B. Royce

Pledge of Allegiance

25 posts in this topic

Re-write of the Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag,

And to the republic for which it stands,

To individual human rights,

And honest minds and honest hands.

One proud nation at reason's call,

With liberty and justice for all.

_______________________________________

Brian Faulkner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re-write of the Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag,

And to the republic for which it stands,

To individual human rights,

And honest minds and honest hands.

One proud nation at reason's call,

With liberty and justice for all.

_______________________________________

Brian Faulkner

There is a little grammatical hitch going from the end of the second line to the beginning of the third. So,

I pledge allegiance to the flag,

And to the republic for which it stands---

A country built on human rights,

By honest minds and honest hands.

One proud nation at reason's call,

With liberty and justice for all.

_____________________________

B.F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what is wrong with the old version, save the line added in the 1950's. Thus I would just revert to the original:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reject the idea of a 'pledge of allegiance,' as I know it, altogether. I don't know the exact origin, but can't believe that our rational founders had any idea of perpetrating such a thing. And in any case, regardless of what it might say, this is something that is memorized without understanding, and required of children by adults to be recited by rote-repetition, usually in groups, and usually in schools.

As a method, it is identical with much religious ritual. And IMO teaching children to recite a pledge of allegiance can never be rational, because they cannot fully, explicitly understand what deserves their allegiance and what does not until they have reached a certain level of intellectual maturity, which reciting a pledge cannot assist them in achieving.

To the degree that a nation's government earns the allegiance of its rational citizens by protecting their individual rights, and to the degree that a growing child learns a proper morality, he will learn a rational respect for and allegiance to those ideas and laws which protect his rights and the rights of all citizens. But such respect and allegiance can not be learned by requiring a child to memorize and pledge himself to ideals without understanding. This method is the opposite of the rational process of thought that is required to know what deserves one's rational allegiance and what does not.

Any rational allegiance must be chosen by adults, not perpetrated by means of children memorizing and "pledging themselves," in a ritualized manner, to a statement they can not fully, explicitly understand. I think that it is no coincidence that 'the pledge' when any meaning at all is attached to it, normally demonstrates an emotional allegiance to woozy ideas of 'liberty' and 'justice' which virtually always, somehow (by faith) include the supposedly great ideal of self-sacrifice for the nation-as-collective -- as repulsive an idea as can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reject the idea of a 'pledge of allegiance,' as I know it, altogether. I don't know the exact origin, but can't believe that our rational founders had any idea of perpetrating such a thing. And in any case, regardless of what it might say, this is something that is memorized without understanding, and required of children by adults to be recited by rote-repetition, usually in groups, and usually in schools.

As a method, it is identical with much religious ritual. And IMO teaching children to recite a pledge of allegiance can never be rational, because they cannot fully, explicitly understand what deserves their allegiance and what does not until they have reached a certain level of intellectual maturity, which reciting a pledge cannot assist them in achieving.

To the degree that a nation's government earns the allegiance of its rational citizens by protecting their individual rights, and to the degree that a growing child learns a proper morality, he will learn a rational respect for and allegiance to those ideas and laws which protect his rights and the rights of all citizens. But such respect and allegiance can not be learned by requiring a child to memorize and pledge himself to ideals without understanding. This method is the opposite of the rational process of thought that is required to know what deserves one's rational allegiance and what does not.

Any rational allegiance must be chosen by adults, not perpetrated by means of children memorizing and "pledging themselves," in a ritualized manner, to a statement they can not fully, explicitly understand. I think that it is no coincidence that 'the pledge' when any meaning at all is attached to it, normally demonstrates an emotional allegiance to woozy ideas of 'liberty' and 'justice' which virtually always, somehow (by faith) include the supposedly great ideal of self-sacrifice for the nation-as-collective -- as repulsive an idea as can be.

Of course, the same reasoning used against a pledge of allegiance (whether for children or for adults) could be used against singing a patriotic hymn. For those who understand and love the values of America and her benevolent sense of life such a pledge or hymn may be a form of re-affirmation. Anything, even Galt's creed, can be memorized without understanding. So I really don't understand your harsh response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see what is wrong with the old version, save the line added in the 1950's. Thus I would just revert to the original:

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.

