No Pledge of Allegiance in Eugene

[Ben]

If people are opposed to the pledge, I certainly think it should be a subject for debate if that's what they want to do, after all, that's what the country is about. I just found some of the reasoning mentioned here for not saying it a bit comical. Such as, "It's divisive", and "I have a problem with the words 'I pledge allegiance' " and, "It's like the communist manifesto".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/28/compromise-on-pledge-allegiance-in-oregon-town-has-some-seeing-red/

[MrsSmith]

The woman who said the pledge "sort of means" loyalty to your country. (Ya think??) And she feels loyalty to the entire world. Really? The ENTIRE world?
Clearly not much of a deep thinker. But she showed up for the meeting.

Look at what our society has become. Frightening.

[Perd Hapley]

The woman who said the pledge "sort of means" loyalty to your country. (Ya think??) And she feels loyalty to the entire world. Really? The ENTIRE world?
Clearly not much of a deep thinker. But she showed up for the meeting.

Thanks for saying what I was thinking when I read this thread yesterday. Loyalty to the entire world would be meaningless.

[MillCreek]

Thanks for saying what I was thinking when I read this thread yesterday. Loyalty to the entire world would be meaningless.

It could possibly become meaningful when we are invaded by the Skitters.

[dm1333]

You guys ever been to Eugene?  One afternoon there and it all makes sense.   

[kgbsquirrel]

You guys ever been to Eugene?  One afternoon there and it all makes sense.  

Nineteen years.... nineteen long years!!! And then finally, escape! Glorious sublime escape!!! To bootcamp.



The anarchists and hippies.... I can still hear them screaming in the darkness. *twitch*

[MrsSmith]

And once again I find myself grateful to be living in the South.

Kgbsquirrel - good job! Be safe!

Fistful - I had to read her statement three times to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding in some way. Utterly inane. She should embark on a world tour, starting in the 'Stans, and demonstrate her loyalty. 

[RocketMan]

I live about 45 miles from Eugene as the crow flies.  With the wind just right, you can smell the scent of patchouli oil in the air.

[henschman]

Yeah, I am not a fan of the pledge, but I did find some of the reasons given for being against it in the article to be kinda funny.  Hippies will be hippies I guess. 

Personally I just don't like it because I believe it promotes collectivism and false patriotism -- I think it gives kids the idea that being patriotic means standing and saluting in unison, and speaking some memorized words.  It is also used as a club by people with a political agenda who try to claim that anyone who is against it is anti-American.  I don't like how the pledge was instituted as a law either -- if people want to form a common way of showing loyalty to their country, it ought to be simply a tradition, like a lot of patriotic songs are, rather than something that had to be put into law that all gov't schools are required to engage in.  I especially don't like how the law was passed by the federal government, when nothing in the US Constitution gives the federal government any authority to do anything like that.  I find it horribly ironic that people pledge allegiance to a flag and to the Republic for which it stands, but that the law that instituted the pledge is itself a violation of the highest law of the Republic.  Also, I think that people's highest allegiance should be to themselves and to their own liberty, and that they should have allegiance to their country's government only to the extent that it protects their liberty and allows them to be free to promote their own interests.

[RocketMan]

Yeah, I am not a fan of the pledge, but I did find some of the reasons given for being against it in the article to be kinda funny.  Hippies will be hippies I guess. 

I don't like how the pledge was instituted as a law either...
<and>
I especially don't like how the law was passed by the federal government, when nothing in the US Constitution gives the federal government any authority to do anything like that.

There's a federal law requiring the PoA?  Where?  In what republic would that be?

[MicroBalrog]

He didn't say anything about requiring it... but its 'official' text is set by law. It's part of the United States Flag code:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “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.”, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000004----000-.html

[RocketMan]

He didn't say anything about requiring it... but its 'official' text is set by law. It's part of the United States Flag code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000004----000-.html

The way henschmen worded his post led me to believe he thought there was a requirement.  A difference in perception between us, perhaps.

eta:  Here is where he used the word "required"...

...rather than something that had to be put into law that all gov't schools are required to engage in.

To the best of my knowledge, "government" schools are not required to recite the pledge.  Many do, many do not.

[Northwoods]

Nineteen years.... nineteen long years!!! And then finally, escape! Glorious sublime escape!!! To bootcamp.



The anarchists and hippies.... I can still hear them screaming in the darkness. *twitch*

Which high school did you go to?  Sheldon Class of '96 here.

[kgbsquirrel]

Which high school did you go to?  Sheldon Class of '96 here.

Did you kiss the blarney stone? Fighting Irish, '02. 

[Tallpine]

The word "indivisible" is my problem.

The PoA is a Unionist post "Civil" War thing.   

[Northwoods]

Did you kiss the blarney stone? Fighting Irish, '02. 

Oh, hell no.  It was my 3rd high school.  First 2 were in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and in Christchurch, New Zealand.  Any sense of loyalty to a given school, or desire to participate in those sorts of rituals had long since disappeared.

You would have been a freshman when my wife was a senior.  You probably passed her in the hallways a few times.

