Michael Lind: The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American

[Winehole23]

The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/11/16/pledge_of_allegiance/index.html)

Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?


By Michael Lind (http://www.salon.com/author/michael_lind/index.html)


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/11/16/pledge_of_allegiance/md_horiz.jpg


On Monday, Oct. 5, at an elementary school in Washington County, Ark., Will Phillips, a precocious 10-year-old who had been promoted from third to fifth grade, refused to join his class in standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. His parents have gay friends, and Will claimed that the denial of gay marriage means that the U.S. lacks "liberty and justice for all." After refusing to recite the pledge for several days, the boy was sent to the principal's office when he told his teacher, "With all due respect, ma'am, you can go jump off a bridge," a sentiment shared by many 10-year-olds who are not political activists.


Flaps over the Pledge of Allegiance occur with dreary regularity. In 2000 Michael Newdow, an atheist and the parent of a child in California's public schools, filed a lawsuit claiming that the pledge was unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God." He won in federal circuit court, but in 2004 the Supreme Court chickened out and, to avoid addressing the issue, tossed out the case on the argument that as a noncustodial parent he did not have standing to sue. Newdow is a party in a subsequent case that is working its way through the courts. Back in 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses could be forced to recite the pledge, and then, in 1943, in the midst of a war against totalitarian states, the court reversed its earlier opinion.





Continue Reading (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/11/16/pledge_of_allegiance/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature#story_full_cbf50c0082be2da2b3ce7ffbd1e1196 9)


Individuals like Phillips and Newdow who publicly challenge the Pledge of Allegiance can expect to provoke not only harassment by their neighbors but also cyclones of bloviation emanating from elected leaders who, unwilling to fix healthcare or pay for infrastructure, always have time to defend the pledge or the flag. In response to the Newdow case, 150 members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge, stressing "under God." To show its understanding of the phrase "liberty and justice for all," the Republican-controlled House in 2004 passed a law stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction in cases involving the pledge; the bill died in the Senate, proving that the system of checks and balances sometimes succeeds in its intended function of thwarting mob rule.


Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance, which today is most fiercely defended by white conservative Southerners whose Confederate ancestors tried to destroy the United States in the 1860s, was written by a Yankee socialist from New York in the 1890s. Francis Bellamy was a progressive Baptist minister and a Christian socialist who composed the pledge for the 400-year Columbus anniversary in 1892 and published it in a youth magazine. His cousin Edward Bellamy, a socialist from Massachusetts (Glenn Beck, are you taking notes?), was the author of the 1888 bestselling utopian novel "Looking Backward: 2007-1887," which described a collectivist America in 2007 in which everyone is drafted in an "industrial army" and dines in public kitchens. (Instead of an industrial army, the United States in 2007 had a reserve army of the unemployed and working poor, and instead of public kitchens we had Starbucks.)


The Bellamys, like many at the time, were inspired by the integral nationalist and statist ideals that were percolating in Europe. From the 1890s until the 1940s, American schoolchildren often accompanied recitation of the pledge with "the Bellamy salute," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute) a stiff-armed salute of the ancient Roman kind that was indistinguishable from the later fascist and Nazi salutes. Heil Amerika! It was Franklin Roosevelt who suggested replacing the salute with a hand over the heart.


In the course of the 20th century, support for the pledge migrated from the collectivist left to the reactionary right. The original Bellamy pledge read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." In 1923 WASP nativists prevailed in having "my flag" replaced by "the flag of the United States of America," to make sure that young Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, among others, knew they weren't pledging allegiance to the old country. In 1954, Congress inserted the words "under God," following an influential sermon by a Protestant pastor who argued that the model for the United States in the Cold War should be ancient Sparta.


Could anything be more foreign to America's enlightened 18th-century liberal and republican traditions than this toxic compound of collectivism, nativism, Spartan militarism and theocracy?


The very idea of a pledge of allegiance, in any form, is completely at odds with what is often called "the American Creed," inspired by the 17th-century philosopher John Locke's theory of natural rights and government by popular consent. The concept of "allegiance" is feudal. In medieval Europe, the liegeman, or subject, pledged allegiance to his liege lord. But in Lockean America, there is no government outside of society to which the members of the society could pledge allegiance, even if they wanted to. As the scholar Mark Hulliung explains Lockean liberal theory in "The Social Contract in America: From the Revolution to the Present Age" (2007):


There is a social contract by which the people bind themselves to one another, but no subsequent political contract [between people and government]. The rulers hold power temporarily, as mere "trustees" of the people ... What the people give they can take away whenever they please, because they are bound by no contract between governors and governed.
In a republic, the people should not pledge allegiance to the government; the government should pledge allegiance to the people.


If we Americans as individuals do not owe personal allegiance to federal, state and local governments, in the way that medieval subjects owed personal allegiance to feudal lords and kings, then what is the basis of our obligation to obey the laws? The answer is that as members of the sovereign people we owe each other an obligation to obey the rules that we, directly or through elected representatives, have mutually agreed on. The members of a condo association agree with each other to obey the rules they ratify. Part of their mutual obligation involves carrying out the legitimate instructions of the manager whom they have hired. But while the members of the association may agree to obey directions from their common employee, no condo association pledges allegiance to the condo manager. The principal does not swear to serve the agent.