Generally, I agree with you. However, since "United States of America" and "Republic" stand for the same country, your wording makes it seem as if they were two separate things. Also, the lines are unbalanced and one runs a little short of breath (and thus, of appropriate force) by the end of the last line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, the same reasoning used against a pledge of allegiance (whether for children or for adults) could be used against singing a patriotic hymn. For those who understand and love the values of America and her benevolent sense of life such a pledge or hymn may be a form of re-affirmation. Anything, even Galt's creed, can be memorized without understanding. So I really don't understand your harsh response.

"Whether children or adults" is an important distinction, and so is a distinction between music and propaganda. If the primary purpose of music is propaganda, and adults have children sing it for a political purpose, I'd place it in the same category as the pledge. (And music, the primary purpose of which is political, is normally garbage anyway, in my experience.)

I made up a patriotic waltz, and did so for myself – which means that I created it for an adult. The purpose for which I envisioned it was not some children's function, but an adult one, like a happy dance, or some other special occasion. Galt's creed was not written for children either. The pledge of allegiance apparently was, though I will give its author more credit than those who later decided to stuff it into children's minds every day in schools: It was originally written for a special occasion. Still, if this history is reliable, the author's religious socialism, and the tie of the pledge to children's 'education' speak for themselves History of the Pledge.

A pledge can be a rational affirmation for an adult, but this was apparently never the purpose of the 'pledge of allegiance.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, the same reasoning used against a pledge of allegiance (whether for children or for adults) could be used against singing a patriotic hymn. For those who understand and love the values of America and her benevolent sense of life such a pledge or hymn may be a form of re-affirmation. Anything, even Galt's creed, can be memorized without understanding. So I really don't understand your harsh response.

"Whether children or adults" is an important distinction, and so is a distinction between music and propaganda. If the primary purpose of music is propaganda, and adults have children sing it for a political purpose, I'd place it in the same category as the pledge. (And music, the primary purpose of which is political, is normally garbage anyway, in my experience.)

I made up a patriotic waltz, and did so for myself – which means that I created it for an adult. The purpose for which I envisioned it was not some children's function, but an adult one, like a happy dance, or some other special occasion. Galt's creed was not written for children either. The pledge of allegiance apparently was, though I will give its author more credit than those who later decided to stuff it into children's minds every day in schools: It was originally written for a special occasion. Still, if this history is reliable, the author's religious socialism, and the tie of the pledge to children's 'education' speak for themselves History of the Pledge.

A pledge can be a rational affirmation for an adult, but this was apparently never the purpose of the 'pledge of allegiance.'

Irregardless of the educationers' purpose of the pledge, at an early age (9 or 10) I remember reciting it quite earnestly, especially when I got to "with liberty and justice for all". It was always a shining and solemn moment, one of the few times that school didn't seem boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, the same reasoning used against a pledge of allegiance (whether for children or for adults) could be used against singing a patriotic hymn. For those who understand and love the values of America and her benevolent sense of life such a pledge or hymn may be a form of re-affirmation. Anything, even Galt's creed, can be memorized without understanding. So I really don't understand your harsh response.

Adults make children memorize and recite lots of things they don't understand. Prayer is the same way. My issue with the pledge is that it is essentially a prayer, and to a flag, no less. No surprise that the first version was written by a socialist. Then Christians got to it and added the "under God" part.

On a related note, here in supposedly-progressive Illinois, the state legislature passed a "moment of silence" law at the behest of religious activists. The law might not survive too much longer, though, as cooler heads started to come around after the bill had actually passed. When they go about repealing the silence law, it would be nice if they eliminated the pledge requirement, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen.

As for flags, they are symbolic, and usually weakly symbolic at that. The US flag has some meaning, with the star and stripe pattern, but if a rational capitalist and freedom-loving government took over and decided to change our flag, I wouldn't oppose them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, the same reasoning used against a pledge of allegiance (whether for children or for adults) could be used against singing a patriotic hymn. For those who understand and love the values of America and her benevolent sense of life such a pledge or hymn may be a form of re-affirmation. Anything, even Galt's creed, can be memorized without understanding. So I really don't understand your harsh response.

