I don’t wish to hijackthis thread over in GQ about schoolteachers and the Pledge of Allegiance, so I am opening this thread.
In the other thread, in response to this
raindog wrote:
Can you please explain what you mean, raindog?
What I mean by that is this:
There is a difference between being lawful, and pledging allegiance.
The beauty, elegance------and paradox-------of our Constitution is that I am not compelled to pledge allegiance to it.
It is entirely reasonable----and consistent with the consitution----that society expects me to be a law abiding citizen.
Yet the liberty and freedom that the constitution accords me means that I do not have to give it my allegiance.
I disagree, though. Allegiance is less a problem, because it just means loyalty. It means you will follow it, i.e. defer to it, thus abiding by the laws.
The problem for me is the “pledging” part. It is someone forcing you to say something. Remember this is public school we’re talking about, and, it would thus be an employee of the state compelling you do to this. Thus they should be limited to only making you do what is required to do the job, which is teaching. Pledging or not pledging does not touch the educational process in any way, and should be outside the school’s jurisdiction.
Less a problem to whom?
“Just loyalty” impinges on my freedom to be disloyal. Loyalty means, in part, “…faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc…”
It is absolutely reasonable to have someone who disagrees with the constitution, and our form of government. They may choose to live peaceably however, and lawfully. (or…they have the freedom to assemble, run for congress with the intent to change the constitution etc)
IOW, you may require certain minimum standards of behavior as it relates to laws etc. You may have some influence over what I do ------my actions----via laws etc.
But our freedoms doesn’t allow you to compel me to think a certain way. What I believe is not the governments business.
How is this different from the current pledge? You’re still giving allegiance to the USA.
Good point. There isn’t.
They are both objectionable when required.
If I remember correctly (and I mean no offense in saying this), Raindog is a thought6ful, literate person from a Jehovah’s Witness background, with the consequent view on oaths and similar sworn statements being unacceptable.
You’re suggesting that his stated reasoning for opposition to the pledge is a cover for a religious reason?
No. In my experience, Raindog doesn’t pull that sort of crap. What I am suggesting is that his initial and strong reaction to a self-authored oath may owe more to his religious background (coming out emotionally) than to the actual contents of Skald’s oath – presuming my memory about what he’s said of his religious background is anything like correct. All of us are the products of our past, with emotional reactions founded in things we learned as chldren, and I’m saying this in the hope of providing insight, not of casting aspersions.
I don’t mean to speak for raindog. I didn’t read the thread that prompted this, and I can’t begin to interpret his writing in context. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the idea he expressed, solely as portrayed in this thread.
Underlying the constitution of the U.S. is an ideal, that the constitution itself represents the people’s best idea of a representative government. To fixate upon the constitution, to pledge allegiance to it, is to neglect the fact that over time, the best construction of government for a population may change, due to changes in the values and needs of those governed, and the practices of those doing the governing. I don’t think that we’re anywhere near close to needing such a radical change now, and I don’t advocate for one, but I value religious adherence to a fixed document far less than I do adherence to the principles that led to the development of that document. Government needs to represent the people. If the constitution needs to change, change it. If it cannot be changed, if it becomes dogma justifying oppression, cast it off, violently if necessary.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution only so far as it meets the needs of those it governs. It’s doing pretty good so far. The flag is just a symbol; pledging to a wavering symbol is not attractive to me.
I’m not arguing that it is. I’m arguing that the problem with pledging allegiance is not them making you think a certain thing, as you can think whatever you want and still pretend like you agree with the pledge. The problem with the pledge is that they are forcing you to SAY something you don’t believe. In fact, you may believe it, and just not want to say it.
The first paragraph was poorly phrased, as I was trying to get at that allegiance doesn’t necessarily mean what you are taking it to mean. One can show allegiance to a written code without actually believing in said code. It can mean* to follow one’s duty, i.e. to uphold the law. I think think this makes more sense, as how else can one be loyal to a law?
*If you want to follow the definition chain, see the spoiler:
[spoiler]
Hopefully we can both agree that definition 1b is the one that applies here. Thus we need to look up fidelity:
This time, it looks like we need to go with 1a. So let’s check out Faithful:
You seem to want to assume definition 2. I say definition 3 is perfectly legitimate meaning. Since you would have to do definition 3 anyways (as you admit above. One has a duty to follow the law.) I do not consider the pledge to be a problem in that right.[/spoiler]
Not going to edit that above post, but I want to point out that Kyrie Eleison’s post was not there when I started this. If one does not see the Constitution as merely a set of laws (that happen to be the supreme laws of the land), and sees an underlying philosophy, I can understand not having allegiance to said philosophy.
