The Pledge of allegiance

[Bobby]

This has been a hot topic for a few. I personally have always had a problem with the pledge taking place within the schools. Especially with the words; 'under god.'
With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?
Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?
[/i]

[ST88]

I remember taking this pledge at the beginning of every school day in the 70s. I wasn't raised to believe in a Christian God, and I remember asking a teacher what "under God" meant. She told me that the U.S. didn't have a king, so we needed the blessing of God to exist.

I felt very uncomfortable having to say this oath over and over again, day after day, when it didn't represent what I believed in. Eventually, I decided to remain silent when that part of the pledge came around: "one nation... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." No one noticed. Although I didn't know it at the time, I was engaging in civil disobedience.

As an adult, I see how pervasive this idea of a fealty to a Christian god is. It's on the money, it's in the courts, it's in official holiday celebrations, and it's in the vernacular. In an ideal world, we would have no references to religion, but the U.S. is filled with religious references that have to do with the history of the country, such as the names of our cities, and even our own names, many of which were taken from Biblical texts.

Fortunately, like Christmas, many of these references are taken, in society as a whole, for quaint reminders of a past that we have thankfully outgrown as a civilization. People continue to say "Thank God", "God Bless you", "Goodbye", and "For Christ's sake" to express different meanings in conversation, and the religious connotations have slipped away into the mists of linguistics. Much like we say that we "dial" a telephone, even when telephones no longer have dials.

The real danger of "under God" in the pledge is that the pledge actually means something. It has to do with pride of nationalism. And this has nothing to do with belief or unbelief. There is no religious requirement for citizenship and it does not give any greater or lesser legal standing. Christians do not have a monopoly on patriotism.

[Bobby]

The post written by ST88 above is brilliantly written. I would love to go on and on about why, but the post can speak for itself. Yes, I agree with it almost entirely, but that isn't why I am so impressed. The topic was not only addressed, but he touched on the consequences that God has had on our nation (through our individual selves) in a fashion that goes beyond our awareness of the affect. I hope that made sense. Regardless, St88 made a great deal of sense, and I do not mean to make such a big deal out od it, but I am very pleased that part of my day was spent reading that post. Good show.

[mrmufin]

With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?

I concur largely with what ST88 has already said. As well, I always omitted "under God" from the mandatory recitatons. I was completely unaware that omitting two words from the pledge of allegiance was an act of civil disobedience *). If that's the case, then by all means, those words should be removed, else the words "under God" should be removed, though leaving them in probably does negligible damage. IOW, if the US does happen to be under God, removing the words "under God" does not necessarily impair the accuracy of the sentiments. However, if the US is not demonstrably under God those words do hinder the accuracy of the statement.

*)Incidentally, my skept-O-meter pulls some deflection regarding the civil disobedience assertion. After confering with the very lovely msmufin (who works in a local school), she believes that standing is the only compulsory part of the pledge in public schools.

Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?

Though it probably wouldn't matter much to me whether or not the pledge of allegiance is removed the public school system, I think it's important to teach children to understand, and hopefully appreciate, the core concepts stated in the PoA. If I recall correctly, it was in Cub Scouts, not the classroom, where we endeavored to dissect and understand the meaning of the PoA. Since I'm not a big fan of nationalism, I believe the concepts expressed in the pledge of allegiance are more important than the recitation.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Crixus]

It is my belief that the words "Under God" in the pledge are of little consequence. It could be argued that it enforces, at least as it is arbitrarily spoken, submission to a deity. However I disagree that the danger is the recitation of the words "Under God", but that it is in truth the recitation of the pledge itself.

The pledge of allegiance was created after the civil war as an expression of unity amongst all residents. One nation, Indivisible; as I see it, the pledge is a totalitarian device, which aims to indoctrinate the speakers with the notion that centralization of powers under the flag is inescapable and that dissent and rebellion is futile.

The discussion of the phrase "under God" is at best a distraction and a legitimation of the entirety of the pledge minus "under God", never mind that the pledge itself was only inserted into the nationalist package about 40 years prior to the addition of "under God". Oddly enough few people are crying for the abolition of the pledge. But what of those who do not wish to bow before a cloth idol and declare their allegiance to an inanimate object and the illusory power structure that it stands for? It is repugnant to me to hear people say that it is good for children to blindly pay homage to a piece of cloth, and profess the existence "liberty" for all, that is liberty so long as it does not contradict or challenge the methods or agenda of the elite, but the part that is bad is that which might obstruct one's belief. The entire pledge is an obstruction of beliefs, so I do not care if they continue inserting insulting phrases within it, eventually people will realize that it is simply a method of forcing children to recite propaganda.