Adults make children memorize and recite lots of things they don't understand. Prayer is the same way. My issue with the pledge is that it is essentially a prayer, and to a flag, no less. No surprise that the first version was written by a socialist. Then Christians got to it and added the "under God" part.

On a related note, here in supposedly-progressive Illinois, the state legislature passed a "moment of silence" law at the behest of religious activists. The law might not survive too much longer, though, as cooler heads started to come around after the bill had actually passed. When they go about repealing the silence law, it would be nice if they eliminated the pledge requirement, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen.

As for flags, they are symbolic, and usually weakly symbolic at that. The US flag has some meaning, with the star and stripe pattern, but if a rational capitalist and freedom-loving government took over and decided to change our flag, I wouldn't oppose them.

A prayer is a formal declaration of wishful thinking to an imaginary being. A pledge is a declaration of loyalty to a person, thing or idea. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a definition a statement of a fact of the essence of reality of a concept, or merely a statement of the way we use words in everyday language? When an Objectivist uses the concept "selfishness" does he mean the same thing as just about everybody else on the planet?

I'm glad someone brought up Galt's pledge. It helps to define what a pledge is. This was something taken voluntarily by every adult entering the Gulch. Was it important to the scene to mention that it was exclusive to every adult in the valley? Just because the Pledge to the Flag is treated as a mere social good, doesn't mean that it ought to be. Consider the fact that Miss Rand used the term "selfishness" on purpose, to take back the concept, and that wasn't the only term for which she advocated this method (though I'm not going to rehearse all the instances I know of, as this audience, if they don't already know at least some of them, have the brains to look for themselves. Forgive the brevity, but time is of the essence :)).

As one who grew up pledging to and saluting the honor of the flag, I was taught to believe that I was saluting and honoring the value of the flag. Does what that flag represent, as it flew against the British in the 1812 war, and all that that battle bought for us, not a value to be honored? That battle is the genesis of of the honor. It is also the genesis of our National Anthem. There is almost everything about the song that owns something objectionable, if we look. But we ignore our own history by doing so, rather than by making corrections to the meaning of the words, or simply changes the song's emphasis. Does this mean that we also toss the justified honor of the Pledge?

I know that Dr. Binswanger and others have spoken against the idea of the Pledge. I don't agree, obviously. Since I don't care to look up and go into those arguments, I won't address them. But I am aware of them and have taken them into account.

As for the grammatical objections, I find them unpersuasive. Do we no longer allow justified poetic license on the part of the author?

I like it Byron. Just as I always love your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is a definition a statement of a fact of the essence of reality of a concept, or merely a statement of the way we use words in everyday language? When an Objectivist uses the concept "selfishness" does he mean the same thing as just about everybody else on the planet?

I'm glad someone brought up Galt's pledge. It helps to define what a pledge is. This was something taken voluntarily by every adult entering the Gulch. Was it important to the scene to mention that it was exclusive to every adult in the valley? Just because the Pledge to the Flag is treated as a mere social good, doesn't mean that it ought to be. Consider the fact that Miss Rand used the term "selfishness" on purpose, to take back the concept, and that wasn't the only term for which she advocated this method (though I'm not going to rehearse all the instances I know of, as this audience, if they don't already know at least some of them, have the brains to look for themselves. Forgive the brevity, but time is of the essence :)).

As one who grew up pledging to and saluting the honor of the flag, I was taught to believe that I was saluting and honoring the value of the flag. Does what that flag represent, as it flew against the British in the 1812 war, and all that that battle bought for us, not a value to be honored? That battle is the genesis of of the honor. It is also the genesis of our National Anthem. There is almost everything about the song that owns something objectionable, if we look. But we ignore our own history by doing so, rather than by making corrections to the meaning of the words, or simply changes the song's emphasis. Does this mean that we also toss the justified honor of the Pledge?

I know that Dr. Binswanger and others have spoken against the idea of the Pledge. I don't agree, obviously. Since I don't care to look up and go into those arguments, I won't address them. But I am aware of them and have taken them into account.

As for the grammatical objections, I find them unpersuasive. Do we no longer allow justified poetic license on the part of the author?

I like it Byron. Just as I always love your work.

