javasaurus (
javasaurus) wrote2004-03-26 10:49 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Pledges and the like
I'm of two minds on a particular issue, that being the recitation of the pledge. I'm not referring to the "under God" issue. That, in my mind at least, seems clear, and it is discussed enough elsewhere. My current interior monologue is about whether the pledge should be said at all. One the one hand, we who are citizens of this country, can be said to owe allegience to this country as a responsibility associated with our citizenship. That part of my mind says, "Don't want to be loyal to the country? Then give up the citizenship!"
The other part of my mind responds, "True loyalty is gained by being worthy, not by indoctrination and pledges and contracts. The government should spend more time on being worthy, and displaying that worth, rather than arguing over pledges."
Then the first side says, "That may be true, but this is the government we have, the citizenship you have, and the price for keeping that citizenship."
And so on. Very distracting. Thoughts?
Oh, I want to point out, that being loyal to a country or to the ideal of its leadership, is not the same as being loyal to the people currently holding those positions. It is possible to respect the office of the president, for example, without respecting the person holding that office.
The other part of my mind responds, "True loyalty is gained by being worthy, not by indoctrination and pledges and contracts. The government should spend more time on being worthy, and displaying that worth, rather than arguing over pledges."
Then the first side says, "That may be true, but this is the government we have, the citizenship you have, and the price for keeping that citizenship."
And so on. Very distracting. Thoughts?
Oh, I want to point out, that being loyal to a country or to the ideal of its leadership, is not the same as being loyal to the people currently holding those positions. It is possible to respect the office of the president, for example, without respecting the person holding that office.
Disjointed but thrown out for thoughts
I am of course going to take things and comment on them. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement being loyal to a country or to the ideal of its leadership, is not the same as being loyal to the people currently holding those positions. The idea of president, senator, justice, etc. is a strong one and there have been people holding positions who had no business being in that role. While I may quote Douglas Adams with "Anyone who can be elected president should on no account be given the job," I do believe that the presidency is a very important part of our government. However, I think that the way the offices are being used is changing and not necessarily for the better.
We have students in the schools who are not US citizens (and may never be), they can be children of diplomats (in this area), children of people who come here to do certain jobs but still want to go home. Why would they swear allegiance to the US, its flag, and its government? Especially when people are from the areas that the US is currently at war with (either officially or unofficially). Why would someone whose family is from Palestine pledge to the US? They may want to pledge allegiance to what the republic was meant to be, but is that what the pledge is?
I am also not sure about swearing allegiance to the FLAG, which flag? The 50 star flag? The 48 star flag? The one that Betsy Ross (supposedly) created? The one that is being restored at the Smithsonian?
You mention That may be true, but this is the government we have, the citizenship you have, and the price for keeping that citizenship. Isn't our duty to question when the government fails from what we think it should be? In my opinion, some of the duties of a citizen is to keep an eye on the government to help ensure that it is doing what it should do (and what that is would be another long post).
So, I don't like the pledge in schools for a number of reasons. The 'under God' is only a portion of that.d
Re: Disjointed but thrown out for thoughts
The original said "to my flag" and was later changed to "to the flag of the United States" and another change added "of America."
An interesting omission from the Pledge is the word "equality."
The Pledge was originally written by a Baptist minister in 1892 (here's a short history) who wanted to include "equality" but knew it would be rejected -- many people at the time were against racial and sex-based equality.
Also interesting is that the man was a socialist, and the words "under God" were added in 1954 as an anti-communist measure (and many people still equate socialism with communism -- then again, some people equate Hydrox and Oreo, which, as all Harlan Ellison fans should know, are NOT the same...)