discuss

To promote blind patriotism.

..it's easier to brainwash kids because they are more naive and malleable.

To promote blind patriotism.


Whether or not the 'promite' part is true, that is certainly all it is. No knowledge is required to pledge allegiance to it. ****. 90% of the people who do know **** about the real history of this country, its founders, and its modern day involvements... It is indeed a blind act of devotion.

Nationalism 4 t3h win!

do they say the pledge anywhere outside of schools?

do they say the pledge anywhere outside of schools?

They say it at the outset of every Republican meeting. I can only assume they say it at every Democrat meeting, too.

To promote blind patriotism.

..it's easier to brainwash kids because they are more naive and malleable.

Why promote blind patriotism?

Why promote blind patriotism?

So children will grow up and support their country without question.

"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."

-The whole thing just oozes with Right Wing propaganda... Serve your country, for it is empowered and supported by GOD himself.

Why do we need children to support their country?

Why do we need children to support their country?

:|

Because otherwise a revolt could happen.
Perhaps a seperation... a country torn in two (Which in my opionion should probably happen... a Right Wing ultra conservative would have a hard time sharing an apartment with a Left Wing Hippy. Nothing is wrong with either side... but everyone would get along much better if they didn't live with each other. ;) )

Why do we need children to support their country?

Not children. Everyone. The children who will grow up to be members of the 'productive society'. People are not inheritly good. They are selfish. You must teach them blind devotion. Humanity comes second to a capitalist society such as ours, and so blind devotion to the country, above actual humanity, must be promoted and encouraged at all times, otherwise our society would of course fail. This is obvious I believe.

My personal question is, Do people really think that Capitalism is the best way? Despite the unbelievable shortcomings of it, must we as the human race really sit back and say 'this is the best we can do'.

People are not inheritly good. They are selfish. You must teach them blind devotion.

Sounds like what the christians do... teach blind devotion. Rather than letting their children make up their own mind as they pass through life they instill this "Image of God" in their mind when they are young and naive, and malleable.

...then again this country was found by religious types... I guess it's only natural to implement other forms of blind devotion...

Hey... whatever... It does work.
...but eventually people will wake up and question this devotion.

Or they will wake up and be grateful someone cared enough to try to set their feet on a respectful path. Do you think children should be left w/no direction? A fend for yourself mentality from all adults untill the child makes its own decisions?

Or they will wake up and be grateful someone cared enough to try to set their feet on a respectful path. Do you think children should be left w/no direction? A fend for yourself mentality from all adults untill the child makes its own decisions?

A person can be taught to be respectful, caring, etc. by being taught that "Being good will bring good things to you and others" I'm sure there are a lot of good moral stories in the bible... which are great, wholesome, and nurturing. It's the "BE GOOD OR GO TO HELL" part that I find disturbing and unwholesome...

I believe children should be taught to "be good" because it will make them feel good, and as long as you strive to make those around you feel good, you will find your own happiness. God has nothing to do with this.

Goodness- my church must be a rarity- we were taught be good, repent for sins, or go to hell- there is an out for human error

anyhoo- don't you feel that raising a child to have love for God and their country (and likewise fellow people) can teach valuable lessons about relationships, commitments, and sense of duty?

Not children. Everyone. The children who will grow up to be members of the 'productive society'. People are not inheritly good. They are selfish. You must teach them blind devotion. Humanity comes second to a capitalist society such as ours, and so blind devotion to the country, above actual humanity, must be promoted and encouraged at all times, otherwise our society would of course fail. This is obvious I believe.

My personal question is, Do people really think that Capitalism is the best way? Despite the unbelievable shortcomings of it, must we as the human race really sit back and say 'this is the best we can do'.

If people really are selfish, then why must altuism be tought to them? Why not just let them be selfish?

Who are we to judge that altruism is better than selfishness? And if it really is, why can't we trust people to realize that for themselves?

BTW- I'm using the term God rather all encompassing- I really just mean a sense of Faith or Belief- not necessarily a Christian life

anyhoo- don't you feel that raising a child to have love for God... can teach valuable lessons about relationships, commitments, and sense of duty?

Being a good person has nothing to do with belief in a god.
We all have wholesome and unwholesome seeds within us... we are born with these. Parents have a duty to nourish the wholesome seeds, and teach a child how to nurture them as well. Religions are a way of nurturing these wholesome seeds, but not the only way. ...and to teach these religions as being the only way is to blind a child in a shroud ignorance.

The reciting of the "Pledge of Allegience" is to incite "American Pride"
...isn't pride a sin or "wrong" according to christianity? Shouldn't we be taught to recite something more all encompassing... a "Pledge to Mankind" ...as it is American's by in large, feel that their way is the only way, and that other countries/people are inferior... The "Pledge of Allegience" only helps to support that unwholesome seed.

If people really are selfish, then why must altuism be tought to them? Why not just let them be selfish?

1st., I dont really believe in Altruism. In rare instances can it really exist. No matter what, you are doing something for yourself, even if it appears you are bennefiting less then those you help. But besides that--The answer to your question

Selfish people arent going to build you a castle, defend it, and feed you to, as you sit behind your walls and dictate. Blind devotion is needed, teaching people that serving others is serving themselves, is what will get you all you want in your selfish nature.


Who are we to judge that altruism is better than selfishness? And if it really is, why can't we trust people to realize that for themselves?

Again, I dont think Altruism exists. I think it, and selfishness, are connected. You dont really have to teach them what their own selfishness is, or the idea of altruism... You just need to get them to believe that the only way to obtain their satisfaction, eternal life, protection for themselves, protection for those they need, are all grantable only through the great gifts of those above them, and in the need of survival they will do this. Hence why pledging blind devotion is critical to a true society such as ours. People can not doubt the stability of their devotion to the society.

C I always saw the Pledge as more of a tradition of fellowship- something to help unite you w/your other countrymen A reminder of what all Americans have in common- 1 nation under God indivisable w/liberty and justice for all- sounds VERY Christian to me- but the religious aspect aside it still seems like a tradition of commradery more than an all hail the chief statement IMHO

Things have changed in 300 years... Bow down to your corporate masters. Who, by the way, have taken your god and corrupted him, and use him to make a 5% annual profit.

1st., I dont really believe in Altruism. In rare instances can it really exist. No matter what, you are doing something for yourself, even if it appears you are bennefiting less then those you help. But besides that--The answer to your question

Selfish people arent going to build you a castle, defend it, and feed you to, as you sit behind your walls and dictate. Blind devotion is needed, teaching people that serving others is serving themselves, is what will get you all you want in your selfish nature.


And why should they?

Are you looking at this from the point of view of a ruler? Do you think people should say the pledge of allegiance so that they will make better servants? Do you think the role of servant is a proper role for people to take?


Again, I dont think Altruism exists. I think it, and selfishness, are connected. You dont really have to teach them what their own selfishness is, or the idea of altruism... You just need to get them to believe that the only way to obtain their satisfaction, eternal life, protection for themselves, protection for those they need, are all grantable only through the great gifts of those above them, and in the need of survival they will do this. Hence why pledging blind devotion is critical to a true society such as ours. People can not doubt the stability of their devotion to the society.

Is that true? Is it impossible to obtain protection, satisfaction, eternal life, and prosperity without pledging allegiance to those above you?

Who do we need protection from?

Is it impossible to obtain protection, satisfaction, eternal life, and prosperity without pledging allegiance to those above you?

Is it Possible to to obtain protection, satisfaction, eternal life, and prosperity simply by pledging allegiance to those above you? If this were true I think you'd see a lot more peeps SINGING the pledge on their way about town- it would be a morning prayer- I seriously doubt anybody in this country feels that saying the pledge is earning them points from some secret gov agency whose sole responsibility is making certain only Pledge takers are allowed protection, satisfaction, eternal life, and prosperity

And why should they?

Are you looking at this from the point of view of a ruler? Do you think people should say the pledge of allegiance so that they will make better servants? Do you think the role of servant is a proper role for people to take?

I deeply appologize for the length of this post. It got out of control... You can skip the following paragraph if you wish:

Somewhat, then yes, and then no. The entire 'system' (and I dont mean that in the conspiracy theory way) is so insanly complex, grasping all the elements at once is very difficult. You have to take so many things into consideration, to say what a servant is. If a servant is living better then those who arent servants, is a servant doing a bad job of serving? But as humans, is it our duty to be humanistic to those who also arent close to us? Where do our dutys lie as a civilization? Should we blindly follow politicans, use our army and craft a world that may be better tomorrow, or are we corrupting the world, killing thousands for the sole agendas of our leaders, being abused and forced by the millions to live in ways that are sub-standard to modern day society, while the top 5% making 95% of all the country earns, obviously 99% of the work earned off the backs of much of the lower class, lives in amazing luxury, secure, hoarding resources, as we are in a situation where many dont have proper health coverage, grow sick from poorly maintained water supplys, breath unecessiarly polluted air... And lets not even go into the social issues...