From this it follows that the appropriate expression of patriotism in a democratic republic is not a hierarchical, or "vertical," pledge of allegiance but a fraternal/sororal, or "horizontal," pledge of mutual support. As it happens, we have an example of such a pledge: the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson's famous preamble restates the Lockean theory of popular sovereignty:


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Having begun the Declaration with the statement that government is merely a tool created to serve the people, the signers could have hardly concluded with a feudal oath of fealty to the political artifact they themselves had constructed. That would make about as much sense as pledging obedience to your refrigerator or your cellphone. Instead, they made a pledge to one another: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


While a pledge of allegiance by the subject to the government is incompatible with American republican principles, a voluntary pledge of mutual support among the people who collectively create and own the government might be useful, if only as a succinct catechism of the American Creed. If we drop the strained and unnecessary language about "their Creator" and "divine Providence," designed to offend neither Christians nor 18th-century Deists, and replace the topical phrase "this Declaration" with a reference to the enduring principles of republican liberty, we might get something like this:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. And for the support of these principles, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Call this purely voluntary pledge the Citizens' Pledge of Mutual Support for the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, or simply, the Citizens' Pledge. It would be addressed by Americans directly to one another, rather than to the flag or any other symbol of the state. Oh, and if you give a stiff-armed salute, you'll be sent to the principal's office.

[EmptyMan]

They should pledge their allegiance to the people through their actions in D.C.

LOL at them thinking they will have enough puppets to defend them when SHTF.

[Marcus Bryant]

written by a Yankee socialist from New York in the 1890s. Francis Bellamy was a progressive Baptist minister and a Christian socialist who composed the pledge for the 400-year Columbus anniversary in 1892 and published it in a youth magazine. His cousin Edward Bellamy, a socialist from Massachusetts (Glenn Beck, are you taking notes?), was the author of the 1888 bestselling utopian novel "Looking Backward: 2007-1887," which described a collectivist America in 2007 in which everyone is drafted in an "industrial army" and dines in public kitchens. (Instead of an industrial army, the United States in 2007 had a reserve army of the unemployed and working poor, and instead of public kitchens we had Starbucks.)


The Bellamys, like many at the time, were inspired by the integral nationalist and statist ideals that were percolating in Europe. From the 1890s until the 1940s, American schoolchildren often accompanied recitation of the pledge with "the Bellamy salute," a stiff-armed salute of the ancient Roman kind that was indistinguishable from the later fascist and Nazi salutes. Heil Amerika! It was Franklin Roosevelt who suggested replacing the salute with a hand over the heart.

A little known piece of Americana. It's somewhat surprising that is so, given how much the history of the 30s and 40s is given prominence in our national culture. Of course, it doesn't exactly square with the official or popular version of events, so down the memory hole it has gone.



Could anything be more foreign to America's enlightened 18th-century liberal and republican traditions than this toxic compound of collectivism, nativism, Spartan militarism and theocracy?

Give it a couple of decades. But yes, the vision of an enlightened group of freethinking deistic (or vaguely agnostic/atheistic) individualists has turned into a materialist theistic martial state. Both major political parties in this country advocate a bastardization of the original intent. American history is a tale of one long march of the increasing centralization of political and economic power in the federal government, and in particular, in the executive branch. The pledge is a fine example of how the American political orientation has moved from We the People forming and mastering the government to the government mastering us.

[Wild Cobra]

It has become an American tradition. Therefore, I find it disgraceful for people wanting to remove it.

I actually agree that the government should pledge to us. However, at the end of the day, it's just tradition and words.

[Marcus Bryant]

And here the classical liberal parts ways with the conservative.

It has also become an "American tradition" to ignore/shred/urinate on the Constitution. Hey, it's just words...

[Winehole23]

In the course of the 20th century, support for the pledge migrated from the collectivist left to the reactionary right.This sentence sounded a little off to me.

If there actually was a reactionary right -- that is, a faction devoted to the restoration of an actual constitutional status quo ante, rather than attempting to revive the (totally bogus) hegemony of WASP culture within the warfare-welfare state -- that would be tremendously appealing.

Unfortunately, merely describing the America that once was as something to be desired and emulated causes even soi disant conservatives to look at you like you were a Martian. Being little more than slightly warmed over Cold War liberals themselves, the Conservative mainstream now worships progress, militarism and the technocratic management of the national security state, our erstwhile republic.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Bellamy vision has overtaken that of the Founding Fathers' to become the central view of the state in this country. "Conservatives" who believe they are upholding the legacy of Madison, Adams, Jefferson, et al are deluding themselves. Their view of the proper role of the American state has been shaped by that of a theocratic socialist from a little over a century ago. Athens, not Sparta was what the Founders believed they had created.

As an aside, there is some random speculation available on the internets that the European fascists were inspired by the fervent patriotism exhibited in the New World.

