No Pledge of Allegiance in Eugene

[Perd Hapley]

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.   

I wasn't talking about your loyalty to your government, but to your country. The bolded statement above is contradictory, because you have claimed unconditional loyalty, and immediately made your loyalty conditional on your own liberty. I'm not sure I have a problem with that, ethically, but I'm not sure you can call it allegiance or loyalty if conditions are involved. But I may be wrong. In any case, it may be something you don't want to come right out and say while arguing against the pledge/Flag code. Some people will suspect you are not patriotic, or not a loyal American, and that might serve to confirm their suspicions.

To value things which harm one's interests would be the height of irrationality.

Is it unreasonable to believe that something else may be more important than yourself, even if that thing runs counter to your interests?

[kgbsquirrel]

The bolded statement above is contradictory, because you have claimed unconditional loyalty, and immediately made your loyalty conditional on your own liberty.

I read that slightly differently: His liberty is dependent on the freedom of his fellow citizens, thus he gives them unconditional loyalty. Not, his gives them loyalty so long as they keep him free. I see an act and a reason for said act, not an act and a stipulation that act requires. *shrug*

[Perd Hapley]

I read that slightly differently: His liberty is dependent on the freedom of his fellow citizens, thus he gives them unconditional loyalty. Not, his gives them loyalty so long as they keep him free. I see an act and a reason for said act, not an act and a stipulation that act requires. *shrug*

Well played, sir. I concur.

[RocketMan]

I'm sorry gents, but your argument that the PoA is a pledge of loyalty to the government is just silly.  It comes across almost as tinfoil hattery, in my opinion.
In the PoA we pledge loyalty to our nation, ourselves, or our Republic, however you wish to look at it.  We are not pledging loyalty to Congress or to the likes of Obama, or to a bunch of bureaucrats in stone buildings in DC.
(I suppose you can say we are pledging loyalty to the government in as much as it supposedly derives its powers from us, the governed.  But that is a bit of a stretch.)
If you cannot discern the difference, I don't know what more can be said.

[Chuck Dye]

The pledge is a fine, proven, mnemonic by which kids learn which is their right hand and which is the one that is left.  Beyond that it is too much like anything repeated mindlessly, by rote, like, say, "Have a nice day" from the C-store clerk.  My main objection is excessive repetition.  Having said it once and meant it, probably somewhere north of the thousandth time I said it, I feel I am done with it and somewhat dislike the part of me that goes along to get along by subsequent repetitions.

[GigaBuist]

I'm sorry gents, but your argument that the PoA is a pledge of loyalty to the government is just silly.  It comes across almost as tinfoil hattery, in my opinion.
In the PoA we pledge loyalty to our nation, ourselves, or our Republic, however you wish to look at it.

Thank you for illustrating my point.  I placed the important points in bold.

This is what the PoA does.  You're unable to separate the nation from yourself or the republic for which it stands.  It wraps up everything in a nice tidy package.  You're saying it, and you're a citizen of the US, so you're vested in it.  That's the entire goal of the thing.  Nowhere is the individual, or community, mentioned, but you take it to mean "ourselves" -- largely because everybody partakes.

I honestly don't know how to illustrate just how insane this is.  Why do people support the PoA? What rational argument do you have for it? What good does this do the nation?

[henschman]

I read that slightly differently: His liberty is dependent on the freedom of his fellow citizens, thus he gives them unconditional loyalty. Not, his gives them loyalty so long as they keep him free. I see an act and a reason for said act, not an act and a stipulation that act requires. *shrug*

That's right.  Even if all of my fellow human beings turn on me and attempt to enslave me, I will never stop fighting for their liberty.  It is a purely self-interested move on my part.  My liberty cannot be truly secure unless everyone else's is, as well.  Plus I desire other free men to compete with and associate with.

Is it unreasonable to believe that something else may be more important than yourself, even if that thing runs counter to your interests?

I believe that the only way to act "un-selfishly" is to give up something that holds greater value to you in exchange for something of lesser value to you.  That is pure irrationality.  If you act to promote the thing of greater value over the thing of lesser value, you are acting to promote your own interests... i.e. acting to promote yourself.  So it doesn't really make sense to say that you value something more than yourself.  You could say that you do, but in placing a high importance on something and acting to promote it, you are promoting that which you personally value, which is a selfish act.  You could say, for instance, that you value certain things more than you value your life -- i.e. that life would not be worth living without those things -- but even giving up your life to promote something you value more is an act of self-promotion, the way I see it.  You are giving up something of lesser value for something of greater value.  Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

I'm sorry gents, but your argument that the PoA is a pledge of loyalty to the government is just silly.

How can you claim that the pledge is not a pledge to government, when it requires allegiance to the Republic?  Do you know what the word "republic" means?  It is a form of government.  Specifically, it is a form of indirect democracy in which the citizens elect representatives who vote democratically on the laws of the country.

[Perd Hapley]

henschman, I can see where you're coming from, I just wouldn't want to live there.

I think I see where we disagree. You are taking the self as the only judge, or at least the ultimate judge. Therefore, the highest value is what one believes is highest.

I do not share this view.

[MicroBalrog]

Fistful: Wouldn't you agree that you do not owe loyalty to someone who turns out to be evil? If America turned out to be evil, would you owe it any loyalty?

[Hugh Damright]

What alienates me is the "indivisible" part ... that flag has 13 bold stripes which represent the original Union being divisible by 13, and 50 bright stars to represent the Union now being divisible by 50 ... I think the pledge to an indivisible nation is a pledge to a vision of a consolidated government, which I associate with yankees ... I think it is a pledge to see the flag, and the US which it represents, in a false light.

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful: Wouldn't you agree that you do not owe loyalty to someone who turns out to be evil? If America turned out to be evil, would you owe it any loyalty?

Why are you asking me this? I think there are probably situations in which loyalties should be severed. Why?

I'm not sure how you thought this applied, either:

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?

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.

[Perd Hapley]

What alienates me is the "indivisible" part ... that flag has 13 bold stripes which represent the original Union being divisible by 13, and 50 bright stars to represent the Union now being divisible by 50

No, there's no secessionist message in the flag.

[henschman]

Maybe not, but there is definitely an anti-secessionist message in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Some of us are not too keen on that. 

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe not, but there is definitely an anti-secessionist message in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Some of us are not too keen on that. 

Your point?  Pardon me. I think we already know these two things, so I'm not sure why you point them out.

[Chuck Dye]

Is anyone else getting a whiff of Joseph Heller, Catch 22, and The Great Loyalty Oath Crusade?  Or Salem Village?  Or Tailgunner Joe? Or...?

Whatever it is, it's damned unpleasant, as purity tests tend to be.

[MicroBalrog]

Why are you asking me this? I think there are probably situations in which loyalties should be severed. Why?

So loyalty is conditional on the moral behavior of those people you are loyal to?

[Perd Hapley]

So loyalty is conditional on the moral behavior of those people you are loyal to?

That's the part I said I wasn't sure about. I think it would be correct to say that loyalty can be conditional on whether the object of loyalty is worthy of it.