Wow, that go to long.. I apologize, truly. What Im trying to say is, I cant give you the answer your looking for. I dont know who could. The questions are all far to complex to simply break it down to 'this is good because it equates this, which is better then the bad factor of this'. It is a spider web of epic design. Try to grasp it as best you can, but dont get stuck. Its an ever shifting web.



Is that true? Is it impossible to obtain protection, satisfaction, eternal life, and prosperity without pledging allegiance to those above you?

Who do we need protection from?

Ourselves. Our own greed. As I said, i generally believe humans arent good. Their foolish. Given certain options, they will of course do the dumb thing. Hence why Religion is an awesome tool. Threaten human beings with the one thing we fear more then anything as a race, and then say you will solve this threat for them. And you have them doing your bidding. Wise, no? Whether you are religious or not, you have to say that indeed that is an awesome idea to get followers.

So, people need to be controlled?

Thats a matter of opinion. I dont think its a matter of 'being controlled' and having anarchy... I think a mix would maxamize humanity, and our social progress as a society. But at this stage in the game, with the amazing amounts of control by Media, Govt., millitary, so forth, such an idea is absolute insanity. You'd have to tear down the entire system. To many people, high powers, are aware of their ability to abuse the system to promote personal agendas and goals which they feel are extremely important to mankind, so they make us think it is... And the name of this thing needing promotion, use, and so forth? Religion, quite bassicaly. Not just Christianity, as it is true in any other nation with certain religions. Not to say that religion in itself is bad... Just that it can be used for evil beyond evil..

Keep in mind--Beliefs are the bullets of the wicked.

I'm surprised none of the hard-core right wingers have jumped in on this yet.

I started refusing to say the Pledge in school by the time I was 8. It should be banned.

I started refusing to say the Pledge in school by the time I was 8. It should be banned.

do u feel all things u disapprove of should be banned? :|

No, just things that brainwash innocent little kids, and force them to profess allegiance to something they don't understand.

No, just things that brainwash innocent little kids, and force them to profess allegiance to something they don't understand.

:Nice: Well said.

exactly WHAT do you think they are pledging allegiance to? Maybe I'm dense but I always felt the Pledge was about allying yourself w/the other members of your country- that we could all have something in common- our country- do you have so little pride in your country and so little love for others who live here?

I actually don't have any pride in my country. I don't understand why anyone would. It is a totally foreign concept to me.

While some interesting points have been raised, and indeed one might argue the current recitation of the pledge is intended to instill blind devotion to the Nation, some historical perspective might be in order....
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

The author of the original pledge was a Socialist Christian - not sure that passes muster as Right Wing. He penned the pledge in 1892...the Civil War still fresh in the mind of the nation and particularly the South where he lived. As for the subsequent tweaks to the wording and introduction of the "under God" phrase....seems he probably would not have supported this. Brainwashing...I don't know. Seems the intent was to overcome some regional bitterness that remained in the post Civil War era, and re-instill a sense among the youth that they were not Southern or Union, but American. That original intent may no longer be needed...or is it, with all the Red v Blue America and Jesusland nonsense. In an age where the individual is almighty, subtle messages like those in the pledge serve as a useful reminder that we are part of a whole. Blind pride and devotion to a nation is dangerous, but so is apathy and putting the self above all else.

In an age where the individual is almighty, subtle messages like those in the pledge serve as a useful reminder that we are part of a whole. Blind pride and devotion to a nation is dangerous, but so is apathy and putting the self above all else.

Why are we part of a whole?

What a coincidence, I've been thinking about this too.


The word allegiance is a very strong word; I think it's too strong of a word.

Blind pride and devotion to a nation is dangerous, but so is apathy and putting the self above all else.


Well put!

I started refusing to say the Pledge in school by the time I was 8. It should be banned.

I agree

I actually don't have any pride in my country. I don't understand why anyone would. It is a totally foreign concept to me.


have you ever considered moving? I'm not asking sarcastically I really wonder why someone would stay in a country they hate if that country is willing to let them leave.

Why are we part of a whole?
Ummmmm.....deep thought there. I guess at a basic level we're part of a society and dependent upon one another. Societies have traditionally been organized around varying levels of governance. Tribes, clans, city-states, kingdoms, etc. Ours happens to be a federal republic. Whether societal governance structure have evolved to fill our own (collective) best interest or only serve that of the elite in power is certainly debatable. However whether you adhere to the idea that you share something in common with your neighbors, countrymen, or worldwide brothers/sisters, the simple truth remains that "no man is an island".

What a coincidence, I've been thinking about this too.


The word allegiance is a very strong word; I think it's too strong of a word.
hmm....on the more traditional primary definition I'd have to aggree that the connotations are a little over the top, if not archaic.

Main Entry: al·le·giance
Pronunciation: &-'lE-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English allegeaunce, modification of Middle French ligeance, from Old French, from lige liege
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause

The secondary definition is more in line with what I personally think of....loyalty or devotion. Not undconditional, but certainly some sense of obligation.

I started refusing to say the Pledge in school by the time I was 8. It should be banned.

I agree


On what grounds did you refuse? Issue with the under God piece, or an evolved understanding of history and current events (for an 8 yr old) that lead you to conclude the country was not worth pledging allegiance too?

Why ban it? I can see arguments against making it compulsory, but banning it outright?

I actually don't have any pride in my country. I don't understand why anyone would. It is a totally foreign concept to me.
I can understand the lack of pride, especially when one focuses on the negative aspects of our history and current affairs.

Curious, but do you have pride in anything? Not trying to be flip, just trying to get a sense of where you're coming from. I understand that some simply won't have pride or view it as a worthy attribute....just trying to see if you're such a person.

More to the point, do you ever even wish you had reason to have pride in your country? If so, as a citizen (or maybe resident?) of this nation not worthy of your own pride, have you ever tried to make things better?

I'm with Fayebelle and Fedup on this.

And just to add my 2 cents... I've said this so many times, but i'll say it again. We are LUCKY and blessed to be born in country with a constitution that acknowledges we have inalienable God-given rights that the government must respect, and a country with so many opportunities that has obviously been blessed for many years. To stubbornly refuse to give any alliegance to that country seems to me to be sort of biting the hand that feeds you, or almost spitting in the face of those values that America is about. (supposed to be about... i'm not talking about a current government, but the constitution and founding principles)

imo... one character trait that I think is particularly ugly is ungratefulness... not to mention stubborn, childish refusal to respect or honor anything other than oneself.

On what grounds did you refuse? Issue with the under God piece, or an evolved understanding of history and current events (for an 8 yr old) that lead you to conclude the country was not worth pledging allegiance too?

I don't have any problems with the under God. It's the pledging of allegiance that I disagree with, whether children or adults are reciting it.

Why ban it? I can see arguments against making it compulsory, but banning it outright?

I say ban it outright and come up with something totally different. I can think of a few college fight songs I like that are pretty neutral. Maybe we can get USC or UCLA to get us a new "pledge".

I don't have any problems with the under God. It's the pledging of allegiance that I disagree with, whether children or adults are reciting it.



I say ban it outright and come up with something totally different. I can think of a few college fight songs I like that are pretty neutral. Maybe we can get USC or UCLA to get us a new "pledge".

OK, I get that you want it flat out banned and have an issue with allegiance, but why? Seriously if someone opts to pledge allegiance to the flag and the nation for which it stands, why ban that? I'm not opposed to coming up with an alternative reflective of one's devotion to country and/or fellow citizens. However, I find confusing the reference to something "pretty neutral". What's the point in that? Isn't the point of a pledge to take a position?...a promise to do something? Why the heck should that be a neutral statement? Moreover what gives you the right to suggest banning the voluntary recitation of a pledge you find objectionable?

As long as we're talking pledges, consider the oath of citizenship given by adults as part of becoming a naturalized citizen.
http://www.dar.org/natsociety/Citizenship.cfm?TP=Show&ID=77
THE OATH OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
(Taken when naturalized)

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.”

This must absolutely turn the stomachs of those who oppose the Pledge of Allegiance. New citizens recite this oath and people lucky enough to be born here are calling for the Pledge of Allegiance to be outright banned? Buttercup's ungrateful assessment comes to mind.

You don't want to recite the pledge of allegiance, fine. Just don't go so far as to deny others the right to do so by banning it. If you're a parent who doesn't want your child to recite the pledge, fine. Just don't deny other parents the right to encourage their children to recite it.