[Marcus Bryant]

This sentence sounded a little off to me.

If there actually was a reactionary right -- that is, a faction devoted to the restoration of an actual constitutional status quo ante, rather than attempting to revive the (totally bogus) hegemony of WASP culture within the warfare-welfare state -- that would be tremendously appealing.

Unfortunately, merely describing the America that once was as something to be desired and emulated causes even soi disant conservatives to look at you like you were a Martian. Being little more than slightly warmed over Cold War liberals themselves, the Conservative mainstream now worships progress, militarism and the technocratic management of the national security state, our erstwhile republic.

True, but the "Old Right", libertarians, or constitutionalists of the 1920s-1950s never existed in this country according to the accepted mainstream "history" today, save for when they are lumped in with "reactionary" American Firsters who resisted American entry into yet another European conflict. What is "conservative" today was the Wilson administration back then.

[Winehole23]

True, but the "Old Right", libertarians, or constitutionalists of the 1920s-1950s never existed in this country according to the accepted mainstream "history" today, save for when they are lumped in with "reactionary" American Firsters who resisted American entry into yet another European conflict. What is "conservative" today was the Wilson administration back then.Good God, I need another drink.

[Marcus Bryant]

We have truly squandered our inheritance. What is difficult for some to accept is that "we" includes their grandfathers. Conservatives are left with upholding the "tradition" of our constitutional liberties being surrendered for the greater glory of the state.

[Marcus Bryant]

The author is correct that the Becks and Hannitys of today exhibit nary a clue of the extent to which conservatism today is merely a defense of the revolutionary "socialism" of yesterday. Maybe you can give them a pass for simply being entertainers pandering to the ignorance of the masses. I'm not sure. It is hard to excuse a Goldberg who is clearly aware of the history, yet seeks to sweep it under the rug of the Cold War. His last book is good, but would have been better had he indicted modern "conservatives" along with progressives for their ideological kinship with the collectivists of Russia, Italy, and Germany of the first half of the 20th century.

[Winehole23]

Conservatives are left with upholding the "tradition" of our constitutional liberties being surrendered for the greater glory of the state.Even that is preferable to the way Americans give it away now for the mere promise of physical security.

Time was, Americans were willing to accept death as one of the hazards of being free. Now, we seem to prefer cringing safety to the dangerous liberty of our grandfathers.

[Marcus Bryant]

Goldberg found it convenient to resurrect the Old Right (really, but for an instant) so as to paint modern conservatism as a defense of the Founders' vision, but otherwise it is a paean to the national security state. Not to say that it was a bad thing to make clear that the three major dictatorships to arise were all movements of the left, but as long as you ignore the extent to which that has become accepted orthodoxy of "conservatives", then you leave little hope of changing the course this country is on.

[Marcus Bryant]

Even that is preferable to the way Americans give it away now for the mere promise of physical security.

Time was, Americans were willing to accept death as one of the hazards of being free. Now, we seem to prefer cringing safety to the dangerous liberty of our grandfathers.

Give me liberty but don't take away mah Medikare?

[Marcus Bryant]

Damn. This is depressing. I've hit the bottle enough already tonight. Maybe I'll wake tomorrow and it will have been a dream.

[Ignignokt]

Marcus, get off your high horse. The pledge is tradition and it's not mandatory or enforced by law.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, it has become tradition to bow before the government in this country. A tradition defended by "conservatives" who otherwise pretend to be ready to stop the revolutionaries who already have infiltrated the government and overturned the constitution many decades ago.

[Winehole23]

Give me liberty but don't take away mah Medikare?Welfare, sure. There's also the federal police functions waging continual war on its own citizenry and the global military empire that portends eventual peace through perpetual war...

[Ignignokt]

Yes, it has become tradition to bow before the government in this country. A tradition defended by "conservatives" who otherwise pretend to be ready to stop the revolutionaries who already have infiltrated the government and overturned the constitution many decades ago.

Yeah, it was the flag's fault.

[Winehole23]

Yeah, it was the flags fault.Sometimes you barely make sense, gtown.

[Ignignokt]

Welfare, sure. There's also the federal police functions waging continual war on its own citizenry and the global military empire that portends eventual peace through perpetual war...


He won!

[Ignignokt]

Sometimes you barely make sense, gtown.

Sometimes you lose your cool way too easy.:lol

[Winehole23]

MB was directing his animus at incontinent, faux conservative pea-brains like yourself, not the American flag.

[Ignignokt]

MB was directing his animus at incontinent, faux conservative pea-brains like yourself, not the American flag.

I'm sorry. Let's all just remove the pledge of alliegance and then we can majically have our libertarian wetdream. It's that easy.

[Winehole23]

Sometimes you lose your cool way too easy.:lol Maybe your hysterical incoherence is related to you losing yours.

[Winehole23]

I'm sorry. Let's all just remove the pledge of alliegance and then we can majically have our libertarian wetdream. It's that easy.You miss the point. I could give a flip about the pledge.

