I wonder if NBC would of edited out the phrase "Under Allah" ?

Will Robinson wrote:[..] and discuss NBC's motives for editing the words from the pledge?

That would be a lesson in futile speculation unless you can figure out who was responsible for the cut.

Grendel wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:[..] and discuss NBC's motives for editing the words from the pledge?

That would be a lesson in futile speculation unless you can figure out who was responsible for the cut.

It isn't futile because I'm not expecting anyone to know for sure what is in the minds of the editors, I'm expecting most people will have an opinion as to what the motive was. Some logical speculation is what this thread is primarily designed to stimulate. I laid my theory out and was thinking maybe I might be missing a reasonable alternative that some one could offer but apparently not.

I hadn't anticipated the level of denial and/or subterfuge it evoked in some though, I should have known better.

It's the 24-hour news cycle. They create the news during the day so that they can report on it in the evening.

Yep. Just what I thought the reaction would be from all the Christians here. I'm a Godless leftie commie. So stale. So arrogant. So ridiculous. So untrue. You know nothing about my beliefs and you're wrong and arrogant to put labels on me and others that don't have YOUR beliefs. Get over it moralists.

Having that phrase in the pledge is really saying to other nations that the U.S. is a country that is blessed by God and that we are special and superior, while others fall from grace. That's why it was put there, to taunt those Damn Godless Commies during the Cold War, to claim our nation BETTER because WE believe in God. Having that phrase in our Pledge of Allegiance is a blatant stick in the eye to all those in this country who DON'T believe in God or who don't believe in any religion period, but still want to honor the flag and their country. The flag is not a religious symbol. It's a symbol of ALL the people of this great nation TOGETHER! Christians need to remember that this country is made up of people of all stripes and creeds.

Will Robinson wrote:How about we set aside discussions on the merits of the pledge, allegiance to country, god, religion etc. etc. etc. and discuss NBC's motives for editing the words from the pledge? Is there a reasonable alternative to my suspicion of pure political partisan gamesmanship?

I think the most likely explanation is that whoever was responsible for editing that particular segment (I'd assume they're no longer employed after this mess) decided that keeping the phrase "under God" in a broadcast of non-religious context might upset someone out there, so they decided to excise it. I'd assume that excising the word "indivisible" was an unintended consequence of the editing, probably in the interests of cadence or flow, since I can't think of any feasible motive for choosing to remove that particular word. Of course, whoever did it had more than their fair share of stupid, since it was obvious that doing so would upset far more people in the process. As an alternate explanation, if you wanted to give more of the benefit of the doubt, it could have been that the entire segment had certain overall or shot-time limits, and that whoever was cutting it down to fit said limits happened to choose the one phrase that would wind up causing the most uproar. It's been said that one should never attribute to maliciousness what can be attributed to human stupidity, so you never know.

And woodchip, just out of curiosity, how does it follow that NBC Sports' editing of a fluff intro for a golf tournament broadcast equates to them editing actual news stories?

LOL…NBC better not ever broadcast NASCAR.

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote: 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.

knowledge is a powerful thing Ferno

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892

I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1923

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1924

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1954

so by removing the words "Under God" it does not send it back to its "original" version

okay so maybe not exactly the original version, but it still remains the same pledge. It's not like removing the words 'under god' turns it into 'we the nazi-socaialist-anarchist conglomerate of states that we live in shall serve under the coming of Cthulhu'

This country was started over religious disputes, and so was the Cold War

whoa, slow down there skippy. America was never founded under religious disputes. If anything, the founding fathers were either non-theist or athiest and the birth of the country came from a bloody war and the unquenchable drive to get out from under british taxation. The cold war wasn't about religion at all. it mainly consisted of the american side building up it's nuclear arsenal to defend and deter russian attack.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:How about we set aside discussions on the merits of the pledge, allegiance to country, god, religion etc. etc. etc. and discuss NBC's motives for editing the words from the pledge? Is there a reasonable alternative to my suspicion of pure political partisan gamesmanship?

I think the most likely explanation is that whoever was responsible for editing that particular segment (I'd assume they're no longer employed after this mess) decided that keeping the phrase "under God" in a broadcast of non-religious context might upset someone out there, so they decided to excise it. ...

So they considered the content might be offensive to "someone out there" but somehow forgot to think about the millions of someone's in the audience that would find the selective edit of content offensive?!? I can only buy that if they are one of the ones who is offended by the content and put their feelings over the bulk of the country. It works that way. Funny, in a way they are ramming their atheism down the throats of the Christians aren't they?

Top Gun wrote:. ... As an alternate explanation, if you wanted to give more of the benefit of the doubt, it could have been that the entire segment had certain overall or shot-time limits,..

Highly unlikely considering it was like a four hour broadcast of a golf tournament, they always need filler and that is probably why it was included to begin with along with lots of other filler...