Why do we Pledge Allegiance to the Flag?
discuss
__________________

Because everything that was ever done before you and the other Generation X'ers were born was done specifically to annoy you.

No, just things that brainwash innocent little kids, and force them to profess allegiance to something they don't understand.

Like math homework.

OK, I get that you want it flat out banned and have an issue with allegiance, but why? Seriously if someone opts to pledge allegiance to the flag and the nation for which it stands, why ban that? I'm not opposed to coming up with an alternative reflective of one's devotion to country and/or fellow citizens. However, I find confusing the reference to something "pretty neutral". What's the point in that? Isn't the point of a pledge to take a position?...a promise to do something? Why the heck should that be a neutral statement? Moreover what gives you the right to suggest banning the voluntary recitation of a pledge you find objectionable?

As long as we're talking pledges, consider the oath of citizenship given by adults as part of becoming a naturalized citizen.
http://www.dar.org/natsociety/Citizenship.cfm?TP=Show&ID=77


This must absolutely turn the stomachs of those who oppose the Pledge of Allegiance. New citizens recite this oath and people lucky enough to be born here are calling for the Pledge of Allegiance to be outright banned? Buttercup's ungrateful assessment comes to mind.

You don't want to recite the pledge of allegiance, fine. Just don't go so far as to deny others the right to do so by banning it. If you're a parent who doesn't want your child to recite the pledge, fine. Just don't deny other parents the right to encourage their children to recite it.


Loyalty oaths are a relatively recent invention in the U.S., and it is no sign of being 'anti-patriotic' to oppose the ridiculous practice, especially the 'Under God' gibberish added in the McCarthy era.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm

One hundred years ago the American flag was rarely seen in the classroom
or in front of the school Upham changed that. In 1888, the magazine
began a campaign to sell American flags to the public schools. By 1892,
his magazine had sold American flags to about 26 thousands schools(1).

In 1891, Upham had the idea of using the celebration of the 400th
anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of America to promote the
use of the flag in the public schools. The same year, the magazine hired
Daniel Ford's radical young friend, Baptist minister, Nationalist, and
Christian Socialist leader, Francis Bellamy, to help Upham in his public
relations work. Bellamy was the first cousin of the famous American
socialist, Edward Bellamy. Edward Bellamy's futuristic novel, *Looking*
*Backward*, published in 1888, described a utopian Boston in the year
2000. The book spawned an elitist socialist movement in Boston known as
"Nationalism," whose members wanted the federal government to national
most of the American economy. Francis Bellamy was a member of this
movement and a vice president of its auxiliary group, the Society of
Christian Socialists(2). He was a baptist minister and he lectured and
preached on the virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism. He
gave a speech on "Jesus the Socialist" and a series of sermons on "The
Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign
from his Boston church, the Bethany Baptist church, because of his
socialist activities. He then joined the staff of the *Youth's*
*Companion*(3).

By February 1892, Francis Bellamy and Upham had lined up the National
Education Association to support the *Youth's* *Companion* as a sponsor
of the national public schools' observance of Columbus Day along with
the use of the American flag. By June 29, Bellamy and Upham had arranged
for Congress and President Benjamin Harrison to announce a national
proclamation making the public school flag ceremony the center of the
national Columbus Day celebrations for 1892(4).

Bellamy, under the supervision of Upham, wrote the program for this
celebration, including its flag salute, the Pledge of Allegiance. His
version was,

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it
stands -- one nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all."

This program and its pledge appeared in the September 8 issue of
*Youth's* *Companion*(5). He considered putting the words "fraternity"
and "equality" in the Pledge but decided they were too radical and
controversial for public schools(6).

The original Pledge was recited while giving a stiff, uplifted right
hand salute, criticized and discontinued during WWII.

Because everything that was ever done before you and the other Generation X'ers were born was done specifically to annoy you.
- I'm a little too old to be Gen X ('62 was the cut-off, and I was born a couple years before), but, as an honorary Gen-X-er, I'll say:

**** off, old man!

:p

Addendum to this topic: should schools teach values? I mean, if one kid is punching another kid, I suppose most people, even leftists, would agree a teacher, etc., should attempt to stop the beating. But would they also agree that the authority figure should use the opportunity to "instill the value" that assaulting other people is wrong? It is widely accepted that one of the many purposes of public education is to create good citizens. There are plenty of schools which specifically cite that in their mission statement.

As I said before, its complete foolishness. Its installing a realistic santa claus before the children ever have the chance to learn they might not agree with it. Then before its to late, becomes an excessivly punishable offense to actually flat out hate the country youv been pledging alegiance to. Similar to 1984 almost, except we are ourselves the telescreens...

I have no issues with the pledge itself. I, as many do, have issues with forcing children and people to say it.

1st. Make it something you can only do after your 18.

2nd. Make it something you can only do with a good understanding of our country's history and present actions.

I mean, seriously. Otherwise its obviously a meaningless jesture to the person who says it, aside from the fact that they grow to believe they must, quite bassicaly, worship this great giant thing they are pledging themselves to. It cant mean anything. They dont even know. What would be the point beyond brainwashing, really.

As I said before, its complete foolishness. Its installing a realistic santa claus before the children ever have the chance to learn they might not agree with it. Then before its to late, becomes an excessivly punishable offense to actually flat out hate the country youv been pledging alegiance to. Similar to 1984 almost, except we are ourselves the telescreens...

I have no issues with the pledge itself. I, as many do, have issues with forcing children and people to say it.

1st. Make it something you can only do after your 18.

2nd. Make it something you can only do with a good understanding of our country's history and present actions.

I mean, seriously. Otherwise its obviously a meaningless jesture to the person who says it, aside from the fact that they grow to believe they must, quite bassicaly, worship this great giant thing they are pledging themselves to. It cant mean anything. They dont even know. What would be the point beyond brainwashing, really.

Well I have to go with Fed Up on this one, with my own stress on his quote:

Blind pride and devotion to a nation is dangerous, but so is apathy and putting the self above all else.

Establishing a sense of community is hardly "brainwashing" by any standard of the term I'm familiar with. People who choose to be anti-social or hate their community will do so regardless, so what is the harm and why should society bow to their whims?

I have no problem with encouraging a sence of community. I feel there are better ways to do that, then swear allegiance to our corporate masters. As a matter of fac, I think there is fairly little correlation between the two anymore, the pledge and actual community. Perhaps its original intent, but I think like many things it has become a tool.

Your entitled to your opinion of thinking that 'good brainwashing' isnt so bad, but personally Id much rather have educated people making correct decisions, rather then being told what to think. Although of Course Christians will be very against this, as brainwashing at a young age is how they get many many members, and the govt. of course as, if you were in that positon youd have no desire to lose your seat of power. But I dont see why youd bow down before your corporate masters whims.

I'm not aware of what the Pledge of Allegiance has to do with "corporations" or "capitalism".

And, as has been mentioned before, it was written by a socialist.

have you ever considered moving? I'm not asking sarcastically I really wonder why someone would stay in a country they hate if that country is willing to let them leave.

I don't hate it at all. I just don't understand the concept of having pride in one's country, whether that country is good or bad. I will have to elaborate on this when I have more time.

On what grounds did you refuse? Issue with the under God piece, or an evolved understanding of history and current events (for an 8 yr old) that lead you to conclude the country was not worth pledging allegiance too?

Why ban it? I can see arguments against making it compulsory, but banning it outright?


I can understand the lack of pride, especially when one focuses on the negative aspects of our history and current affairs.

Curious, but do you have pride in anything? Not trying to be flip, just trying to get a sense of where you're coming from. I understand that some simply won't have pride or view it as a worthy attribute....just trying to see if you're such a person.

More to the point, do you ever even wish you had reason to have pride in your country? If so, as a citizen (or maybe resident?) of this nation not worthy of your own pride, have you ever tried to make things better?


Actually I refused out of sheer defiance at first, it wasn't until I got older that I had some idea why I disagreed with it. I believe in having pride about one's accomplishments, one's beliefs, stuff like that, but to have pride in a country just doesn't compute.

I have long been under the impression that the average American does not know what the word "inalienable" means.

Or they will wake up and be grateful someone cared enough to try to set their feet on a respectful path. Do you think children should be left w/no direction? A fend for yourself mentality from all adults untill the child makes its own decisions?

I believe that a child should be taught to think critically, to deduce conclusions logically from premises and should be encouraged to do so from an early age.

A child should not be taught to love God or their country in any state school. If parents wish to pass on their religion, fine. However, blind faith and blind nationalism is not a trait that should be encouraged.

have you ever considered moving? I'm not asking sarcastically I really wonder why someone would stay in a country they hate if that country is willing to let them leave.

There are two absolutely ridiculous leaps of logic in this post.