Thank you, Janet. Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stand, children, for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to each self-loving, self-made individual

Whose sole need of men is force-free profitable trade,

Who judges aims and acts with his own thinking mind

And stands proud to receive judgment, sure and unafraid.

I pledge allegiance to the state of individual rights,

The law-bound republic of only private property---

Private flesh and thoughts and lands and tools and lives,

Where each man holds the wheel of self-responsibility.

I pledge allegiance to the rationally selfish self,

And to the happiness on earth that each may find;

And I pledge totally against the death-blow evils of altruism---

Communism, socialism, fascism, religion and environmentalism.

I pledge allegiance to life---human life above all other---

Actual life above potential---fact above wishing.

I pledge allegiance to me; yes, to me I pledge allegiance;

With myself and by myself and to myself, I pledge allegiance.

__________________________________________________________

Brian Faulkner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reject the idea of a 'pledge of allegiance,' as I know it, altogether. I don't know the exact origin, but can't believe that our rational founders had any idea of perpetrating such a thing. And in any case, regardless of what it might say, this is something that is memorized without understanding, and required of children by adults to be recited by rote-repetition, usually in groups, and usually in schools.

...

These are my thoughts precisely. As a child I was repulsed by the process, what made it so different than the videos we watched degrading wartime Soviet Russian and Japanese propaganda? The system taught us of the evils of propaganda in their schools and then had the audacity to require us to face the flag and proclaim allegiance to our country, hand over heart.

The whole experience was very surreal. It was clearly put in place to generate support from the masses... probably started during some wartime era -- same as it was by the Japanese, Hitler, Soviet Russia and countless other countries and agendas.

Something interesting: Einstein was very much against nationalism itself. He feared this concept would eventually be our species demise given all of our nuclear discoveries. I have to say this idea is worth serious consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reject the idea of a 'pledge of allegiance,' as I know it, altogether. I don't know the exact origin, but can't believe that our rational founders had any idea of perpetrating such a thing. And in any case, regardless of what it might say, this is something that is memorized without understanding, and required of children by adults to be recited by rote-repetition, usually in groups, and usually in schools.

...

Something interesting: Einstein was very much against nationalism itself. He feared this concept would eventually be our species demise given all of our nuclear discoveries. I have to say this idea is worth serious consideration.

What is the difference, to you, between nationalism and patriotism? You say nationalism is bad, but is patriotism necessarily so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reject the idea of a 'pledge of allegiance,' as I know it, altogether. I don't know the exact origin, but can't believe that our rational founders had any idea of perpetrating such a thing. And in any case, regardless of what it might say, this is something that is memorized without understanding, and required of children by adults to be recited by rote-repetition, usually in groups, and usually in schools.

...

Something interesting: Einstein was very much against nationalism itself. He feared this concept would eventually be our species demise given all of our nuclear discoveries. I have to say this idea is worth serious consideration.

What is the difference, to you, between nationalism and patriotism? You say nationalism is bad, but is patriotism necessarily so?

Not to answer for Dusty, but I would say that patriotism is loyalty to (and responsibility for) the virtues of one's country; whereas nationalism is a blind, mindless loyalty which does not distinguish between virtue and vice, and is responsible for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reject the idea of a 'pledge of allegiance,' as I know it, altogether. I don't know the exact origin, but can't believe that our rational founders had any idea of perpetrating such a thing. And in any case, regardless of what it might say, this is something that is memorized without understanding, and required of children by adults to be recited by rote-repetition, usually in groups, and usually in schools.

...

Something interesting: Einstein was very much against nationalism itself. He feared this concept would eventually be our species demise given all of our nuclear discoveries. I have to say this idea is worth serious consideration.

What is the difference, to you, between nationalism and patriotism? You say nationalism is bad, but is patriotism necessarily so?

Not to answer for Dusty, but I would say that patriotism is loyalty to (and responsibility for) the virtues of one's country; whereas nationalism is a blind, mindless loyalty which does not distinguish between virtue and vice, and is responsible for nothing.

Brian, I agree with you. Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make. It is a trick of leftists to equate one with the other. By saying that love of one's country is nationalism and then showing how bad nationalism, they are often able to teach that it is wrong to love America. It is possible, however, to love one's country for it's virtues, as you distinguished above. The U.S. is not the best country because it is my country, it's the best because it is the freest, etc (though this is becoming more and more disputable).