I dunno TC, your slant on it doesn't do it justice. It is those beliefs that we held though and thus far have carried us this far. If some misuse it what is that to me? The Communist-humanist approach always ends badly because the upper tier start thinking they are entitled to choose for the lower. A belief in God keeps everyone's life at the same value. If I had to choose on those 2 merits, even without a true belief in God, I still would choose the God-fearing folks.

EDIT: Lol Ferno. You unidealistic bastard. I take you about as seriously as you do TB.

flip wrote:EDIT: Lol Ferno. You unidealistic bastard. I take you about as seriously as you do TB.

then i've done my job. though when i swing the other way, it still takes everyone by surprise.

Will wrote:I'm open to suggestions as to what other motive might be behind it. It doesn't seem like the pledge itself was the offensive part to them or they wouldn't have chosen to show children reciting it. So what reason can you give for their decision to remove the "under god" portion?

As to it not being "God" specific, I think it's a fair assumption that Christians are the ones most likely to think it is 'their god' that the pledge refers to. It was written by Christians and history supports the notion that the god mentioned in the pledge of allegiance in the U.S. would be the Christian god. Any movement to remove that portion has mentioned as one reason to do so is that people of non-Christian faith will feel alienated by it because conventional wisdom holds it is the Christian god it was referring to.

So, now that all the straw men and red herrings have propped up and knocked down, back to the original question, what motive could they have for selecting those few words for removal? I'm open to an interpretation other than my own but I'm having a hard time coming up with anything believable.

Assuming this is an activist agenda, (and not just NBC stupidity -- which I havn't yet given them that pass -- especially given how quickly they apologized), I think the only thing we disagree on is the why.

People can be pro-agnostic/pro-athiest for removing religion from the public square, without being anti-christian. This is a subtle difference, but it is a difference between our stances. For example, its similar to a christmas tree in the public square, this isn't an "anti-islamic sentiment," rather it is "pro-christian."

If this was an Agenda driven thing, then I would see it more as a, "In this country, which has a strong separation between church and state, our pledge should be religion free," rather then, "Hey Christians, ★■◆● you guys!"

I guess to be breif, "this song aint about you."

So my question to you, If this was an "NBC agenda driven" action, why did they apologize so quickly?

Gooberman wrote:..

So my question to you, If this was an "NBC agenda driven" action, why did they apologize so quickly?

I don't think it is a corporate policy kind of thing. I think the people putting the piece together decided to do it out of their own political/social engineering bent.

The network apologized...sort of... they said they removed 'something' and didn't mean to offend anyone. I'd love to know what reason they will give for the removal.

As quick as they realized a Christian backlash (obvious assumption) against them would be expensive they issued the apology and probably gave the producer of the piece a scolding...and a high five off the record.

I think there is a dominant presence of liberals in the entertainment industry and that industry is so self conscious and vain to the brink of paranoid that the conservatives in their ranks are in the closet.
Lorne Michaels, producer of Saturday Night Live, once said the liberals are always the ones who are surprised when the show makes fun of them and they often complain that they are supposed to be "on the same team" and the conservatives don't complain, they just expect it.

My point there is, NBC isn't going to make it policy to bash Christians but you can expect the rank and file in the industry to have a serious prejudice against the right wing and the Christians are considered a main support group for conservatives.
My theory is this editing job was the direct result of that prejudice put into action by some producer at NBC probably just a spontaneous expression of his or her sociopolitical superiority complex and spitefulness. I don't think it was religion bashing, I think it was ideological based.

could someone explain how omitting 'Under God' is anti-Christian? It would seem to be anti-theistic, but shouldn't be any more offensive to Christians than to Muslims, Jews or Rastafarians.

Agreed, it is anit-theistic.

Why can't you all see that leaving out "indivisible" is indicative of a secessionist conspiracy?

Flatlander wrote:Why can't you all see that leaving out "indivisible" is indicative of a secessionist conspiracy?

nah, it's just that the recent years have made the claim of indivisible sort of, well, silly.

callmeslick wrote:could someone explain how omitting 'Under God' is anti-Christian? It would seem to be anti-theistic, but shouldn't be any more offensive to Christians than to Muslims, Jews or Rastafarians.

enough people assume it was put in by a Christian in pledge to a predominantly Christian nation of which the founding documents written by Christians give credit to their God as being the source of the citizens rights therefore it must be the Christian God it speaks of.

There are plenty of people who say it it should be removed because it alienated followers of other faiths (see links posted in previous responses for more).

Certainly all attempts to remove "under god" from the pledge prove to be an agitation primarily to Christians. So literal interpretations take a backseat to conventional wisdom in this case

[ Post made via Android ]

This is a good read.

http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm

Will Robinson wrote:enough people assume it was put in by a Christian in pledge to a predominantly Christian nation of which the founding documents written by Christians give credit to their God as being the source of the citizens rights therefore it must be the Christian God it speaks of.

well, you know what they say about assuming.....further, any student of history knows that the Founding Fathers, while nominally Christian, were a diverse group, and far from what many bible-thumping modern types would identify as fellow travellers.

