javasaurus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
javasaurus) wrote2004-03-26 10:49 am
javasaurus) wrote2004-03-26 10:49 am
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.
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...)