But I do think people should know a little more about it, and, perhaps, to consider what it means in historical context. That would really be enough for me.

[Ignignokt]

Maybe your hysterical incoherence is related to you losing yours.

Okay, while assuming the role of forum psychologist as well as sheriff, maybe your over use of vocab makes up for something you lack.:lol

[Winehole23]

If you dislike my style, by all means read something else. I won't miss you.

[Ignignokt]

If you dislike my style, by all means read something else. I won't miss you.

:lol

Wow, now you're a possessive little fella.


It's Spurstalk, not Wineholeblogpost.com

[MannyIsGod]

Okay, while assuming the role of forum psychologist as well as sheriff, maybe your over use of vocab makes up for something you lack.:lol

Projection. Hows that for forum psychology?

[Winehole23]

God you're weird, gtown. Do you believe everything you say?

[Ignignokt]

Projection. Hows that for forum psychology?

:rolleyes

Only winehole can project right?

So, are you now the forum progressive cheerleader?

[Ignignokt]

God you're weird, gtown. Do you believe everything you say?

It's impossible for anyone to believe everything they have said.

[Winehole23]

Manny flogging you isn't the same as him cheering me.

This goes to what I said before about you not making sense. You continually substitute your own weird inferences for the plain meaning of what people say. The result is often hard to understand, however be it hilarious to you.

[Ignignokt]

Manny flogging you isn't the same as him cheering me.

This goes to what I said before about you not making sense. You continually substitute your own weird inferences for the plain meaning of what people say. The result is often hard to understand, however be it hilarious to you.

I like quatrains.


Two people projected
Chimpanzee was selective
All for being vindictive
from his primate description.

[Winehole23]

It's impossible for anyone to believe everything they have said.I'm sure you won't let that stop you from pretending to in the future.

[MannyIsGod]

:rolleyes

Only winehole can project right?

So, are you now the forum progressive cheerleader?

Pretty sure I was saying you are the one who was projecting. You're having a tough time today bro.

[Ignignokt]

I'm sure you won't let that stop you from pretending to in the future.

It will help me with reminding me that i'm not infallible.:toast

[Winehole23]

I like quatrains.


Two people projected
Chimpanzee was selective
All for being vindictive
from his primate description.I like haiku:


Horse, with a round fun-
-dament; why does it emit
a square excrement?

[Ignignokt]

Pretty sure I was saying you are the one who was projecting. You're having a tough time today bro.

Yeah, i know that bro. I know that you only noticed i was the one who was projecting but glossed over WH's.

No big deal.

I must repeat.

So you're cool with only Winehole projecting right?

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, i know that bro. I know that you only noticed i was the one who was projecting but glossed over WH's.

No big deal.

I must repeat.

So you're cool with only Winehole projecting right?

Oh I'm cool with you projecting all you want. I just think its funny when you do it and it shows your insecurity front and center.

People who use big words scare you. It's ok.

[Ignignokt]

I like haiku:


Me too.

I pledge alliegance
to the flag, of the Unite
Dstates of 'Merica

[Ignignokt]

Oh I'm cool with you projecting all you want. I just think its funny when you do it and it shows your insecurity front and center.

People who use big words scare you. It's ok.

I have no problems with using hard words.

SO you're cool with Winehole projecting because he's insecure too?

[Winehole23]

Submission to the imperial regalia of a liege-lord is a bit too feudal and archaic for my tastes, but you're welcome to it, gtown.

[Winehole23]

Nighty-nite. Thanks for shitting up the thread with pointless nonsense, gtown. Seems to be your speciality.

[Ignignokt]

Submission to the imperial regalia of a liege-lord is a bit too feudal and archaic for my tastes, but you're welcome to it, gtown.

so you're for lower taxes, and a regressive economic model.:toast

[Ignignokt]

Nighty-nite. Thanks for shitting up the thread with pointless nonsense, gtown. Seems to be your speciality.

no problem. That's what self important blowhard cyber toilet threads are for.

[Winehole23]

That's no excuse for you having a paper asshole.

[Ignignokt]

That's no excuse for you having a paper asshole.

Oh paper.. that's what Manny's for. To clean your shit with his tongue. He proved he did a stellar job in this thread.

[Winehole23]

Actually, Manny just insulted you. I don't think it had anything to do with me. I had already replied to you on my own account, so it can't really be argued that Manny came in as a white night. He more pissed sideways on you, gtown.

[Ignignokt]

Actually, Manny just insulted you. I don't think it had anything to do with me. I had already replied to you on my own account, so it can't really be argued that Manny came in as a white night. He more pissed sideways on you, gtown.

You're right, Manny came in feces a' flyin. I don't hate him. Just being the chimp he's supposed to be no surprises here. Any asshole can come here and pound their chest, fling poo and screech, but it takes a real chimp like Manny to kiss your highness.

[Winehole23]

Any asshole can come here and pound their chest, fling poo and screech...Don't sell yourself short, gtown. You're a tremendous asshole.

[Winehole23]

so you're for lower taxes, and a regressive economic model.:toastPretty much. In this respect, I'm a straight up reactionary.