[Bobby]

But what of those who do not wish to bow before a cloth idol and declare their allegiance to an inanimate object and the illusory power structure that it stands for? It is repugnant to me to hear people say that it is good for children to blindly pay homage to a piece of cloth, and profess the existence "liberty" for all, that is liberty so long as it does not contradict or challenge the methods or agenda of the elite, but the part that is bad is that which might obstruct one's belief. The entire pledge is an obstruction of beliefs, so I do not care if they continue inserting insulting phrases within it, eventually people will realize that it is simply a method of forcing children to recite propaganda.

WOW!!!
I think I totally I agree with you. I think. I need time....and a cigarette.
How cool it is when others share something that gets ya thinking.

[ST88]

The pledge of allegiance was created after the civil war as an expression of unity amongst all residents. One nation, Indivisible; as I see it, the pledge is a totalitarian device, which aims to indoctrinate the speakers with the notion that centralization of powers under the flag is inescapable and that dissent and rebellion is futile.

The discussion of the phrase "under God" is at best a distraction and a legitimation of the entirety of the pledge minus "under God", never mind that the pledge itself was only inserted into the nationalist package about 40 years prior to the addition of "under God". Oddly enough few people are crying for the abolition of the pledge. But what of those who do not wish to bow before a cloth idol and declare their allegiance to an inanimate object and the illusory power structure that it stands for? It is repugnant to me to hear people say that it is good for children to blindly pay homage to a piece of cloth, and profess the existence "liberty" for all, that is liberty so long as it does not contradict or challenge the methods or agenda of the elite, but the part that is bad is that which might obstruct one's belief. The entire pledge is an obstruction of beliefs, so I do not care if they continue inserting insulting phrases within it, eventually people will realize that it is simply a method of forcing children to recite propaganda.

I have to disagree with you about the inculcation of our youth into a culture of submission to the "elites", as you call them. I have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance as a referent for national pride. As a U.S. citizen, I DO feel an allegiance to the republic for which this, my flag, stands (the flag itself is another topic); and I DO feel that this allegiance is appropriate. The fact that you believe it is a "blind homage" to the agendas of those in power does not stem from the allegiance itself, but rather from their abuse of power, which you have since discovered. These are two different things.

America, itself, does not breed this kind of corruption merely beacuse of its character. There is corruption everywhere, and it's up to us to stop it however we can.

However, the kind of propaganda that is implicit within the Pledge is not harmful in any way. It's the softest kind of "go America" rhetoric you're liable to find. Rebel, if you want, against the people in power; rebel against the capitalist machinery behind the people in power; rebel against the global mercantilist economy that controls our capitalist machinery; but you can't tell me that this is the same thing as rebelling against America. Our government is not the country, and this is the whole point of America. Once you topple the power base, you're still left with the Constitution.

And this is why I object to "Under God" and not the pledge itself. It's fine to say that the U.S. is my country, and that I love it because of the historical freedoms it was able to grant its citizens (some more eventually than others, but, again, this is due to those who were in power, and not the republic itself); but it's not fine to say that the U.S. is somehow geographically or philosophically located in relation to a specific god. Citizenship is an external characteristic that can be proved and legally defined. Religious belief is an internal characteristic that requires no proof, no cause, and no purpose -- inherently irrational and necessarily compliant.

[Bobby]

Our government is not the country, and this is the whole point of America. Once you topple the power base, you're still left with the Constitution.

After reading your entire post, but particularly the above quote, you got my wheels turning in another direction. Your point was well made. As I also see the point Crixus was making.
When I consider each of your perspectives, along with my own, which probably is not as in depth as the two of yours, I still am able to come to another conclusion. Which is, we are all extremely influenced in a variety of ways and when considering the complexity and multitude of these influences, especially when they pertain to our country and all its aspects, we, as individuals, would certainly come from many different directions with our views.
I can also see the pledge as an innocent gesture, as well as propaganda. Seeing both things, I suppose it is important for me to consider what it is I am truly looking at. Who made me recite it and why? What was the objective? Considering that, it does seem as harmless as the star spangled banner. But of course, when I think about this counties citizens and its government as a whole, I can't ignore the disappointment that comes from my feeling literally manipulated as an American. I cannot honestly say I am proud to be an American, however I am extremely proud of the initial intention our forefathers had. We who came later, just allowed greed and prejudice, among other things to prevent us from carrying out that intention. Shame on us.
Sorry for rambling. I hope that made some sense. If not, blame ST88 and
Crixus, they inspired it.
Good day my friends.

