It’s sort of implicit in the 2nd Amendment that it is alright to plot against your nation (assuming that your nation deserves it.)
Apparently the effects of reciting the Pledge are very short-lived, as it is recited anew by many of the same people at each local government meeting. You’d think one time would be enough in your life, or perhaps per year, but no…
What can I say to rescind my Pledge recitation, last done when I was young, ignorant, impressionable and brainwashed? Or has it expired?
[LIST=A]
[li]The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as permitting freeforall gun ownership is relatively recent; SCOTUS rejected the argument as extremist not too long before Edwin Meese’s efforts to mainstream it paid off.[/li][li]Thanks for demonstrating why that interpretation is so off and so clearly wrong.[/li][/LIST]
Making children swear a loyalty oath before they understand the meaning of the oath they are swearing really erodes the sense of loyalty. It tells them that oaths are meaningless.
Isamu You don’t HAVE to say it at any age, it’s just that most people don’t realize until they are about a Junior in HS that it’s optional. I used to sit and avoid saying it and this bugged kids in my Honors World History class, due to switching schools I took as a Senior what was a sophomore class because it was a Senior class at my old school. The teacher was the basketball coach and was a really cool dude. He understood perfectly. It was an opportunity to teach the sophomores that I was correct that I didn’t have to say it.
No, it is 100% unreasonable. Science is not a God. At all. Science is not based on faith, it makes no demands of worship or exclusivity, and it does not care whether you believe in it, or even acknowledge it. Science is, at its core, a thought process. No more, no less.
We* do not think of it as God. Some religious people think we think so, but that is because they cannot conceive of not having a God. We shouldn’t have to kowtow to others’ lack of understanding.
*I’m an agnostic, but close enough.
N.B.: The Pledge of Allegiance was not originally written for the United States. Christian Socialist Frances Bellamy wrote it in 1892 as a sort of generical pledge, usable in any sufficiently republican country. As originally written it read, “I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
From The Origins of the Bill of Rights:
The Wikipedia similarly states that one purpose of the 2nd Amendment is “deterring undemocratic government”.
I don’t believe that anyone could plausibly deny that this was a significant factor.
Sorry, but I can’t buy that. Words matter.
There is a difference between commitment and allegiance. To anyone who would disagree, I would ask what the Bill O’Reilly types might say if the suggestion were made to swap those two words in the POA.
I might say I am committed to living in the U.S., but I can’t swear allegiance to it because the country can (and has) acted stupidly on occasion. Now that doesn’t mean I try to secede every time I disagree, but I may heartily object and act in some manner on those objections. I don’t think that’s allegiance. To me, the word allegiance carries connotations of blind loyalty, and I don’t go in for that.
This is a small matter of semantics. But above and beyond that, I agree with those in this thread who make the point that the idea of having a POA in general is just creepy and weird.
But as said, that doesn’t work; science isn’t a god, and it doesn’t have any “force” behind it.
And it assumes that pledging allegiance to a god is a good thing. To me, it’s like requiring children to pledge allegiance to Sauron every morning. Crazy, and extremely evil if actually taken seriously. Especially since regardless of any handwaving about it not being defined as such, we all know that the God in question is the Christian God.
You can’t force respect, and you can’t force loyalty. Whether someone is loyal or not is entirely a matter aside from whether they recite the pledge or not. The pledge, in and of itself, seems like no bad thing to me. It’s in the meaning and interpretation of those words where problem may arise, and I don’t see the pledge itself as actually changing those things; people will just read into them what they believe to be the case.
As far as the “under God” part, it’s pretty clearly a reference to a particular deity. And beyond leaving out atheists, it also leaves out pantheists, deists, and pretty much everyone else who isn’t a monotheist (though, granted, the considerable majority falls into that category). As a statement of loyalty, i’d say that’s a pretty good point of contention; uniformity can breed unity, but only for everyone who already agrees. One of the problems of it being considered a recognised, standardised sign of loyalty is that the lack of it has become sort of an anti-sign of loyalty. One example of loyalty seems to have become for many one of the only acceptable ones.
I couldn’t agree more. Watching displays of dumb-ass knee-jerk patriotism is one of the most difficult things about being an American abroad.
Watching the debate on health care is probably number 2.
Explaining either of the above is number 3.
I thought it might be important to know what the word “allegience” actually does mean, so I looked it up. Here are some of the definitions I found:
and the meaning from whence the word derives:
So, it basically means loyalty—which reasonably invites the question of what that entails—but I see no connotations of blind loyalty.
Cool! When do I get my shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles 'cause I don’t think my rifle is going to be much use against the black helicopters.
Well, you know how people always say that the NRA is harping on “snowballing legislation”…
I think the pledge is just creepy. Getting school kids to say it each and every morning, like we’re afraid that the commies may have had some sway over them since yesterday, that just creeps me out.
Did you all see the video from a couple of months ago where a congress critter was having a local meeting and that crazy lady was grilling him about Obama’s birth certificate? It was getting chaotic, then someone suggested that they do a group pledge, and everyone in the room suddenly stood and put their hand over their heart and started reciting the pledge. It was like something out of a Stephen King novel (I assume, I’ve never actually read one).
Is there a youtube of this? or do you at least know the name of the actor. Because I think I’d find a clip of that show really really funny.
Meh. We sang our country’s national anthem every day in primary school. Even at that young age, we knew what was up and agreed with eachother that it was pretty stupid.
“Australians all eat ostriches, for we are young and free!”
I can’t find anything on Google. It was a long time ago – before youtube existed.
This is the wiki about the Molson “I am Canadian” ad campaign, but there’s nothing in it about the O’Reilly appearance. I distinctly remember it, though.
I don’t think that a public school teacher can legally require a student to recite the POA now, but since teachers, administrators, and students are not at all well-informed about the right not to be forced to say it, recitation continues in many schools.
I’ve been out of the environment for a long time, however, and that may not be the latest word.
The irony is that someone who was subversive to the government wouldn’t hesitate to take the Pledge anyway.
There was no active “Religious Right” that pushed for the inclusion of this phrase in the Pledge. I don’t recall such a division among the Christians in general until a decade or two later. I am open to correction if I am mistaken.
Yes; given why the “under God” part was put in I have visions of people back then thinking communists are like vampires who’ll ignite if they say “God”.
“…under God…”
FWOOSH!!
“Aieeeee!!”
“Musta been a Commie.”