In the US most students recite “the pledge of allegiance” every morning before school, which is kind of crazy. If you were in charge, what if anything would you replace it with?
In the US most students recite “the pledge of allegiance” every morning before school, which is kind of crazy. If you were in charge, what if anything would you replace it with?
Just a couple of judicious edits…
Okay replacing men with persons is just nitpicking, and I don’t think it’s grammatically correct.
It’s absolutely not nitpicking, it’s inclusive
Men in this use case is already gender neutral.
I understand that historically “men” was used to refer to humans in general, but language evolves, and it’s important to use terms that are explicitly inclusive. By saying “persons” instead of “men,” it ensures everyone feels represented/included, and reinforces that these rights apply to every individual (bc they used to not, and lots of folks still want them to only apply to cishet white men)
Not just historically. It’s a literary term, but still a thing.
Other than that, inclusivity is important, but inclusivity theater is just annoying. Literally nothing will change if you change that one word in the constitution.
I’m guessing you’re a cis man? It would actually be a meaningful change for a lot of women and nonbinary people, even if subconscious.
Personally, I get a little bit annoyed every time I read/hear the general use of “men,” and that would change if we change that one word in the constitution, so not literally nothing
If you take out “by their creator” you need to remove or change “endowed”
How about…