[Illyricum]

This has been a hot topic for a few. I personally have always had a problem with the pledge taking place within the schools. Especially with the words; 'under god.'
With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?
Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?

A thought As a Christian I would rather the "under God" part be left in the pledge, but for an Atheist like you you feel uncomfortable saying the words, well, it's a free country, we have the freedom of speech don't we? I think kids in school should be able to chose if they want to say "under God" or not, instead of the government forcing them to say it or not. What do you think?

[Crixus]

I have to disagree with you about the inculcation of our youth into a culture of submission to the "elites", as you call them. I have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance as a referent for national pride. As a U.S. citizen, I DO feel an allegiance to the republic for which this, my flag, stands (the flag itself is another topic); and I DO feel that this allegiance is appropriate. The fact that you believe it is a "blind homage" to the agendas of those in power does not stem from the allegiance itself, but rather from their abuse of power, which you have since discovered. These are two different things.

It is blind homage when children do not understand what they are pledging theselves to. At the age they typically start to recite the pledge, 4 to 5 years, they would recite anything asked of them.

America, itself, does not breed this kind of corruption merely beacuse of its character. There is corruption everywhere, and it's up to us to stop it however we can.

Which America? America the U.S. Government? America the corporate marauder? America the citizenry? I would agree with you if you meant the later, the former two however I do believe breed inherent corruption.

However, the kind of propaganda that is implicit within the Pledge is not harmful in any way. It's the softest kind of "go America" rhetoric you're liable to find. Rebel, if you want, against the people in power; rebel against the capitalist machinery behind the people in power; rebel against the global mercantilist economy that controls our capitalist machinery; but you can't tell me that this is the same thing as rebelling against America. Our government is not the country, and this is the whole point of America. Once you topple the power base, you're still left with the Constitution.

And this is why I object to "Under God" and not the pledge itself. It's fine to say that the U.S. is my country, and that I love it because of the historical freedoms it was able to grant its citizens (some more eventually than others, but, again, this is due to those who were in power, and not the republic itself); but it's not fine to say that the U.S. is somehow geographically or philosophically located in relation to a specific god. Citizenship is an external characteristic that can be proved and legally defined. Religious belief is an internal characteristic that requires no proof, no cause, and no purpose -- inherently irrational and necessarily compliant.

Well, we disagree for numerous reasons, the most prominent being you believe that "America", that is the state or as it is referred to in the pledge "the republic", is an overall good thing. I find all states to be vile, unnecessary institutions that perpetuate war and havoc in a fashion unrivaled by any other institution that man has dared create, a distant second being the corporation. You say that once the power base is toppled the constitution still remains, a statement which maintains the assumption that I believe in republics, and more specifically the constitution of this one, this assumption however, would be incorrect. I believe that some of the founders of this republic had great ideas, and others were greedy whelps who said terrible things like, "Those who own the country, should run it" - John Jay, or that the system of government "ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" - James Madison. You obviously find nationalism to be an acceptable thing, whereas I see it as a deplorable blight upon humanity. Suffice to say that while you disagree with whether or not we are "under God", I happen to disagree with everything else, regardless of who is in "power", I find the ruling of one man by another to be a repulsive and unacceptable practice.

Now while you question the legitimacy of monotheistic deities in nationalist codes, I must continue to ask; what of those who do not wish to bow before a cloth idol and declare their allegiance to an inanimate object, and the illusory power structure that it stands for?

I can also see the pledge as an innocent gesture, as well as propaganda. Seeing both things, I suppose it is important for me to consider what it is I am truly looking at. Who made me recite it and why? What was the objective? Considering that, it does seem as harmless as the star spangled banner. But of course, when I think about this counties citizens and its government as a whole, I can't ignore the disappointment that comes from my feeling literally manipulated as an American. I cannot honestly say I am proud to be an American, however I am extremely proud of the initial intention our forefathers had. We who came later, just allowed greed and prejudice, among other things to prevent us from carrying out that intention. Shame on us. Sorry for rambling. I hope that made some sense. If not, blame ST88 and Crixus, they inspired it.

Well, I think it made sense. You feel what I imagine many people feel today, that is a sense of betrayal by those in positions of control, and while I may disagree with you on the intentions of some of the founders of this state, I can nonetheless sympathize with your anxiety over the outcome.