[Winehole23]

With our mounting debt and social entitlements, I realize lower taxes aren't in the cards; the most I can really hope for is that spending will be cut while taxes go up.

[Jacob1983]

Why the fuck would a 10 year old care about gay marriage? I'm thinking this kid was probably brainwashed and/or encouraged by his parents to do this stunt. How many little kids care about politics especially gay marriage? Little kids shouldn't worry about that crap. They should enjoy being kids as long as they can.

[MannyIsGod]

You're right, Manny came in feces a' flyin. I don't hate him. Just being the chimp he's supposed to be no surprises here. Any asshole can come here and pound their chest, fling poo and screech, but it takes a real chimp like Manny to kiss your highness.

I never said a word about winehole. I'm pretty sure the only one wishing someone would kiss their ass here is you. Jesus man, I know you hate people playing forum psychology but you make it so easy. You're obviously insecure as hell on a lot of fronts and just want someone to praise you.

Must suck to be you.

[Winehole23]

Why the fuck would a 10 year old care about gay marriage? I'm thinking this kid was probably brainwashed and/or encouraged by his parents to do this stunt."With liberty and justice for all"...maybe the kid is precocious and thought about what the phrase means. Maybe you haven't got around to thinking about it yet, Jacob.


How many little kids care about politics especially gay marriage? Little kids shouldn't worry about that crap. They should enjoy being kids as long as they can.Childhood is needlessly prolonged and young adults excessively infantilized. There's no set age at which a person grows up and no need, IMO, to prolong the indignity of dependency or the innocence that accompanies it.

Children will worry about whatever they want; IMHO parents shouldn't place stumbling blocks before self-regulation, maturity and principled ambition, but instead support them, at whatever age these traits arise.

[FromWayDowntown]

By being around a loving homosexual couple that the child realizes to be indistinguishable from his parents (or perhaps they are his parents) and learning in those interactions that the homosexual couple is legally prohibited from marrying, it's quite plausible to me that the child could develop his own belief that such a prohibition is unjust. The thought that a child would empathize with injustice only if told to do so by adults strikes me as fairly ridiculous; children seem to have inherent senses of justice about, unburdened by race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else. Two kids playing in a sandbox don't care that one is a girl and black and the other a boy and Jewish.

And the notion of a 10 year old using that sense of inherent injustice to become politically active seems quite plausible to me.

[Winehole23]

Speaks Russian, in French. Nice post, FWD.

[Ignignokt]

I never said a word about winehole. I'm pretty sure the only one wishing someone would kiss their ass here is you. Jesus man, I know you hate people playing forum psychology but you make it so easy. You're obviously insecure as hell on a lot of fronts and just want someone to praise you.

Must suck to be you.

:lol



Projection. Hows that for forum psychology?

hypocrite much.

[Ignignokt]

Why is it when liberals project it's ok, but when conservatives do, there's lots of bitching?

Yet while you can pin point to this thread about me bitching about it, that would be at the expense of history when ppl like WH23 and Chump would do it constantly.

Infact, there doesn't go a day where WH doesn't do this to micca (bitch about projecting, then going ahead and projecting).

And about ass kissing, you've got it backwards. I never have the need for anyone to come defend me here, that's the forum progressive tactic.

[Winehole23]

Don't blame it on ideology. You and micca make easy targets of yourselves not for your beliefs, but your boorishness.

[angel_luv]

You miss the point. I could give a flip about the pledge.

But I do think people should know a little more about it, and, perhaps, to consider what it means in historical context. That would really be enough for me.


Good point, Winehole.

In junior high, I chose to stop reciting the pledge of allegiance.
And while I stand silently and respectfully, I do not place my hand over my heart when the national anthemn is being played.

Even as a kid in junior high, it bothered me that saying the pledge of allegiance, as it seemed to be an empty exercise... an observance of tradition rather than an act of meaningful substance.

I take seriously saying to anyone words such as " I pledge my allegiance".
No one was able to make plain to me what exactly I was agreeing to/ promising by saying the pledge of allegiance and so I stopped saying it.
I am not going to pledge anything to anyone blindly.

Furthermore, I believe it is unwise to promise umwavering loyalty to any man.
What if our forefathers had not rebelled against the British? We wouldn't even be discussing the validity of the American pledge of allegiance today.

If, for example, it ever becomes unlawful for people to preach the Christian Gospel, I will break that law daily and without a moment's hesistation.
Knowing that, I cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag because my only everlasting, unwavering allegiance is with Jesus.

[Winehole23]

Good on you, angel_luv. You reflected on the tradition and what it means. That's not too common. :tu

[Ignignokt]

Don't blame it on ideology. You and micca make easy targets of yourselves not for your beliefs, but your boorishness.

Silly, where did you read in my post that Liberalism is to blame? I just pointed out that a certain segment of liberal posters here have this "team" concept on the board that is petty.

For instance you've projected about me on this thread, i projected towards you to prove your absurdity, yet i get called out on it.