The first is the assertion that not loving or having pride in something somehow equates to hating it. I do not love or have pride in my right foot. It is simply my foot. I neither love nor hate it. Was it as ugly and mis-shapen as the United State, I would perhaps be ashamed of it, but I probably would still not hate it, nor cut it off.

The second is the assertion that if you dislike a country you should leave it. There are several assumptions inherant in this; most notable of these is the claim that there is a place less disliked to go to. There is also the implicit claim that there is no other option, such as remaining within your country and seeking to improve it.

Thanks Joey, that was my sentiment exactly.

1st., I dont really believe in Altruism. In rare instances can it really exist. No matter what, you are doing something for yourself, even if it appears you are bennefiting less then those you help.

That's an interesting outlook

That's an interesting outlook

You disagree?

There are two absolutely ridiculous leaps of logic in this post.

The first is the assertion that not loving or having pride in something somehow equates to hating it. I do not love or have pride in my right foot. It is simply my foot. I neither love nor hate it. Was it as ugly and mis-shapen as the United State, I would perhaps be ashamed of it, but I probably would still not hate it, nor cut it off.

The second is the assertion that if you dislike a country you should leave it. There are several assumptions inherant in this; most notable of these is the claim that there is a place less disliked to go to. There is also the implicit claim that there is no other option, such as remaining within your country and seeking to improve it.

Speaking of illogical- you compare a country to a foot and say you would not hate it or cut it off- but would you treat the problem- would you consult specialists, wear special shoes, get pedicures- do ANYTHING to fix what you see as wrong w/something that IS a part of you- or would you just say Ah that's the way the cookie crumbles- it's a lousy foot I'll deal

My assertion is that if you dislike where you are and have no intent of fixing the problems as you see them or moving on- then you are a huge addition to many of the probs you claim ESPECIALLY if they main reason you wouldn't move on is b/c you are fairly certain you hate everything everywhere else also Sounds like overdramatized teen angst

I just don't understand how people could feel NO sense of attachment for their surroundings- if no pride than a longing for pride at least- a willingness to work hard to make life wonderful in the place you are

Complacency eludes me..

1st., I dont really believe in Altruism. In rare instances can it really exist. No matter what, you are doing something for yourself, even if it appears you are bennefiting less then those you help.

Yes, those nasty bastards, getting selfish pleasures from creating a feeling of humanitarianism and wallowing in feeling of goodwill, however momentary; can't get any more sinister and selfish than that.

Buttercup you are right . But trying to convince ungrateful citizens to honor anything good or patrioic is useless. But we can defend our traditions , priciples and military when others who shouldnt even have the right to put their dirty feet on this land disgrace it at every opportunity .

This is a symble of unity and honor to our God,people and military .If you think that the flag isn' important than maybe you should know how much comfort it brought to soldiers in foriegn lands to see it flying. When most pleadge to flag it is in remembrance of the price we paid to be free. [ with liberty and justice for all ]. It reminds us that we are soveriegn . I fly my flag and always will ,it reminds me of the people who defend me .

It represents the greatist nation on earth . Even if some like the posters here have all but destroyed with the permission of our citizes . it lets us know that only a good and blessed people can be free .

Nothing that would please me more is to see you leave . Go where they don't have the right to hate their own nation . All nations have flags.

You disagree?


I sent you a PM. Don't want to go off topic.

have you ever considered moving? I'm not asking sarcastically I really wonder why someone would stay in a country they hate if that country is willing to let them leave.

So, when the country gets screwed up, the solution is for everyone who doesn't like it to leave? Do you think that would have worked in situations like Nazi Germany, or the genocidal sloughters in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sudan? Or the civil wars in Somalia, and Chechnya? Or the election misconduct in Ukraine?

Do you think Chechnyans should take pride in their country?

Yes, those nasty bastards, getting selfish pleasures from creating a feeling of humanitarianism and wallowing in feeling of goodwill, however momentary; can't get any more sinister and selfish than that.

Dude. True human altruism doesnt exist. It cant exist. Its a ****ed up term in general. It means to do something completly not for yourself. Humans do nothing not for themselves. Even when doing good, we do it for the gratification we get from doing good. Im not saying the idea of it is bad, Im just saying its a completly false premise. You can do good, most certainly, but Altruism is a completly illogical, non-existant thing. As far as humans go anyways.

As I said before, its complete foolishness. Its installing a realistic santa claus before the children ever have the chance to learn they might not agree with it. Then before its to late, becomes an excessivly punishable offense to actually flat out hate the country youv been pledging alegiance to. Similar to 1984 almost, except we are ourselves the telescreens...

I have no issues with the pledge itself. I, as many do, have issues with forcing children and people to say it.

1st. Make it something you can only do after your 18.

2nd. Make it something you can only do with a good understanding of our country's history and present actions.

I mean, seriously. Otherwise its obviously a meaningless jesture to the person who says it, aside from the fact that they grow to believe they must, quite bassicaly, worship this great giant thing they are pledging themselves to. It cant mean anything. They dont even know. What would be the point beyond brainwashing, really.

I get what you're going at, by not forcing students to say the pledge, or requiring some understanding of history before asking students to recite it. On the flip side we routinely force minors to sign/agree to do things that they may not completely understand all the time. That doesn't make it brainwashing. Many schools require students to sign an honor code even at the elementary grade levels. These are meant to instill values that parents/educators/society deem desireable. Is not the pledge similar in nature?...especially if the "under God" phrasing is removed and the original wording used... As I read it, you're promising to support the republic/nation and the concept of liberty and justice for all. I don't read it as blind support for the nation and it's actions, but a promise to secure the basic concepts of liberty and justice for everyone.

As for it being a meaningless gesture, as a parent I have to disagree. I want my son not only to recite the pledge, but to understand the nation that he's pledging allegiance to -- warts and all. I want him to feel a sense of ownership, that he's responsible as a citizen for ensuring that the nation holds true to the founding concepts of liberty and justice. The pledge is a small part of that lesson in civic duty, but nevertheless a part of that lesson. However if a parent does not see eye to eye with me and wishes to not have their child recite the pledge, I'll respect that. By the same token reciting the pledge in a group setting such as school is something I feel is important for our children. However if I ever find myself in the minority of parents who support the continued recitation of the pledge at school, I'd defer to judgement of the group and find alternate ways to instill a sense of civic/national duty outside of the public school setting.

This is a symble of unity and honor to our God,people and military .If you think that the flag isn' important than maybe you should know how much comfort it brought to soldiers in foriegn lands to see it flying. When most pleadge to flag it is in remembrance of the price we paid to be free. [ with liberty and justice for all ]. It reminds us that we are soveriegn . I fly my flag and always will ,it reminds me of the people who defend me .

It represents the greatist nation on earth . Even if some like the posters here have all but destroyed with the permission of our citizes . it lets us know that only a good and blessed people can be free .

Nothing that would please me more is to see you leave . Go where they don't have the right to hate their own nation . All nations have flags.

Nothing would please me more to see nationalistic spewers of rationlizations and blind patriotic garbage that really has no substantial backing actually learn a thing or two about our history, rather then just assume the best of everything United Saints of America has ever touched. We are a good nation, no doubt. But blind following and obligation does not lead to improvements. It leads to abuse and corruption.

BTW, Keep something in mind at all times: Your founding fathers hated their mother land, which at the time was spewing crap exactly like you are. But they could see past words, and see the truth of corruption and abuse, and were willing to fight to change it. Rather then sit back and swear allegiance to something they disagreed with... But continue to bash us all you want, Im sure our founding fathers would agree with bashing ideals similar to theres greatly, and then your using them as a reason to do so.

As I read it, you're promising to support the republic/nation and the concept of liberty and justice for all. I don't read it as blind support for the nation and it's actions, but a promise to secure the basic concepts of liberty and justice for everyone.

Sorry in advance for length.

I should explain something about my ideals--Im a firm believer that there is more to mankind then our current state. I believe that in order to rise to a better path for mankind, we must remove from our children many of our prejudices, and somewhat dogmatic (even if well meaning) beliefs. Now, and as you argued in the next paragraph, If a parent wishes to install certain ideals into their children, that is without a doubt there right as the guardian and teacher of the child. And I am indeed glad to hear that from the sounds of it you are indeed teaching your child our history (although I hope you are honest in some regards of history that are oft left out), but I dont feel that this is the case with a vast majority of parents. Mine would be an example. I was encouraged greatly to be conservative, republican, and untill a few years ago I was. Hell, I was a major major supporter of Dole when he was running at my young age....