[Perd Hapley]

Personally I just don't like it because I believe it promotes collectivism and false patriotism -- I think it gives kids the idea that being patriotic means standing and saluting in unison, and speaking some memorized words.  It is also used as a club by people with a political agenda who try to claim that anyone who is against it is anti-American.  I don't like how the pledge was instituted as a law either -- if people want to form a common way of showing loyalty to their country, it ought to be simply a tradition, like a lot of patriotic songs are, rather than something that had to be put into law that all gov't schools are required to engage in. 

This isn't a defense of the pledge, but that charge could also be leveled against the very idea of a flag. I believe similar complaints have been made about wearing flag pins on suit jacket lapels (after 11 Sept, I think?). The fact is that any symbol or ceremony can be practiced with varying degrees of sincerity.

So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the larger point; I just wouldn't use that argument.

I think that people's highest allegiance should be to themselves and to their own liberty, and that they should have allegiance to their country's government only to the extent that it protects their liberty and allows them to be free to promote their own interests.

So you wouldn't risk yourself for the sake of your family, your friends, your country, your beliefs, anything? Or do I misunderstand you? 

[MicroBalrog]

So you wouldn't risk yourself for the sake of your family, your friends, your country, your beliefs, anything? Or do I misunderstand you?  Huh?[/quotel]

Consider this parable:

There are many incidents of soldiers jumping on a grenade to save their friends. Is it a good and noble thing to do? Of course. There is no discussion of that.

But it is not as such a duty. It is something above and beyond the call of duty - hence why the expression exists. Soldiers who have taken cover - rather than jump on the grenade - have not by this act failed and betrayed their country.

[henschman]

The way henschmen worded his post led me to believe he thought there was a requirement.  A difference in perception between us, perhaps.

eta:  Here is where he used the word "required"...To the best of my knowledge, "government" schools are not required to recite the pledge.  Many do, many do not.

In my state, all government primary and secondary schools are required by state law to recite the pledge every day, as well as hold a moment of silence for prayer or reflection. 

The pledge law is part of the unconstitutional Flag Code.  Of course that law carries no penalties, but don't underestimate the insidious psychological effects of officially-encouraged collectivism.  Any guesses on which President signed it into law?  I'll give you a hint -- he was the biggest goddamn collectivist POS to ever hold the office.

Why the quotes around "government?"  Do you have some objection to the term "government schools?"

This isn't a defense of the pledge, but that charge could also be leveled against the very idea of a flag. I believe similar complaints have been made about wearing flag pins on suit jacket lapels (after 11 Sept, I think?). The fact is that any symbol or ceremony can be practiced with varying degrees of sincerity.

So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the larger point; I just wouldn't use that argument.

The US didn't have a law setting forth an official flag or flag code until the 1930s -- we got by fine for a long time without it.  The flag was simply a widely-recognized tradition, and people showed respect for it however they felt was appropriate -- no arbitrary official guidelines necessary.

So you wouldn't risk yourself for the sake of your family, your friends, your country, your beliefs, anything? Or do I misunderstand you? 

Yeah, I think you misunderstand me a little bit.  My life is my prime value, but I might risk it to protect those things that make it meaningful to me.  Being a rationally self-interested person doesn't prevent you from acting in the interests of others -- provided that doing so has some value to you.  For instance, a rationally self-interested person should never promote or participate in the violation of anyone else's liberty, since to do so puts his own liberty at risk. 

[Perd Hapley]

I understand how self-interest might prevent you from, say, selling nuclear secrets to Pakistan (or whatever MacGuffin sort of thing would give our enemies a critical edge over us). But if Canada, for example, was willing to pay you large sums of money for something they're not likely to use against us, then there doesn't seem to be anything like loyalty to stop you. Only the fear of getting caught.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, your objection to the Pledge is apparently as simple as the fact that you don't feel any particular loyalty to your country. At least since you've said your first allegiance is to yourself. As opposed to others on this forum, who object to the pledge, but not from a lack of patriotism or loyalty, at least as far as I've seen.

Or perhaps I'm still misreading you.

[RocketMan]

Why the quotes around "government?"  Do you have some objection to the term "government schools?"

No objection at all, just highlighting your use of the term.  And not all government schools require the recitation of the PoA.  Just because your state does, does not make it universal across the country as the wording of your post implied.
In my not so humble opinion, the PoA is (was*) a pledge of allegiance to a set of ideals that is grander and more noble than just one's self.  It certainly is not a pledge to a government.  Those that see it that way are sadly misguided or misinformed.

* I added the caveat "was" because I am not sure we, as a nation, are deserving of such a pledge in these days.

[Blakenzy]

Meh. Good for them. The PoA is just a device used to elicit a phony sense of togetherness (one nation under the authority of the Federal Govt.) and to condition children and the feeble minded to the adoration of a visual symbol of authority, which will be waved in front of you whenever a submissive/receptive state of mind is required. Why not pledge allegiance to the contents of Constitution, specifically the BoR? Now that would be subversive and dangerous, as people might actually take an interest and learn what it says...