I struggled with this issue early on in high school when my teacher refused to acknowledge the distinction. I eventually found the answer on this forum here. My question posed at Dusty was just to see whether he grasped the distinction, as it can be difficult false dichotomy to overcome. (And if not, to get him thinking about it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nationalism says: 'My country - right or wrong', but Patriotism says 'Loyalty to my country because it is right'.

The first is loyalty to concretes, the latter is loyalty to ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nationalism says: 'My country - right or wrong', but Patriotism says 'Loyalty to my country because it is right'.

The first is loyalty to concretes, the latter is loyalty to ideas.

One might even say that nationalism is loyalty to feelings about one's country held by the majority, a kind of democracy- in-action; whereas patriotism is loyalty to independently held ideas about one's country, which is true republicanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question posed at Dusty was just to see whether he grasped the distinction.

I understand the difference you are presenting.

Teaching children to recite brainwash oriented songs is nationalism, as this thread defines it. Forcing children to claim their pledge and allegiance to something they do not understand is evil, no avoiding it. If they can pledge themselves to this unknowable thing, whats to stop them from believing the next unknowable ideology?

On a side note, I generally define patriotism as a form of nationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teaching children to recite brainwash oriented songs is nationalism, as this thread defines it. Forcing children to claim their pledge and allegiance to something they do not understand is evil, no avoiding it. If they can pledge themselves to this unknowable thing, whats to stop them from believing the next unknowable ideology?
My thoughts on this subject are not fully flushed out. However, I have some ideas and questions. Would teaching children rational songs be evil? What makes a song "brainwash oriented"? If the defining characteristic is whether or not it is meant to be thought about and understood, versus "felt", than is the pledge necessarily so? I'm not sure. Another question: are you sure children don't understand it? For example, I had a teacher in elementary school who said to us, "Next time you say the pledge, think about what you are saying. Think about what it is you are doing when you pledge your allegiance to the United States of America. It should give you goose-bumps." And it did. When I thought about the fact that I was pledging my allegiance to a country based on the idea of freedom, who defeated the British to be free (which was about the extent of my knowledge of why the US was good), I felt proud to give my allegiance.

Again, my thoughts on this are not final. I'm not sure the idea of a pledge is valid, but I'm less inclined to believe that it is necessarily an evil one.

On a side note, I generally define patriotism as a form of nationalism.
So I ask of you again - is patriotism a good thing? If you say nationalism is evil (which it appears you do), and you define patriotism as a form of nationalism, it would seem that you consider patriotism evil (or at least bad) by default. I'm wondering why you consider it so. If you reject our definition, why? And could you perhaps offer a better one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My thoughts on this subject are not fully flushed out. However, I have some ideas and questions. Would teaching children rational songs be evil? What makes a song "brainwash oriented"?

If the child was not ready to understand what rationality was, than yes.

If you teach a child a certain perspective and they cannot "draw a line" from their own perspective to the new one, you've stopped teaching. You've started convincing. If successfully convinced, the child will merely 'act out' the new perspective.

An example of this would be your typical graduate of physics classes. They can recite exactly how certain phenomenon occur but have no real grasp over the phenomenons. As such they cannot generate a proper stance or understanding on new ideas (I blame the 'quantum uncertainty' fiasco on this problem).

If the defining characteristic is whether or not it is meant to be thought about and understood, versus "felt", than is the pledge necessarily so? I'm not sure.

Brainwashing is generally 'felt' and not understood but this is a symptom and not the cause.

Another question: are you sure children don't understand it? For example, I had a teacher in elementary school who said to us, "Next time you say the pledge, think about what you are saying. Think about what it is you are doing when you pledge your allegiance to the United States of America. It should give you goose-bumps." And it did. When I thought about the fact that I was pledging my allegiance to a country based on the idea of freedom, who defeated the British to be free (which was about the extent of my knowledge of why the US was good), I felt proud to give my allegiance.

You just told me you like freedom and the fight towards freedom. Why don't you pledge to these concepts? Don't be fooled by the age-old grouping technique. By the way, your teacher sounds like a Mystic of Spirit.