Life is unfair, that's what you'll say. I don't expect this to be corrected. :rollin I have no forum cop to run to!:lmao

Just pointing out, that Manny's bull had nothing to do with projection, etc, He even admitted it. He just projected whatever thought he had about me and my personality, ironincally and blathered other nonsense.

What a bunch of sissy whiny crybabies you all are.:lol

[Ignignokt]

Good on you, angel_luv. You reflected on the tradition and what it means. That's not too common. :tu

People have reflected upon it, it's just not what you want to hear.

[jack sommerset]

Have some pride in being an American. Put your hand over your heart and recite the damn thing. Quit trying to make stupid political busllshit statements by saying this is UN- AMERICAN. That can't be farther from the truth.

[clambake]

Have some pride in being an American. Put your hand over your heart and recite the damn thing. Quit trying to make stupid political busllshit statements by saying this is UN- AMERICAN. That can't be farther from the truth.

is it american to conform?

[mogrovejo]

Calling the Pledge of Allegiance un-American is not more than a demonstration of the modern egophanic, eccentric and childish ways.

The Pledge of Allegiance is merely ceremonial and not an affirmation of religious faith or a particular political creed.

The idea that "marriage" is a right is bizarre in itself.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol




hypocrite much.

When I make the same type of posts you do then your argument will have some legs to stand on. There's a fundamental difference in what we post and it has nothing to do with ideology. To put it another way, I've never had to make a new screen name because my posting privileges were limited due to quality of my posts.

[Winehole23]

Calling the Pledge of Allegiance un-American is not more than a demonstration of the modern egophanic, eccentric and childish ways.
No more or less egophanic than what you just said, in my opinion.


The Pledge of Allegiance is merely ceremonial and not an affirmation of religious faith or a particular political creed.To hear the bleating and caterwauling over Obama not putting his hand on his heart, or over court decisions regarding the pledge one might think otherwise, but I agree with you.

In form it is an oath, however, and it seems to me essentially uncontroversial to point out that loyalty oaths for citizens are somewhat inconsistent with republican values.


The idea that "marriage" is a right is bizarre in itself. Sure.

[Wild Cobra]

An argument could be made that a person does not have the Heart of America if they disown the pledge.

To pledge allegiance, is not to be subordinate, but a patriot. One is saying they are loyal to America. Loyal to the meaning of the flag with it's red for the blood shed to make this nation, the white for the purity of purpose, and the blue for the valor of the men who fought for this nation. Loyal to the republic. The republic is the sovereignty of the subdivisions of the nation. States rights, country rights, and individual rights.

I guess since democrats believe in the elitist democracy, and national control, that's why so many argue about such values. Would they pledge to a yellow flag?

[Winehole23]

An argument could be made that a person does not have the Heart of America if they disown the pledge.Where do you get this Heart of America stuff? What does it even mean?

http://sscakery.com/images/heart%20of%20america%201%20%287%29.jpgb

[Winehole23]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FHX1V49ZL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Where do you get this Heart of America stuff? What does it even mean?

It's one of those things you have to feel to understand.

[mogrovejo]

Where do you get this Heart of America stuff? What does it even mean?


direct attack on the integrity and character of our homes and hearths.

[Winehole23]

http://xsfreebies.tripod.com/CC_heartofamerica_DF.jpg

[Winehole23]

It's one of those things you have to feel to understand.Like jazz, I guess. You make it a test of patriotic authenticity and anyone who chooses to abstain doesn't have it. Ok.

[Wild Cobra]

Like jazz, I guess. You make it a test of patriotic authenticity and anyone who chooses to abstain doesn't have it. Ok.
Well, do you feel patriotic or not?

[Winehole23]

direct attack on the integrity and character of our homes and hearthsOIC what you did. :lol

[mogrovejo]

No more or less egophanic than what you just said, in my opinion.

To hear the bleating and caterwauling over Obama not putting his hand on his heart, or over court decisions regarding the pledge one might think otherwise, but I agree with you.

In form it is an oath, however, and it seems to me essentially uncontroversial to point out that loyalty oaths for citizens are somewhat inconsistent with republican values.

Why? I don't deny anyone's liberty to not say the Pledge of Allegiance, I just find them over-sensitive spoiled brats and attention whores. I can respect those who don't say because they find it boring or don't feel like memorizing it (as long as they don't try to make some kind of point with their behaviour), but those who allege political reasons are beyond pathetic.

I abhor patriotism and I'm a monarchist. However I have no problems in respectfully singing along the national anthem (which commemorates the republican regime).

Societies are a pact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a commemoration and remembrance of that intangible linkage (in the case, of the American society). Those who try to make more of it - in both ways - suffer from metaphysical madness.

[Wild Cobra]

Societies are a pact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a commemoration and remembrance of that intangible linkage (in the case, of the American society). Those who try to make more of it - in both ways - suffer from metaphysical madness.
I agree with this.

[Winehole23]

Well, do you feel patriotic or not?Sure. I don't really see why should that should put me under any obligation to parrot an oath devised by a Christian socialist with a nationalist bent, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it.

How's that?

[Bartleby]

Societies are a pact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a commemoration and remembrance of that intangible linkage (in the case, of the American society). Those who try to make more of it - in both ways - suffer from metaphysical madness.


I agree with this.


An argument could be made that a person does not have the Heart of America if they disown the pledge.

To pledge allegiance, is not to be subordinate, but a patriot. One is saying they are loyal to America. Loyal to the meaning of the flag with it's red for the blood shed to make this nation, the white for the purity of purpose, and the blue for the valor of the men who fought for this nation. Loyal to the republic. The republic is the sovereignty of the subdivisions of the nation. States rights, country rights, and individual rights.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. I don't really see why should that should put me under any obligation to parrot an oath devised by a Christian socialist with a nationalist bent, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it.

How's that?
There's nothing nationalistic about it, and God is a word for a diety, not Jehova.

[mogrovejo]

In all fairness, the paragraph he said he agreed with doesn't conflict with his own views.

Just to clarify, the national anthem I sing is not the American (and obviously I've never said the Pledge of Allegiance).

[Wild Cobra]

Wiktionary; republic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/republic):


Noun

1. A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy.

The U.S.A. is a republic; Great Britain is technically a monarchy.

2. One of the subdivisions constituting Russia. See oblast.

The Republic of Udmurtia is west of the Permian Oblast.

Now I'll, bet if I looked into a century old dictionary, it would have a meaning better defined.

[Bartleby]

In all fairness, the paragraph he said he agreed with doesn't conflict with his own views.

Just to clarify, the national anthem I sing is not the American (and obviously I've never said the Pledge of Allegiance).

WC's overblown rhetoric about the pledge suggests that he views it as much more than just a "commemoration and remembrance."

[Wild Cobra]

WC's overblown rhetoric about the pledge suggests that he views it as much more than just a "commemoration and remembrance."
Really?

Why do I run across so many people who don't know how to parse words?

Look at my first sentence. "An argument could be made..."

I wrote it intentionally that way to let people understand what others may think. If I thought that way, I would have said so!

If you are not willing to understand the perceptions of others, then you are as much as fault for the problems in this nation as those you blame.

[Winehole23]

Why? I don't deny anyone's liberty to not say the Pledge of AllegianceNo one has done so in this thread.


I just find them over-sensitive spoiled brats and attention whores. I can respect those who don't say because they find it boring or don't feel like memorizing it (as long as they don't try to make some kind of point with their behaviour), but those who allege political reasons are beyond pathetic.Surely it is pathetic to cleave to one's own principles, all the more so if others find them ridiculous.


Societies are a pact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. The Pledge of Allegiance is simply a commemoration and remembrance of that intangible linkage (in the case, of the American society).That is your opinion. Not everyone thinks so. Mr. Lind's gloss is that it betrays the values of the founders and obscures our linkage with the past.


Those who try to make more of it - in both ways - suffer from metaphysical madness.Not really. You just can't stand that others believe differently, so you insult them. How childish.

[Winehole23]

There's nothing nationalistic about it.But not caring to say it disqualifies you as a patriot. Gotcha.

[mogrovejo]

No one has done so in this thread.

Surely it is pathetic to cleave to one's own principles, all the more so if others find them ridiculous.

That is your opinion. Not everyone thinks so. Mr. Lind's gloss is that it betrays the values of the founders and obscures our linkage with the past.

Not really. You just can't stand that others believe differently, so you insult them. How childish.

Not all opinions are equally valid.

[Bartleby]

Really?

Why do I run across so many people who don't know how to parse words?

Look at my first sentence. "An argument could be made..."

I wrote it intentionally that way to let people understand what others may think. If I thought that way, I would have said so!


An argument could be made that you are trying to backpedal after contradicting yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

An argument could be made that you are trying to backpedal after contradicting yourself.
Yes it could. Is that your opinion? That doesn't make it correct either way.

The closest I came to contradicting my self is my response to WH that it's not nationalism. My point is that the pledge is to the republics of this nation, rather than the nation only.

I see America as a nation meant to be that of states rights. That as a nation, we are better by the variety of ideas rather than nationalizing any one idea. That's why I am 100% against any takeover by the federal government of banking, health, etc.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the republic.

[Def Rowe]

I think at one point in his life, WC was a heavy crystal meth user. His comments are often very scatterbrained.

[Wild Cobra]

I think at one point in his life, WC was a heavy crystal meth user. His comments are often very scatterbrained.
More likely you don't have the brain power to follow.

[Bartleby]

The closest I came to contradicting my self is my response to WH that it's not nationalism. My point is that the pledge is to the republics of this nation, rather than the nation only.

I see America as a nation meant to be that of states rights. That as a nation, we are better by the variety of ideas rather than nationalizing any one idea. That's why I am 100% against any takeover by the federal government of banking, health, etc.

In other words, the republic.

I guess it's one of those things you have to feel to understand.

[Def Rowe]

More likely you don't have the brain power to follow.

:lol Tell me I'm wrong.

[Winehole23]

Not all opinions are equally valid.Some are objectively better.