Still, my last paragraph in my first response and my first paragraph in my subsequent response remain valid, as them making you say a pledge does not mean you have to actually believe said pledge.
Polycarp is correct, and it offers just one context in which one might object the the pledge. (thank you, Poly)
For JWs, allegiance is to God and God alone. That said, the Apostle Paul wrote clearly and powerfully that Christians were to be lawful, respectful citizens. In practical terms that means paying your taxes, and following the laws of one’s country, both large and small.
Only when a law conflicts with God’s law (as articulated in the bible) is a citizen to refuse; and only then quietly and respectfully.
The consequence of all of this is that it is entirely possible to live a life that is lawful and peaceful, and yet reject the notion that one should “pledge” to any set of ideals.
IOW, in this particular context, a person may rightfully agree to follow all the laws, yet refuse “devotion” to any of them. And let’s be clear about what “meaning” many people attach to the pledge. (the pledge are just words, right?, and have no inherent meaning) For many people the pledge means more than being lawful, -----and to quote the OP-------and one might offer up “one’s life blood” (figuratively or literally) towards these ideals/nation. (which may manifest itself in various forms of Patriotism, or taking up arms in the military to advance these ideals) For example, one might object the notion I may be required to kill you, to protect my/our freedom.
To come full circle, however, I think the pledge that Skald and Big T advance is perfectly logical and reasonable, and I can understand how anyone would embrace those ideals.
Yet the paradox of [this type of] freedom is that I am free enough that I am not compelled to pledge allegiance to it. And…the SCOTUS has held that the Pledge is fine, as long as it is not compelled.
So while words have no inherent meaning, they have tremendous meaning to people. So rather than “pretending” as one might, or be asked to attach a narrow meaning to the pledge (while fully aware that for many/most the meaning is much more expansive) it is better to recognize that our freedom------paradoxically------ gives me the freedom to refuse allegiance to those ideals.
ETA: This is not about religion as much as it is about Freedom. I offer just one context in which one might object to the pledge, and yet live a lawful existence. These freedoms do not require vetting however, and someone may object for a variety of reasons-----or no reason.
In any event, the Pledge is fine and reasonable for anyone that chooses to embrace it, and paradoxically only becomes contradictory to the ideals of freedom when it is required.
One thing I think has been misunderstood by some, including perhaps the OP, is that raindog, so far as I can tell, was never really directing his comments at Skald’s pledge in particular; it’s at the idea of a ritual pledge of allegiance to the state in the first place, no matter what the particulars; original wording, current wording, Skald’s wording, whatever.
Thank you. That is correct.
Its worth repeating also that I have no problem whatsoever with the pledge and anyone’s use of it. It’s a problem IMV (and apparently the SCOTUS) when it’s required.
I suppose thats the same as school prayer-----people should have the freedom to engage in it individually or in groups but it should not be *required *of students to have school prayer.
ETA
And now after looking at the OP again I see that my comments (that inspired the OP) were wrong in as much as I didn’t qualify them. (and perhaps if I had he wouldn’t have started the OP)
His pledge is not anathema to the constitution one bit.
Where I think they would be is if he took the additional step of saying “Now all children will be required to recite this new and improved Pledge.”
If you want to read this pledge every morning from the school PA system, that’s fine. If I may (or my child…) stand quietly and respectfully silent, then I think it’s all good.
The moment silence is not OK, and there is punishment for not reciting it, then we’ve violated the principles we’re paying homage to.
I’m sorry for not making that clearer.
I would go further than this – I believe that no democratic government in a free society has any business even conceiving of a loyalty oath, much less requiring people to say it. The very idea that Citizen A is sitting around thinking of ways for Citizen B to demonstrate his or her loyalty is extremely offensive to me.
An oath of office is slightly different – one is affirming his or her intent to carry out the duties of an office that represents the public. (Frankly, I don’t see any need for anyone to pledge an oath in any circumstance – it should be implicit both socially and legally that in accepting an office that one is obligated to carry out its duties in concordance with the law.)
If you wanted to know, you could have sent him a PM. If you wanted to potentially drag him out into the street, you’d have started a thread.
I’ve read enough of Skald’s posts to know he wasn’t looking to set me up for a fight. (and the thread wasn’t started in GD or the Pit)
I figure a thread creates a discussion much more than a PM would.
I don’t perceive you as trying to start a right, RD. It occurred to me after I opened the thread that you might have been referring to the current pledge rather than my doomed rewrite.