There are plenty of people who say it it should be removed because it alienated followers of other faiths (see links posted in previous responses for more).

well, I would disagree. I think it should be removed because it runs counter to the 'indivisible' part. All of us, faith or no faith, are Americans, osthensibly an 'indivisible' strong group. Throwing in 'under God' when many of us don't believe in God seems sort of divergent from the overall goal.

Certainly all attempts to remove "under god" from the pledge prove to be an agitation primarily to Christians. So literal interpretations take a backseat to conventional wisdom in this case

I suppose you're right, and if so, that is a testimonial to how thin-skinned and not-used-to not getting their way some Christians have become. It wasn't always so.

callmeslick wrote:I think it should be removed because it runs counter to the 'indivisible' part. All of us, faith or no faith, are Americans, osthensibly an 'indivisible' strong group. Throwing in 'under God' when many of us don't believe in God seems sort of divergent from the overall goal.

Excellent point IMVHO.

Grendel wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I think it should be removed because it runs counter to the 'indivisible' part. All of us, faith or no faith, are Americans, osthensibly an 'indivisible' strong group. Throwing in 'under God' when many of us don't believe in God seems sort of divergent from the overall goal.

Excellent point IMVHO.

well if that's the case explain the Democrats and Republicans. just a little division there.

CUDA wrote:well if that's the case explain the Democrats and Republicans. just a little division there.

I must have missed them being referenced in the pledge of allegiance...

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, And to the Republicans for which it stands.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:enough people assume it was put in by a Christian in pledge to a predominantly Christian nation of which the founding documents written by Christians give credit to their God as being the source of the citizens rights therefore it must be the Christian God it speaks of.

well, you know what they say about assuming.....further, any student of history knows that the Founding Fathers, while nominally Christian, were a diverse group, and far from what many bible-thumping modern types would identify as fellow travellers.

Any bright student of history would know that the perception, both then and now, is that America was founded largely by Christians and still considered a predominantly Christian nation. So although you had lots to say from your lofty educated perch it doesn't really add up to a correction of my asserting the perception is such which is what the point was.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There are plenty of people who say it it should be removed because it alienated followers of other faiths (see links posted in previous responses for more).

well, I would disagree. ..

You =1 .... "plenty of people" = >1

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Certainly all attempts to remove "under god" from the pledge prove to be an agitation primarily to Christians. So literal interpretations take a backseat to conventional wisdom in this case

I suppose you're right, and if so, that is a testimonial to how thin-skinned and not-used-to not getting their way some Christians have become. It wasn't always so.

But it is a testimonial to some irrelevant point in the context of this discussion. I mean sure, you got your dig in against the Christians, go high five yourself but unless you are with NBC and making a confession it is really out of place in a response to the question posed by this topic.

It is quite clear from some of you that since you don't like the mention of god in the pledge, and or, don't like the pledge at all, that you want to change the subject to what you don't like. We get that, it's all about your opinion...that is kind of what created this event in the first place isn't it? In some ones opinion 'under god' needs to be removed!

However, the fact that you don't like something doesn't change our interest in the attempts by those like you who either want to cleanse broadcasts, public discourse, etc. of any sign that people here have faith or else they were shaping the kids in their image.
What is the difference between an evangelical and the producer of that bit? Answer, the evangelical will ask you if you would like to join his way of thinking....

flip wrote:I dunno TC, your slant on it doesn't do it justice. It is those beliefs that we held though and thus far have carried us this far. If some misuse it what is that to me? The Communist-humanist approach always ends badly because the upper tier start thinking they are entitled to choose for the lower. A belief in God keeps everyone's life at the same value. If I had to choose on those 2 merits, even without a true belief in God, I still would choose the God-fearing folks.

EDIT: Lol Ferno. You unidealistic bastard. I take you about as seriously as you do TB.

I don't see Capitalism as a bastion of Godliness either. The same problem is happening with our system, but what's going on here is that the top wealthy tier of people are taking money and resources from the rest of society. People just haven't woken up to it yet. I don't see a belief in God as a requirement or a benefit to our system at all. In fact, some are using their Godliness as a justification for their wealth or for the repression of others. Capitalism is married to religion only because it's a money maker and it keeps the masses buying things. We've had this discussion before. I don't see how freedom to amass wealth equals a lock on Godliness. Capitalists are no better than Communists. I don't see how belief in God is a prerequisite for being good and honest. I'm not a church goer or a rigid believer in God, but I've always tried to live honestly and do good for people.

That's the problem with both political extremes by the way. Greed and the craving for power by the privileged few always corrupt any system. That's why both political systems taken to the extreme always fail. It happened to the U.S. in 1929, a massive failure of the system called the Depression. Humans never seem happy with a balancing things. They've always got to take as much as they want when they want, without regard to their fellow man. Conservatism and Liberalism both suffer from that trait, just in different ways.