Perhaps someday you'll deign to demonstrate this is so, but I suspect you'll remain regally content to snub the inferior opinions of others without very much ado. Agreement with you appears to be the standard you apply. Whatever is not congruent with you, is faulty.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess it's one of those things you have to feel to understand.
I wasn't being a judge in that manner. Just using a term to describe at least a small level of patriotism. You either have heart for something or you don't.

Am I wrong?

You either care about this country or you don't.

I think you're just throwing shit-ball around now to see what sticks. Good luck.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Tell me I'm wrong.
I have never used Meth.

You are wrong.

[mogrovejo]

Some are objectively better.

Perhaps someday you'll deign to demonstrate this is so, but I suspect you'll remain regally content to snub the inferior opinions of others without very much ado. Agreement with you appears to be the standard you apply. Whatever is not congruent with you, is faulty.

Why are you always so worried about the formal aspects of the discourse used by other posters (and, it seems, only those of right-leaning inclination), to the point of entirely forgetting the substantive issues being discussed? Do you apply the same exhaustive and rigorous analysis to yourself?

I'm not sure how do you want me to refute the suggestion that one can't call a said behaviour or worldview childish without having to oblige to the corollary that the act in itself is childish because it's disrespectful of a different opinion.

[Bartleby]

I wasn't being a judge in that manner. Just using a term to describe at least a small level of patriotism. You either have heart for something or you don't.



Wait, wasn't that just an extension of your "one could argue" explanation of patriotism. When did you shift into talking about what you actually believe?

[Winehole23]

Why are you always so worried about the formal aspects of the discourse used by other posters (and, it seems, only those of right-leaning inclination), to the point of entirely forgetting the substantive issues being discussed?The frame matters, too. What did I forget?


Do you apply the same exhaustive and rigorous analysis to yourself?I do reflect on what I say, if imperfectly. Is that what you mean?


I'm not sure how do you want me to refute the suggestion that one can't call a said behaviour or worldview childish without having to oblige to the corollary that the act in itself is childish because it's disrespectful of a different opinion.The disrespect I don't mind so much. That your disrespectful comments are accompanied by a haughty refusal to say precisely what you mean, grates.

It does not conduce to discussion. But it has just occurred to me that perhaps you are not here to converse with anyone, but instead merely to demonstrate to yourself the intrinsic superiority of you, and your opinions, to others.

[mogrovejo]

But it has just occurred to me that perhaps you are not here to converse with anyone, but instead merely to demonstrate to yourself the intrinsic superiority of you, and your opinions, to others.

That's exactly what I often think you do.

[Winehole23]

That's exactly what I often think you do.
IMO I'm a bit more user friendly than you, but fair enough.

I try to state my own positions clearly and I do try to understand what others say, and to engage them personally.

[mogrovejo]

Whatever, I'm not here to discuss me or you.

[Winehole23]

A minute ago you were.

[mogrovejo]

By addressing your remarks, I was making a provisional concession in the name of civility.

[Winehole23]

By addressing your remarks, I was making a provisional concession in the name of civility.Ok. In the interest of civility, I think I'll quit for now.

Ciao, mogrovejo.

[Marcus Bryant]

Being cajoled to pledge allegiance to the Motherland would seem to go against every ideal upon which this nation was founded, but hey, that's now the "tradition."

Children are sent to public schools to learn how to become good little patriotic and obedient American worker bees. Too bad most of them have to look forward to a life being enslaved to the Chinese. But at least they can say that pledge!

[Winehole23]

FWIW, que le vaya bien, mogrovejo.

[FromWayDowntown]

Being cajoled to pledge allegiance to the Motherland would seem to go against every ideal upon which this nation was founded, but hey, that's now the "tradition."

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson would have ever pledged allegiance to the nation.

Upon reflection, I do wonder how the Fathers of the American revolution would view the idea of a nationalized pledge of allegiance to the nation itself. After all, those very same individuals willingly broke any allegiance to their predecessor sovereign in the interest of their little separatist experiment. I'm not sure that a pledge that can be readily broken can ever really be considered a good one; I'm equally unsure that the revolutionaries who put us here would have been willing to discount the need for further revolution by needlessly taking oaths of allegiance to any nation.

Indeed, if "a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical," why would one ever swear or pledge allegiance to a thing that it might eventually rebel against?

[Winehole23]

That's pathetic, FWD. Metaphysical madness, some would say. Has to be.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's pathetic, FWD. Metaphysical madness, some would say. Has to be.


Undoubtedly. I'm sure that siding with Thomas Jefferson has outed me as something other than a patriot.

[Jacob1983]

I really doubt it that a lot of 10 year old kids honestly care whether or not gay people can get married. Why would you want your little turd worrying about something trivial? Kids should be kids. Besides, you only get to be a kid once. Kids shouldn't care about politics or "the issues". I bet this kid gets picked on a lot. He's probably one of those kids that always reminds the teacher that homework is due even when the teacher forgets.

[Winehole23]

http://www.rocknrollvintage.com/prodimages/thumbs/mr-echo-pedal.jpg