[GigaBuist]

In my not so humble opinion, the PoA is (was*) a pledge of allegiance to a set of ideals that is grander and more noble than just one's self.  It certainly is not a pledge to a government. 

Respectfully, I consider you mistaken on this.  The pledge is most certainly an allegiance to a nation, or to the government if you wish to phrase it that way.

I base my opinion partly on how it evolved over time.  Originally:

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

It then became:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The final change was the addition of "under God" -- and I won't get into that aspect.  I will say I consider it entirely unimportant and that's about it.

From what I gather the change from "the Republic" to "the United states of America, and to the republic" was made to ensure immigrants knew darned tooting well who they were pledging allegiance to.  If it were about our ideals we'd have seen that expanded, or the pledge left alone, but that's not what happened.

Beyond that, and this is perhaps more important, is what you'll see in comments whenever somebody objects to the PoA.  We're a lot more civil here than the rest of the web but even here I've seen questions of loyalty and whether or not the other person believes the US is the greatest nation ever.  That's exactly the type of response you'd expect when somebody questions a loyalty oath that's done a good job of indoctrinating people.

You don't get questions about "liberty" and "justice" -- you get questioned about how much you love America.  Nobody asks you if you hate the BoR, the DoI, or the constitution, it's all about wars, sacrifice, loyalty. patriotism and such.

But that's what's to expected from an 18 second "jingle" for your country.  We repeat it over and over again until the concepts aren't distinguishable from the article in question.

Here's a thought experiment for you.  Let's flip some new words into the PoA and you tell me what the take-home message is:

"I pledge allegiance to Tide the detergent, and the stain fighting powers for which is stands.  One detergent, unmatched, with clean clothes and comfort for all."

You get a kid to repeat that every day and guess what happens?  They buy the Tide brand.  They don't go on to promote clean clothes and comfort -- they just suck up "their" brand of detergent.

I feel like it'd be fun to keep playing with this, so let's flip it around a bit and pretend we're making a pledge for Tide employees to motivate them.  Try this:

"I pledge allegiance to fighting stains, keeping clothes clean, and comfortable.  I will do everything in my power to ensure that Tide always rises to these standards."

Totally different message.  You put the goal in front of the "brand" on this one.  The same could be done with the PoA:

"I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all.  I will do everything in my power to ensure that the United States always rises to these standards."

Same ideals, same country, but we don't say it that way, and for good reason.  It doesn't evoke unquestioned brand loyalty.

[henschman]

I understand how self-interest might prevent you from, say, selling nuclear secrets to Pakistan (or whatever MacGuffin sort of thing would give our enemies a critical edge over us). But if Canada, for example, was willing to pay you large sums of money for something they're not likely to use against us, then there doesn't seem to be anything like loyalty to stop you. Only the fear of getting caught.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, your objection to the Pledge is apparently as simple as the fact that you don't feel any particular loyalty to your country. At least since you've said your first allegiance is to yourself. As opposed to others on this forum, who object to the pledge, but not from a lack of patriotism or loyalty, at least as far as I've seen.

Or perhaps I'm still misreading you.

I think you're still misreading me.  My objection to the pledge is not just as simple as the fact that I don't feel any particular loyalty to my country's government -- it is also based on the fact that the pledge promotes a philosophy that is destructive to the ideals of individual liberty and reason.

And by the words of the pledge, I do indeed believe that it expresses allegiance to a government.  Specifically, to a flag and the Republic for which it stands.  "Republic" doesn't refer just to a geographical area, a group of people, or certain ideals -- it refers to a form of government.

A Republic is a government in which citizens vote on representatives, who vote on their laws.  A Republic is just as capable of instituting tyranny as any dictatorship.  Therefore I profess no unconditional allegiance to the Republic, because I believe in resisting the Republic if it becomes a threat to my liberty (just like the Declaration of Independence says).  

But back to the issue of my loyalty.  I never said I have no loyalty to my country -- just that I have no loyalty to my government.  Country and government are two totally different things.  The way I see it, my country is the land and the people who inhabit it.  I DO have unconditional loyalty to them, because my own liberty depends on them being free as well.  But my allegiance to any government is completely in proportion to how much it protects my liberty, and has an inverse relationship to how much they violate my liberty.

And like I said, my highest loyalty is to myself.  The only reason I would have loyalty to anything else is because it promotes my interests.  To value things which harm one's interests would be the height of irrationality.  

GigaBuist, I like your pledge.  I would support it as long as it arises simply as a popular tradition, rather than being imposed by law.  In keeping with the recent holiday, I might also go for something like "I pledge that if my country's government becomes destructive to the ends of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, I will do everything in my power to alter or abolish it."  Now that is a lot more American than a pledge to blindly give your allegiance to a flag and a Republic. 

[Tallpine]

But back to the issue of my loyalty.  I never said I have no loyalty to my country -- just that I have no loyalty to my government.  Country and government are two totally different things.  The way I see it, my country is the land and the people who inhabit it.  I DO have unconditional loyalty to them, because my own liberty depends on them being free as well.  But my allegiance to any government is completely in proportion to how much it protects my liberty, and has an inverse relationship to how much they violate my liberty.

I agree entirely.