But anyways, I dont feel that your one good example is reflective to the rest of society as to what the Pledge can be used for. I feel, as did Einstine and Da Vinci, that blind nationalism (or nationalism in general most of the time) is a foolish idea that the world would be far far better off without. I feel that the true path to a better humanistic society is to avoid installing prejudices such as these into children, without truly having the children understand the meaning of it. I indeed sadly do not say the pledge of allegiance. I feel it is a corrupted meaningless jesture in this day. People do it to feel like part of a damn club. Read the post at the top of this page, youll see what I mean.

In general I just dont think the pledge should be forced recited in School. Children are more then welcome to learn it at home, and there parents are certainly allowed to teach them blind nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and whatever prejudice they decide to install. But Im certainly not happy to see the school, a place that should be free form the teachings of personal ideals and prejudices, but a place of teaching scientific method, mathematics, english literature, mechanics, so forth, teaching blind nationalism.


As for it being a meaningless gesture, as a parent I have to disagree. I want my son not only to recite the pledge, but to understand the nation that he's pledging allegiance to -- warts and all. I want him to feel a sense of ownership, that he's responsible as a citizen for ensuring that the nation holds true to the founding concepts of liberty and justice. The pledge is a small part of that lesson in civic duty, but nevertheless a part of that lesson. However if a parent does not see eye to eye with me and wishes to not have their child recite the pledge, I'll respect that. By the same token reciting the pledge in a group setting such as school is something I feel is important for our children. However if I ever find myself in the minority of parents who support the continued recitation of the pledge at school, I'd defer to judgement of the group and find alternate ways to instill a sense of civic/national duty outside of the public school setting.[/QUOTE]

So, when the country gets screwed up, the solution is for everyone who doesn't like it to leave? Do you think that would have worked in situations like Nazi Germany, or the genocidal sloughters in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sudan? Or the civil wars in Somalia, and Chechnya? Or the election misconduct in Ukraine?

Do you think Chechnyans should take pride in their country?


You honestly compare the US to such lands?! :confused:

Anyway- yes I think that if you don't like the country you are in, are doing nothing more than bitching and complaining, and can leave of your own free will- then pack a bag and C-ya. As SS points out OUR country was founded by peeps who did just that. And there are many out there who would literally DIE for the chance to live in the country you dislike. Move out and make room for someone willing to enjoy the privilages you find disgusting and stand up and fight to right the wrongs they see.

As I said I see saying the pledge as a moment of commraderie w/other proud citizens of my country- to those who don't want to say the pledge- GOOD I wasn't pledging to be at 1 w/you anyway. I consider it a pledge to all the things we want our country to be- one nation- one people with equality for all- just 1 nation not a collection of lil cliques but a melting pot of all thoughts ideas and traditions- where you can have any or no God- a nation that won't allow differences to divide us

You honestly compare the US to such lands?! :confused:

Anyway- yes I think that if you don't like the country you are in, are doing nothing more than bitching and complaining, and can leave of your own free will- then pack a bag and C-ya. As SS points out OUR country was founded by peeps who did just that. And there are many out there who would literally DIE for the chance to live in the country you dislike. Move out and make room for someone willing to enjoy the privilages you find disgusting and stand up and fight to right the wrongs they see.

The funny part about this statement, is its mostly liberals who are for imigration and acceptance of new citizens... Part of what makes this country great. You see, you enjoy the perks. We fight and argue to maintain them. If theres one thing that history has taught us, war is a very temporary solution usually. Education is the main tool in inflicting change. Without it nothing changes. Just a lot of people who believed one thing died, and the rest remain. That is why 'whining and bitching' is not useless. Its not whining and bitching. Its keeping the govt. in check. Its ensuring our interests are maintained. I realize for some politics dont matter, and there more then happy to salute the flag and live happily. True patriots are the ones who are really willing to critice their govt. to improve it. Im kind of sickened that your idea of 'improvement' would be to appearintly declare war or something. The greatest battles are not fought on the battlefield, but with knowledge.


As I said I see saying the pledge as a moment of commraderie w/other proud citizens of my country- to those who don't want to say the pledge- GOOD I wasn't pledging to be at 1 w/you anyway. I consider it a pledge to all the things we want our country to be- one nation- one people with equality for all- just 1 nation not a collection of lil cliques but a melting pot of all thoughts ideas and traditions- where you can have any or no God- a nation that won't allow differences to divide us

From the one who just said anyone who doesnt like forcing children to do things they dont understand to leave...? Strange...

#1- by battle I don't mean Annie get your gun- I mean if you hate the gov- become the gov, become a teacher, lobby, petition, become a journalist...just don't sit around saying wah wah my country bites. Not all wars are fought w/guns and knives

#2- I said if you do not like the country you are in and can leave- go If you base a decision to dislike your entire country around one single debate than I'll pack your bags for you. Once again we force children to do things they don't understand EVERY DAY! The pledge is hardly harmful and if for some reason the child (or his fam) don't want the child to say the pledge so be it. It's like Sex Ed- many call it aa good idea some disagree so don't force it or ban it either

Why is the mentality here so All or Nothing?

As Oberon pointed out, we say the Pledge out of habit, a habit that was started as a part of a marketing program designed to sell more flags. That's why we say the Pledge.

I don't know if many, if any, other countries pledge allegiance to their flags. Maybe to their countries or their governments or their Kings or Queens, but not to the flag. Does anyone know of any that do that other than the US?

As Oberon pointed out, we say the Pledge out of habit, a habit that was started as a part of a marketing program designed to sell more flags. That's why we say the Pledge.

And out of indoctrination too. Children are saying it in schools all across the USA.

#1- by battle I don't mean Annie get your gun- I mean if you hate the gov- become the gov, become a teacher, lobby, petition, become a journalist...just don't sit around saying wah wah my country bites. Not all wars are fought w/guns and knives

Well, you see... The thing is, it requires conversion of many people, by grassroots groups in order to creat changes at the top in a democracy. Its often times slow yes, but its also about encouraging people to be aware and take issues with whats going on. As for arguign that my country bites, that is not at all what Im saying. What Im saying, and what Im sure everyone agree's with whether they are your ideals or not, is that there is much room for improvement in the system, and there are room for changes over old prejudices and ideas, as there always are in society as it evolves. This hardly equates to 'whining and bitching'.


#2- I said if you do not like the country you are in and can leave- go If you base a decision to dislike your entire country around one single debate than I'll pack your bags for you. Once again we force children to do things they don't understand EVERY DAY! The pledge is hardly harmful and if for some reason the child (or his fam) don't want the child to say the pledge so be it. It's like Sex Ed- many call it aa good idea some disagree so don't force it or ban it either

My decision to be upset with my countrys actions in recent decades is, perhaps in the least based on forcing children to swear the pledge of allegiance. It doesnt even register really. Im merely arguing my position on it. If you honestly think Im upset with the US for this reason, and not our constant interference and bombing of many nations since the end of WW2, you are mistaken.

2nd, about school... No... You see, we try and teach them facts they might not understand as we teach it to them. But to teach them to actually pledge themselves to ideals before they are given a chance to explore the ends and outs of what they are pledging themselves to, isnt really equatable to teaching them how to add. Which isnt exactly an ideal or idea.

Also, Sex Ed is teachin of facts. Some facts which for some reason parents dont want children to know about. As though children wont learn ****ed up variations if they dont learn the truth from the school... Where as the pledge of alegiance, is swearing yourself to an idea that you dont understand. you cant equate the two.


Why is the mentality here so All or Nothing?

Um... What would be your middle-ground for pledge of allegiance? I can sympathaize and understand Feds, but you just seem to want to force children to swear allegiance to US, God, and everyone who might lead us, no matter the actual actions of the US.

Sorry in advance for length.
No apologies needed.


I should explain something about my ideals--Im a firm believer that there is more to mankind then our current state. I believe that in order to rise to a better path for mankind, we must remove from our children many of our prejudices, and somewhat dogmatic (even if well meaning) beliefs. Now, and as you argued in the next paragraph, If a parent wishes to install certain ideals into their children, that is without a doubt there right as the guardian and teacher of the child. And I am indeed glad to hear that from the sounds of it you are indeed teaching your child our history (although I hope you are honest in some regards of history that are oft left out), but I dont feel that this is the case with a vast majority of parents. Mine would be an example. I was encouraged greatly to be conservative, republican, and untill a few years ago I was. Hell, I was a major major supporter of Dole when he was running at my young age....

I'll concede that my methods may not be in the majority. By the same token you are an example of child raised with one set of beliefs, but who found his/her own path. True many may hold to the beliefs put forth by their parents without question, but that will be true whether or not the pledge is allowed/encouraged to be recited in school. Just as one should be encouraged to consider why they support recitation of the pledge, those refusing to should be encouraged to consider their lack of support. Again, let those who wish to refrain, refrain, but don't deny supporters the opportunity to do so in an environment they see fit.


But anyways, I dont feel that your one good example is reflective to the rest of society as to what the Pledge can be used for. I feel, as did Einstine and Da Vinci, that blind nationalism (or nationalism in general most of the time) is a foolish idea that the world would be far far better off without. I feel that the true path to a better humanistic society is to avoid installing prejudices such as these into children, without truly having the children understand the meaning of it. I indeed sadly do not say the pledge of allegiance. I feel it is a corrupted meaningless jesture in this day. People do it to feel like part of a damn club. Read the post at the top of this page, youll see what I mean.

True the pledge can be corrupted to instill blind nationalism, but so can biased history courses. Better in my book to ensure that if used, the pledge is taught in a context that fosters a sense of civic duty and responsibility to the nation that professes to support liberty and justice for all. Seems pretty humanistic goals to support. Reclaim the original intent of the pledge and make it something more than a meaningless gesture if that's what it really has become. Don't ban it because it has been corrupted....remove the corruption.


In general I just dont think the pledge should be forced recited in School. Children are more then welcome to learn it at home, and there parents are certainly allowed to teach them blind nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and whatever prejudice they decide to install. But Im certainly not happy to see the school, a place that should be free form the teachings of personal ideals and prejudices, but a place of teaching scientific method, mathematics, english literature, mechanics, so forth, teaching blind nationalism.

I am against forced recitation, and certainly don't advocate blind nationalism. However there is merit in reciting the pledge in a classroom setting. A group recitation reinforces the notion that we are all citizens and share in the benefits and responsibility of living in a nation dedicated to liberty and justice. Many (though not all) schools with their students representing a cross section of racial, social, and/or economic backgrounds seem like an appropriate place to remind us all that we are all Americans by encouraging (not mandating) group recitation of the pledge. hmmm...i guess maybe the illegals or foreign exchange students aren't Americans, but I still can't think of a better and more representative cross section of the population that students are routinely exposed to.

The pledge can be harmful, useful, or inconsequential. So can teaching a kid chemistry...they can learn to build explosives, medicines or to make silly putty. Yet, we don't suggest that kids not be taught chemistry because they might use that information to build bombs. It's up to parents and society to ensure schools offer not only raw information, but some sense of ethics, critical thinking, and responsibility. Admittedly much of what I'm proposing is idealistic. However, I refuse to succumb to a sense of hoplessness and apathy with respect to this nation and/or education.

have you ever considered moving? I'm not asking sarcastically I really wonder why someone would stay in a country they hate if that country is willing to let them leave.

It's been covered that this isn't what he said, but, even if it were, it could be the actions of the men in government that he hates, and he would stay to change that. Also, it's not as easy to give up citizenship as just leaving, and, even more, it's not that easy to get citizenship elsewhere.

I've tried to get a work & residency permit in Holland and the UK and haven't been able to. (No, not because I "hate" the US and want to leave, but because I think it would be a good life experience to live abroad for a short while). Leaving is much more simple than finding somewhere to land. If you're not wealthy and don't have a Ph.D., and aren't under 26 & in college, you'll have a hard time getting an industrialized country to allow you to live & work there if you don't have contacts in the country.

As Oberon pointed out, we say the Pledge out of habit, a habit that was started as a part of a marketing program designed to sell more flags. That's why we say the Pledge.

Good point on the tie-in to the 400th anniversary of Columbus "discovering" America, the pledge's part in marketing to sell flags. It's not quite clear to me that the intent of the author was to sell flags, even if it was used by a magazine to do so. Kind of like the Beatles' "Revolution" being used to sell Nike's.


I don't know if many, if any, other countries pledge allegiance to their flags. Maybe to their countries or their governments or their Kings or Queens, but not to the flag. Does anyone know of any that do that other than the US?
Again from the words of the author...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.'
As an enduring symbol of a nation why not use the symbolism of the flag as part of a pledge? Key penned the 'Star Spangled Banner' years before the pledge...maybe this was part of Bellamy's inspiration. Though to be fair the adoption of the Star Spangled Banner as an official national anthem did not occur until 1931.

You honestly compare the US to such lands?! :confused:


What makes America different from Chechnya, Kosovo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Somalia?

I feel it is a corrupted meaningless jesture in this day. People do it to feel like part of a damn club. Read the post at the top of this page, youll see what I mean.

One more point on the meaningless gesture conjecture...sometimes these seemingly meaningless gestures are far from it. I had forgotten the annectdote from Senator McCain regarding the Pledge.....I won't reprint in it's entirety, but the account of POWs defiantly and at the risk of personal injury reciting the pledge is (for me) a moving reminder of the things we take for granted. Link below....
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/mccain.htm

Now knowing your repeated expressions on distaste for war, I fully expect a dismissal of the POW story as irrelevant, or an example of blind patriotism to a nation that didn't have the soldier's best interest at hand. Just read the account and consider the situation...replace the soldier with a civilian captured abroad by soldiers, militants or extremists. Can you imagine how such a meaningless gesture might suddenly have profound importance to such an individual?

What makes America different from Chechnya, Kosovo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Somalia?

I think a lot of people can't comprehend the idea that patriotism or love of your own people/country/land is the same for non-Americans as it is for Americans. I think some folks don't realize that everyone everywhere feels the same for their own country.

A couple years ago, I heard one of the most exceptional right-wingers say that France wasn't being patriotic when they refused to back an invasion. I mean, completely unaware that "patriotism" to a Frenchman is loyalty to and love of France, not of the United States.

Speaking of illogical- you compare a country to a foot and say you would not hate it or cut it off- but would you treat the problem- would you consult specialists, wear special shoes, get pedicures- do ANYTHING to fix what you see as wrong w/something that IS a part of you- or would you just say Ah that's the way the cookie crumbles- it's a lousy foot I'll deal

Perhaps you failed entirely to grasp the point of that analogy: My right foot is a foot. I am not a foot fetishist. I am not particularly concerned about it. I do not love it or have pride in it, but I am not ashamed of it or hateful towards it. It is a foot.

I am pointing out here the illogic in your leap from "not proud of" to "hate".

Again, you see, you are making that leap. You assume that because I am not proud of my foot, there is a problem with it. There is no such problem. I simply see no reason why I should be proud of my foot.


My assertion is that if you dislike where you are and have no intent of fixing the problems as you see them or moving on-

And, as I pointed out, the assumption that those who are not proud of their country are not doing anything to improve it in their eyes is false. It is an empty and unsupported claim.


then you are a huge addition to many of the probs you claim ESPECIALLY if they main reason you wouldn't move on is b/c you are fairly certain you hate everything everywhere else also Sounds like overdramatized teen angst

Once again, you have introduced the word hate. You appear to have entirely missed the point of my previous post. Please read it again.

I just don't understand how people could feel NO sense of attachment for their surroundings- if no pride than a longing for pride at least- a willingness to work hard to make life wonderful in the place you are

Complacency eludes me..

This is nothing to do with complacency. This is simply the view that my country is not me, nor my true cultural surroundings. It is an arbitary geographic coincidence. I am proud of my own achievements. What do the achievements and failings of an entire country have to do with me?

What do the achievements and failings of an entire country have to do with me?
You mean aside from the totally insignificant possibility that those achievements and failings maybe...just maybe contribute an environment that permits (or prevents) you from realizing your own personal achievements? Not a darn thing I guess. ;)

You mean aside from the totally insignificant possibility that those achievements and failings maybe...just maybe contribute an environment that permits (or prevents) you from realizing your own personal achievements? Not a darn thing I guess. ;)

The word "pride" generally indicates that you take credit for the success of your country. So, saying you "have pride in your country" is like saying "I won the civil war", which you didn't.

But the pledge doesn't say anything about "pride". It speaks of "allegiance", which is a totally different thing. Allegiance means that you will assist your nation in the pursuit of its goals.

It means you will fight to uphold the principals on which this nation was founded, in order to keep this nation worthy of your pride. But to do that, you have to understand what those principals are, and why we uphold them. Children don't understand that. Most adults don't even understand that.

Like I've said before, patriotism is useless if you don't understand what your country stands for.

You mean aside from the totally insignificant possibility that those achievements and failings maybe...just maybe contribute an environment that permits (or prevents) you from realizing your own personal achievements? Not a darn thing I guess. ;)

Indeed, they may disadvantage or advantage me, but this is no reason why I should be proud or ashamed of them, anymore than I should be proud of the cars around me in a traffic jam.

Loyalty oaths are a relatively recent invention in the U.S., and it is no sign of being 'anti-patriotic' to oppose the ridiculous practice, especially the 'Under God' gibberish added in the McCarthy era.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm

Agree that the "under God" phrasing is at the very least controversial, especially in a public school setting. However, I never said anything about failing to recite the pledge being unpatriotic. I stand by my "ungrateful" comment to those calling for an outright ban, as some here have stated they support.

As for the piece on Bellamy linking the pledge with a plan to sell flags....am I the only one to notice the irony in a socialist Christian who preached against capitalism supporting such an endeavor? Maybe he was a full blown hypocrite along the lines of the modern televangelists. Still I find it more likely his pledge was exploited by others looking to make a buck on flag sales.

So, when the country gets screwed up, the solution is for everyone who doesn't like it to leave? Do you think that would have worked in situations like Nazi Germany, or the genocidal sloughters in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sudan? Or the civil wars in Somalia, and Chechnya? Or the election misconduct in Ukraine?

Do you think Chechnyans should take pride in their country?

Until we let traitous seditious people take over we had checks and balances that kept us good . Even if we had mistakes, we were still the safest -place on the planet .

The chechnyans didn't have time to get over hitler, before they were invaded by muslems .

Indeed, they may disadvantage or advantage me, but this is no reason why I should be proud or ashamed of them, anymore than I should be proud of the cars around me in a traffic jam.
Wasn't arguing that you should be proud or ashamed of those things. Just trying to point out that your implied excuse seems flawed. You stated that you are proud of your own achievements. Followed with a question (presumably rhetorical)
What do the achievements and failings of an entire country have to do with me?

This implied part of your excuse for not having pride in your country is based on the fact that the failings or achievements of your country have nothing to do with you. I pointed out that this is a false premise. The achievements and failings of your nation can (and very likely do) impact you. Ergo part of your justification for not showing pride (or contempt) in your country is illogical.

To your traffic jam analogy...okay, you may not feel shame or pride for the cars around you. Are you grateful if someone waves you in and allows you to merge? Are you upset when someone cuts you off? Do you admire situations when you see a good samaritan helping a stranded motorist? We all have impacts individually and collectively on one another...some subtle, some not. I may not pledge allegiance to my fellow motorists, but I will express thanks to those I feel deserve it. I can't express thanks directly to the founding fathers of my nation, but I will choose to pledge allegiance to the nation they founded and the principles they represented.

Wasn't arguing that you should be proud or ashamed of those things. Just trying to point out that your implied excuse seems flawed. You stated that you are proud of your own achievements. Followed with a question (presumably rhetorical)


This implied part of your excuse for not having pride in your country is based on the fact that the failings or achievements of your country have nothing to do with you. I pointed out that this is a false premise. The achievements and failings of your nation can (and very likely do) impact you. Ergo part of your justification for not showing pride (or contempt) in your country is illogical.

To your traffic jam analogy...okay, you may not feel shame or pride for the cars around you. Are you grateful if someone waves you in and allows you to merge? Are you upset when someone cuts you off? Do you admire situations when you see a good samaritan helping a stranded motorist? We all have impacts individually and collectively on one another...some subtle, some not. I may not pledge allegiance to my fellow motorists, but I will express thanks to those I feel deserve it. I can't express thanks directly to the founding fathers of my nation, but I will choose to pledge allegiance to the nation they founded and the principles they represented.


Most of them need a one way ticket to Darfur or bangledesh . I bet then the flag would start looking pretty good after while. The only reason they have opportunity to achive is because of the " LAND OF OPPORTUNITY " that I proudly stand behind . This thread right here is proof of the reason we are a dying empire . They will miss it when it's gone !

The word "pride" generally indicates that you take credit for the success of your country. So, saying you "have pride in your country" is like saying "I won the civil war", which you didn't.
hmm...I'll have to mull this over. You may have a point, but I don't generally feel that I'm taking credit when I express pride in something. It makes me feel good to be associated with a nation founded upon principles of liberty, justice, and democratic principles. I never really felt as though I were taking credit for those things. On the flip side when I feel pride in my son's actions, I do feel that I've contributed to raising him properly. More deep thoughts from Feenix....darn you. :p

But the pledge doesn't say anything about "pride". It speaks of "allegiance", which is a totally different thing. Allegiance means that you will assist your nation in the pursuit of its goals.

It means you will fight to uphold the principals on which this nation was founded, in order to keep this nation worthy of your pride. But to do that, you have to understand what those principals are, and why we uphold them. Children don't understand that. Most adults don't even understand that.

I agree that most don't understand those principals. So let's teach them. However, I don't think learning and reciting the pledge should necessarily be contingent upon proof of a deep understanding of it.

Like I've said before, patriotism is useless if you don't understand what your country stands for.
Agreed....sort of...I'd ammend that to patriotism should be based upon an honest attempt to understand what your country stands for and how that fits within your own moral code. Patriotism was certainly useful to power mongers like Hitler and Stalin, whether or not the patriots really understood what their nations stood for.

Most of them need a one way ticket to Darfur or bangledesh . I bet then the flag would start looking pretty good after while. The only reason they have opportunity to achive is because of the " LAND OF OPPORTUNITY " that I proudly stand behind . This thread right here is proof of the reason we are a dying empire . They will miss it when it's gone !
Ummmm ...thanks for supporting me (I think), but I don't think Joey is even from the US. Profile says NZ. His argument seemed more philosophical on the notion of national pride, than any real statement that the US was unworthy of allegiance from it's citizenry.

Furthermore, I disagree that the US is an empire or that it is dying. In spite of the crap in the news, I find reason to hold out hope that we can and will return to our original principles. I don't have to go too far to witness good deeds and remarakable works by my fellow citizens. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but for me the good still outweighs the bad here.

As for the piece on Bellamy linking the pledge with a plan to sell flags....am I the only one to notice the irony in a socialist Christian who preached against capitalism supporting such an endeavor? Maybe he was a full blown hypocrite along the lines of the modern televangelists. Still I find it more likely his pledge was exploited by others looking to make a buck on flag sales.

What is hypocritical about it? Where in the constitution does it say anything about capitalism? Socialism is the only economic system it's possible for a christian to support in the first place, so there is nothing contradictory about it. Even John D. Rockfeller thought competition was a sin. Since he wasn't operating in a socialist system its kind of disingenious to complain about how they raised money by selling flags and publishing. The Social Gospel was popular among intellectuals and capitalists as well, preferable over Social Darwinism, the latter being touted by only a few well heeled speculators like J.P. Morgan, and Wall Street neither of which was very popular in that era.

Wasn't arguing that you should be proud or ashamed of those things. Just trying to point out that your implied excuse seems flawed. You stated that you are proud of your own achievements. Followed with a question (presumably rhetorical)

Indeed. As you have noticed, my rhetorical question was a rhetorical device, nothing more. It was not a part of my main argument, which can be reconstructed as follows:

P1) I should only be proud of my own achievements (can be rewritten as "only if something is my own achievement should I be be proud of it", can be rewritten as "if I should be proud of of something, it is my own achievement).
P2) The acheivements of my countrymen are not my achievements.
__________________________________________________ _______
C) I should not be proud of the achievements of my countrymen.

Let:
x = my own acheivements.
y = the achievements of my countrymen.
z = I should be proud of...

(z>x)
(y>~x)
_______
(y>~z)

My PL may be a little rusty, but you get the gist.

You may, of course, take issue with the claim that I should only be proud of my achievements, and argue that I should be proud of the achievements of those connected to me. It was to refute this possible objection that I pointed out the arbitary nature of national borders, therefore pointing out that any connection based on these borders is therefore a mere cultural construct or equally arbitary, and is thus not a good reason for pride..


This implied part of your excuse for not having pride in your country

This is no excuse. Why should I have to excuse my pride or lack thereof?


is based on the fact that the failings or achievements of your country have nothing to do with you. I pointed out that this is a false premise. The achievements and failings of your nation can (and very likely do) impact you.

Indeed. They do impact me, but I have not contributed to them in any real sense, any more than the driver of one car in a traffic jam has contributed to the traffic jam.


Ergo part of your justification for not showing pride (or contempt) in your country is illogical.

Not so. The rhetorical question I used may have been leading or misleading, but seperating rhetoric from logic is crucial in analysing any argument. Rhetoric is inherantly not based on logic.

Why should I be proud of achievements which are not my own? Indeed, why should I be proud of the arbitary political grouping under which these achievements were achieved?


To your traffic jam analogy...okay, you may not feel shame or pride for the cars around you. Are you grateful if someone waves you in and allows you to merge? Are you upset when someone cuts you off? Do you admire situations when you see a good samaritan helping a stranded motorist?

Yes, but I do not have pride or shame in them. I would not recite a Pledge of Allegiance to the traffic around me.

We all have impacts individually and collectively on one another...some subtle, some not. I may not pledge allegiance to my fellow motorists, but I will express thanks to those I feel deserve it.

Indeed, but why should I have pride in the actions of these others? Why should I have any allegiance to an arbitary political and geographic grouping?

I can't express thanks directly to the founding fathers of my nation, but I will choose to pledge allegiance to the nation they founded and the principles they represented.

Well, that's nice for you. Unfortunately, it's largely irrelevant.

Most of them need a one way ticket to Darfur or bangledesh . I bet then the flag would start looking pretty good after while. The only reason they have opportunity to achive is because of the " LAND OF OPPORTUNITY " that I proudly stand behind . This thread right here is proof of the reason we are a dying empire . They will miss it when it's gone !

My achievements have nothing to do with your country. I am daily glad that I do not live in your idiotic nation. Please stop assuming that America is the only "land of opportunity", or, indeed, that it offers the most opportunities.

I see no reason why I should miss the USA when it is gone.

Ummmm ...thanks for supporting me (I think), but I don't think Joey is even from the US. Profile says NZ. His argument seemed more philosophical on the notion of national pride, than any real statement that the US was unworthy of allegiance from it's citizenry.

Furthermore, I disagree that the US is an empire or that it is dying. In spite of the crap in the news, I find reason to hold out hope that we can and will return to our original principles. I don't have to go too far to witness good deeds and remarakable works by my fellow citizens. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but for me the good still outweighs the bad here.


I'm glad you have hope, hope is contaigeous . And I only say these things because it is so hard to see whats happened to the citizens spirit. And all the people who come here to hurt get free speech while we lose ours . But if the young stand together, they can take it back .

I don't see anything wrong with feeling proud of the achievements of others.

Nor do I see anything wrong with associating with other people by national ties.

I do see it necessary, however, for a community to foster a sense of community. You cannot depend on people to act respectful of others if they simply don't respect others.

I have read many posts that say children shouldnt recite the pledge because they dont understand the history of our country. And until they do then they should be asked if they would want to recite it. What puzzles me is that you dont feel children understand our history, yet understand the pledge. Talk about leaps of logic. If one is too young, or not intelligent enough, to understand our history, then they definetly dont understand the pledge of allegiance. Also, if it is meaningless, what is with all the commotion? If it means nothing, then why worry? It obviously means something if you feel it brainwashes our kids. What does it mean? To pledge allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands means you will loyaly uphold what this country was founded on; liberty and justice for all. That doesnt mean you blindly do what your country tells you to do. It means you uphold the liberty and justice for all, even if it means you have to protest the government, or overthrow it. So I see the pledge as a good thing. Something that will reassure you that you are loyaly upholding what this country was founded on.

I have read many posts that say children shouldnt recite the pledge because they dont understand the history of our country. And until they do then they should be asked if they would want to recite it. What puzzles me is that you dont feel children understand our history, yet understand the pledge. Talk about leaps of logic. If one is too young, or not intelligent enough, to understand our history, then they definetly dont understand the pledge of allegiance.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of things children "don't understand".

They may not understand the value of literacy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach them how to read.

Until we let traitous seditious people take over we had checks and balances


2001?

I have read many posts that say children shouldnt recite the pledge because they dont understand the history of our country. And until they do then they should be asked if they would want to recite it. What puzzles me is that you dont feel children understand our history, yet understand the pledge. Talk about leaps of logic. If one is too young, or not intelligent enough, to understand our history, then they definetly dont understand the pledge of allegiance.

Um... I beg to differ. The amazing amazing amounts of history over the last 200 years, and all the things the US has done is a little more complicated to take into understanding then constantly swearing your allegaince to something, day after day after day after day after day, 275 days out of the year.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of things children "don't understand".

They may not understand the value of literacy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach them how to read.

The thing is, literacy is a lifeskill, and vital to survival in civilization as well as for the progression of mankind. Blind pledging that serves no purpose except to dedicate to something you dont understand is quite different.

Allegiance means that you will assist your nation in the pursuit of its goals.

And it could also mean that right or wrong your country is always right no matter what.

They shouldn't be forced into it, it's just feel good blather, make em pledge allegiance to the Constitution instead, and teach them the difference between true patriotism, and nationalism.

And it could also mean that right or wrong your country is always right no matter what.

..and that's why we shouldn't be forcing our children to pledge allegiance.

Consider this: Hitler could never have invaded Europe without the blind patriotism of his soldiers. Nor could Stalin have abused the people of the Soviet Union, nor could Japan have invaded Asia and the Pacific. Nor could Napoleon have taken over Europe. Nor could King Richard have embarked on the crusades. Nor could Genghis Khan taken over most of the known world. Every act of tyrannical aggression in history has been fueled by the blind patriotism of the soldiers who carried it out.

We shouldn't be teaching our children blind patriotism. We should be teaching them the merits of the Bill of Rights. That's the foundation on which this country was built, and it is the only line of defense we have against the forces that would change this nation into the very thing it was created to oppose.

Indeed feenix. Dead on.

Indeed. As you have noticed, my rhetorical question was a rhetorical device, nothing more. It was not a part of my main argument, which can be reconstructed as follows:

P1) I should only be proud of my own achievements (can be rewritten as "only if something is my own achievement should I be be proud of it", can be rewritten as "if I should be proud of of something, it is my own achievement).
P2) The acheivements of my countrymen are not my achievements.
__________________________________________________ _______
C) I should not be proud of the achievements of my countrymen.

Let:
x = my own acheivements.
y = the achievements of my countrymen.
z = I should be proud of...

(z>x)
(y>~x)
_______
(y>~z)

My PL may be a little rusty, but you get the gist.

Yeah, I get your gist. I guess maybe I associate pride with gratitude. Maybe that's technically incorrect, but the two always seemed to go hand in hand for me. Thus when someone states they are proud only of their own achievements, and have no sense of community pride (whether that community be family, town, state, nation or world) it is a completely foreign concept to me. Now maybe one can feel that sense of community without experiencing pride or shame in the actions of others, but the concept is as hard for me to grasp as existentialism.


You may, of course, take issue with the claim that I should only be proud of my achievements, and argue that I should be proud of the achievements of those connected to me. It was to refute this possible objection that I pointed out the arbitary nature of national borders, therefore pointing out that any connection based on these borders is therefore a mere cultural construct or equally arbitary, and is thus not a good reason for pride..

I won't argue that you should be proud of the achievements of those connected to you if you'll be so kind as to not expect me to feel any shame for the less noble actions of my government past and present. After all, by your logic it's their fault and I had nothing to do with it. :nice:

This is no excuse. Why should I have to excuse my pride or lack thereof?

Excuse was a poor choice of words I guess. Reason didn't seem to fit either, as reason implies logic and you've already confirmed that a rhetorical question is by it's nature not logical.

Indeed. They do impact me, but I have not contributed to them in any real sense, any more than the driver of one car in a traffic jam has contributed to the traffic jam.

With your attitude, I have little difficulty believing that you personally have contributed in any real sense to the achievements or failures of your nation. Thankfully many of us choose to live in a more cooperative environment and celebrate each other's good deeds and reprimand each other's bad ones. Again, no man is an island.


Not so. The rhetorical question I used may have been leading or misleading, but seperating rhetoric from logic is crucial in analysing any argument. Rhetoric is inherantly not based on logic.

So noted.


Why should I be proud of achievements which are not my own? Indeed, why should I be proud of the arbitary political grouping under which these achievements were achieved?

Why should you be proud of your own achievements? Can any achievement be totally your own?


Yes, but I do not have pride or shame in them. I would not recite a Pledge of Allegiance to the traffic around me.

ok. Again, I may be confusing pride and gratitude as very related to one another. May be part of my brainwashing from my youth.


Indeed, but why should I have pride in the actions of these others? Why should I have any allegiance to an arbitary political and geographic grouping?

Indeed, why should you have any allegiance or pride to any group? School....arbitrary grouping. Generation...arbitrary timing. Family...arbitrary genetics at play. Town...arbitrary geography again. Heck, life is viewed by some as an arbitrary result of certain chemical processes...why feel any pride or shame in a bunch of random chemical reactions? Right? (preceeding very much tongue in cheek). It seems to me (from the arguments put forth here) you celebrate the self and dismiss the positive influence of community pride. As I stated several pages back, blind pride and devotion to a nation is dangerous, but so is apathy and putting the self above all else.

When people fail to take pride in their community it deteriorates just as surely as excessive irrational pride will position a community for failure.


Well, that's nice for you. Unfortunately, it's largely irrelevant.
Actually it's quite relevant to the debate at hand. It was a reason cited for my support of the pledge of allegiance. Not a rhetorical device, but an actual explanation of why I feel the way I do.