Does the pledge actually require the republic that it has such a thing as stated above as a condition of such pledge? I don’t think for a second anyone can say that the US does even come close the this ideal of liberty and justice for all. They may be better then others but they are no where close to this ideal.
Is not the burden of proof in the republic itself to live up to this standard (in SDMB talk cite please; demanded of the ‘US Republic’), to gain the allegiance of the pledge, and if the US republic can’t prove that they are in fact such a republic, they should have no expectation of the pledge of the people who have made it honoring it - and have no moral right expecting it.
The pledge always bothered me on a 2nd commandment basis. I can see pledging my allegiance to a republic, but not to a garishly colored piece of cloth.
No. The pledge is to the flag and to the republic. The flag gets the allegiance even without liberty, justice, or God.
I suppose, if you’re ever prosecuted for inadequate pledging, you can try to argue that the two provisions aren’t severable. But I don’t think that will work. I think you have to, at least, provide a 50% pledge (to the flag) and then pledge to the republic in proportion of how much liberty and justice all are getting.
The Christ doesn’t care what side of an arbitrary and morally-irrelevant line on a map you come from, and neither do I. Borders are a human rights violation, and patriotic loyalty is a morally-indefensible treason to humanity.
That’s one of many reasons I don’t like the pledge: empty praise makes for empty promises. I guess if you were feeling charitable you could interpret things loosely and say it’s a pledge to make the republic one that has liberty and justice for everyone, but it doesn’t actually say that.
I think there are plenty of people who would refuse to admit that. They’re full of it, but there are large numbers of people who won’t brook any criticism of the U.S. because it offends them personally.
Does not ‘and’ require both to be valid? I know that is how it is in logic, but what about back then, does it mean and/or, or does it mean divisible in proportion?
And are not they both ‘with liberty and justice for all’ by use of ‘and’?
The nation is indeed divisible if you want to nitpick. The flag no longer stands for a republic, but a mighty empire. Seeing people recite the pledge is one of the scariest recurring moments of my adult life. It’s the type of dystopian woo only a socialist minister could conjure up.
That’s a good point. Maybe you do have to pledge for both.
But it’s definitely not saying that the flag has liberty and justice. The republic is the one that’s supposed to. And besides, how would a flag have those things? It’s a flag.
That would require that both have to be true, that the flag inherently is linked to a republic that has liberty and justice for all. If it was just a flag without the latter it was not the flag of the pledge or at least to say that flag requires the such a republic as part of the deal.
Yeah, but that was a 1950’s anti-godless athiestic communist add-on anyway.
Of course, I get into real contrary son of a bitch mode. One time I blew the mind of our 1st Sergeant when I told him that I thought one of the freedoms we were here in Viet Nam fighting and dying for was the right of long haired draft dodging hippies back home to burn American flags. Maybe saying “Hey, if the goddamn commies can burn the US flag, why shouldn’t we be allowed to?” was going a bit much.