On a side note, I generally define patriotism as a form of nationalism.
So I ask of you again - is patriotism a good thing? If you say nationalism is evil (which it appears you do), and you define patriotism as a form of nationalism, it would seem that you consider patriotism evil (or at least bad) by default. I'm wondering why you consider it so. If you reject our definition, why? And could you perhaps offer a better one?

I don't reject it, I've never heard it used in that form. I thought my form was the only form and clearly I was mistaken.

I'm happy to use whatever words best make communication possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see what is wrong with the old version, save the line added in the 1950's. Thus I would just revert to the original:

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.

This (original) version of The Pledge was written to promote healing after the Civil War and a "proper" attitude toward the nation. Regional devisiveness between North and South was still strongly felt in at the time it was written. It was written in 1892 by Edward Bellamy, a Christian Socialist and when recited it was with a salute right arm extended, palm up. Later on this bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the Nazi Salute (right arm extended, palm down). I remember saying the Pledge that way, when I was a kid. FDR ordered the gesture to be replaced by holding the right hand over the heart and so it is today.

The Pledge expresses a nationalistic and collectivist sentiment (fascism 101) and shame on a liberty loving person for saying it. One Nation Indivisible .... The Jehova's Witnesses refused to say the Pledge because it was heathen idolatry. I do not often agree with the JW but they got that one right.

One Nation Indivisible.....

Compare this to "Ein Volk!, Ein Bluet!, Ein Reich!" -- said by a zillion people at Munich led by You Know Who.

Sieg Heil anyone?

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see what is wrong with the old version, save the line added in the 1950's. Thus I would just revert to the original:

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.

This (original) version of The Pledge was written to promote healing after the Civil War and a "proper" attitude toward the nation. Regional devisiveness between North and South was still strongly felt in at the time it was written. It was written in 1892 by Edward Bellamy, a Christian Socialist and when recited it was with a salute right arm extended, palm up. Later on this bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the Nazi Salute (right arm extended, palm down). I remember saying the Pledge that way, when I was a kid. FDR ordered the gesture to be replaced by holding the right hand over the heart and so it is today.

The Pledge expresses a nationalistic and collectivist sentiment (fascism 101) and shame on a liberty loving person for saying it. One Nation Indivisible .... The Jehova's Witnesses refused to say the Pledge because it was heathen idolatry. I do not often agree with the JW but they got that one right.

One Nation Indivisible.....

Compare this to "Ein Volk!, Ein Bluet!, Ein Reich!" -- said by a zillion people at Munich led by You Know Who.

Sieg Heil anyone?

ruveyn

You are not taking into account just what one is pledging allegiance to. The flag and nation represent the virtues of liberty, and there in nothing wrong with that. Blind nationalism is something else, where the ideas of liberty are replaced by worship of tyrants. It is true that there is a blurring of these concepts these days, but all the more reason WE don't do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not taking into account just what one is pledging allegiance to. The flag and nation represent the virtues of liberty, and there in nothing wrong with that. Blind nationalism is something else, where the ideas of liberty are replaced by worship of tyrants. It is true that there is a blurring of these concepts these days, but all the more reason WE don't do the same.

If it sounds fascist, looks fascist and smells fascist it probably is fascist.

I don't say the Pledge for a number of reasons.

1. It has the phrase Under God in it.

2. Even without the phrase it makes the Nation an object of reverence. I assert allegiance to people and principles, not to Indivisible Nations.

3. Notwithstanding 1 and 2 above there is NOT liberty and justice for all. So the Pledge is a sham.

4. It reeks of collectivism.

There are my reasons for not saying the Pledge.

I will not partake in Heathen Idolatry and hypocrisy, thank you. It goes against my grain and my upbringing.

What I -will- do is defend the Nation against enemies foreign and domestic because it is the house I live in. I don't need no steeeenking pledges. I also refuse to take loyalty oaths for the same reasons. My word is my bond. I don't take oaths, not even in a court of law.*

ruveyn

*In court I request affirmation from the judge or bailiff. This binds me under the laws against perjury. So I say the following: I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I am bound by the laws against perjury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites