Mixing work and pleasure, and the Pledge of Allegiance

[thistlechaser]

Work and pleasure: The company I work for has a Japanese branch, and I'm one of the people they work most with here in the US. We're work-close, but not like friends-friends close. I'm so terribly tempted to ask them if maybe they could pick up the second Prince of Tennis musical and send it through office-mail to me! I wonder if it's readily available in stores, or if one has to hunt for it and wait in lines? ...well, I guess even if it was really easy to buy I still might not ask them to do it, but I'd be even more tempted!

--

So, once again, the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is up for debate. If you've read even a day's worth of LJ posts by me, you'd know I was against the "under god" being in there. However, I've been thinking about it more over the past few days and have come to larger conclusions:

I'm against the whole Pledge of Allegiance, not just the one phrase within it. If someone walked up to me right now and demanded I said it, I'd refuse.

First off, I question the value of it:

The government/schools are making kids who have no idea what they're saying parrot it. Does this make the Pledge meaningless? Or does it make it worse because we're making kids pledge something they cannot understand and so cannot make a choice as to if they wish to pledge it or not?

Even if the kids are older and do understand what the pledge is making them agree to, can they disagree and not say it if they like? Probably about as easily as one could refuse to pray if prayers in school were required...

Second, exactly why should I be pledging anything to a country being run by someone who did not even get the majority of the votes? Someone who won on a technicality? An idiot who wants to force his religious beliefs on the whole nation? A country which does *not* have equal rights for all, and if continues in this trend, will be removing more and more rights from women and minorities?

When I was a kid, I said the Pledge because I had to. I didn't think about what I was saying or what it represented -- the whole thing meant nothing more to me than a moment the whole class had to stand and speak at the same time. I'm no longer apathetic towards it.

Why, in a supposedly "free" country, is pledging allegiance a required act?

ETA: Based on the comments, it seems it's no longer required. (Yay progress!) Yay me being an old, old person as well? ;) "Back in my day", it was a required act. Nice to see that's changed!

Comments

[lunarennui.livejournal.com]

in my schools, anyone could choose not to participate in the pledge of allegiance. one kid always refrained because his parents told him to, and after a while of thinking about it i opted out as well. when i was very little, saying the pledge in class and at assemblies gave me an enormous thrill, like listening to glorious music. but later, once i began to doubt the government's wisdom and question my spirituality, i stopped saying it...because that joyous thrill wasn't there anymore. instead i was questioning the words and trying to decide whether they were something i stood behind. and if i don't believe in it, i'm not going to make a pledge.

blah, rambling. anyway, although it was uncomfortable for anyone not joining in, it was always well-known that saying the pledge was not required. few people ever declined to say it, but no one HAD to say it. considering that i grew up in a tiny, highly religious town in the back end of wyoming, i'd figure that the choice to stay silent would be even more well-known elsewhere. legally, schools can't force kids to say the pledge. they can encourage them to, but if they choose not to, they can't force them or punish them. was your experience otherwise? if so, someone needs to have a few words with your educators.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Not required now? Huh, well cool! When I was in school (many, many years ago) it wasn't optional at all, you had to say it.

if so, someone needs to have a few words with your educators.

They're all probably dead or retired by now. :)

Thanks for the info!

[gmth.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I'm wondering if it wasn't just a requirement in your school district. I think I'm older than you are (37), and I didn't say the Pledge at all from about middle school on. No one thought twice about it.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

A bit, yep (34). It would be odd if it was a district-only thing, but certainly possible! (Or even as some other commentor mentioned, maybe I just had a string of bad teachers who personally wanted the Pledge said, so never made other options available and tried to keep anyone from opting out...)

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you, but when I was in school (circa 2000) you could refuse. Had to stand for it, but there's no way the schools could've made you say it.

And if was against someone's religion, they didn't have to stand at all. Most school administrators requested a note from a parent/religious leader to make sure people weren't bsing, though.

[sighs] This whole thing just seems pointless, though. The pledge should be a personal choice, not a mandatory one, but people are too busy fighting over 'what it means' to make it that way. It never ends either. Someone bitches now, nothing's done, the argument dies out until the next time. Bah.

Sorry if I was ranting...^^;

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Wow, apparently times have changed! I'll edit my post (to include a note that I'm old old old :p ), thanks for the info!

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

Yup...no prob there. Frankly, I was amazed the first time I didn't say the pledge. I thought the world would end or something, but nobody really cared.

Nowadays, god forbid you express yourself as a different-minded individual. Sacrilage! omg!uburninhell!!1111WTF.

[quasilemur.livejournal.com]

I'd mention the fact that 'Under God' was stuck in there in 1954 to separate us from the dirty godless commies, but that's pretty common knowledge, and not really what's being talked about here.

That said, I don't believe in making kids recite the pledge any more than I believe in forcing religion upon them. I enjoy the fact that even some of the more open-minded members of religions will say things along these lines:

Them: I'm open to other faiths, I just believe mine is the right one.
Me: The one you were raised in, right? Wow, you lucked out.
Them: Huh?
Me: That out of the myriad religions in the world, you were lucky enough to be born into the correct one.

Of course, that's a bit off-topic, too. The point is, while I understand the morale benefit of patriotism, forcing children to mindlessly parrot oaths seems wrong to me, particularly in certain Christian contexts, where they are also told not to swear oaths at all. Refusing to swear in court due to religious beliefs (which happens...they have an alternate 'I affirm' wording they can use), while simultaneously having their kids swear fealty to the state fairly smacks of hypocrisy.

[quasilemur.livejournal.com]

I also forgot to add:

While in most places the pledge isn't compulsory, not saying it is barely a choice. First off, it's hardly readily available information to the child, that if they don't wish to swear fealty to the state, they don't have to. Unless their parents have made an issue of it, they'll be doing it with the others, and rarely, especially at young ages, is that the child's choice. Secondly, while they can abstain, it sets them apart. When everyone else is affirming their loyalty and patriotism, the abstinent child is set apart, an obvious outsider. Some people might not care about being different, but children, almost exclusively, do. What is a child to think when everyone else is doing their 'civic, godly duty,' and they are told by their parents to refrain? And while they can't be forced to pledge, I can pretty much guarantee that certain unenlightened teachers will choose to make an issue of it when it occurs, even if only indirectly. And will those same teachers stand up for the student when her classmates tease or berate her? Because such treatment is far more likely in atmospheres heavy in jingoism, such as the one that has thrived under Bush the Younger.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Agreed on all of this. But based on the comments before yours (made by people younger than us, I strongly suspect) this looks to be changing. Not the teasing/outsider part (yet), but as more and more kids choose not to, maybe that'll eventually change as well. Hopefully.

[quasilemur.livejournal.com]

There is also the fact, however, that not all schools progress at the same pace, and even in progressive areas, there are going to be some throwbacks. While generally optimistic, especially since I live in a metropolitan area, I generally take claims that 'Times, they are a'changing' with a grain of salt.

Heck, I read deathchibi's recounting of her experiences, and it's like we're in a different country, despite the fact that she's all of 3 hours away.

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

While I disagree with the 'Under God' part of the pledge, I will note that any person who comes to the United States and desires citizenship must take an oath to the country. The pledge of allegiance stands in place of that oath for people already born in this country. I think it is a sad state of affairs that nationalism and patriotism are considered optional in this country because of 'free speech'. If you don't like the United States and don't want to give it your primary allegiance, then the rest of the world is out there.

While most children think naught of saying the pledge, it is true that children learn best by rote. It is like addition and subtraction. If children are taught at an early age to object to their government and country, there where does their allegiance lie? I don't believe that having children say the pledge of allegiance is a horrible travesty against free speech. If a child is going to choose not to, then I think that child needs to have a proper understanding of benefits and deficits of patriotism, allegiance, and nationalism and be able to defend those views. Else, I doubt that said dissenting child has the wherewithal to understand the purpose behind the pledge.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I will note that any person who comes to the United States and desires citizenship must take an oath to the country.

Right, because they weren't born here and their allegiances are likely to other countries.

I think it is a sad state of affairs that nationalism and patriotism are considered optional in this country because of 'free speech'.

How would you feel about them being optional, period? Not using 'free speech' as a reason?

If children are taught at an early age to object to their government and country, there where does their allegiance lie?

Is it better for them to be taught to blindly follow? I'm not saying that we should put guns in their hands and teach them to shoot at pictures of the president, but neither am I saying that they should be taught 'Rah! Rah! America is great and wonderful! Rah! Rah!'. One is as bad as the other -- one is black, the other white.


If a child is going to choose not to, then I think that child needs to have a proper understanding of benefits and deficits of patriotism, allegiance, and nationalism and be able to defend those views.

Agreed. If a child is going to choose not to pledge or choose to pledge then they should be of maturity to make the decision themselves, to understand the good and the bad of it. It shouldn't be "make them do pledge until they're old enough to decide better", it should be "once they're old enough to decide, let them choose to do it or not".

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

It took me days to write a response and it way exceed the character limit, so I put it as an entry (http://www.livejournal.com/users/spenceraloysius/174810.html#cutid1) in my own journal. I hope I hit all your points. Sorry.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'll visit and read it when I have a chance.

[quasilemur.livejournal.com]

The fact remains that this country was founded on dissent. If no one speaks to the ills of a system, those ills are free to remain and propegate. Those who would silence the voice of dissent would cut off their nose to spite their face. Despite what some would have us believe, quiet acceptance of the status quo is not the mark of a patriot. The true patriot is mindfull of the problems and inequities in society, and works to correct them. Speaking out against injustice does not make one 'unamerican,' does not mean that one should 'go back to Russia.' The sanctimony inherent in the 'if you don't like it, leave' philosphy is apparent. Is one truly able to say who is more 'American' than another? That is a dangerous road to tread, as we have discovered time and time again. And aside from that, the 'love it or leave it' bit is sorely lacking in practicality. Moving across town is expensive and difficult enough, never mind moving across an ocean. Who's going to pay for this emmigration? Is the person that tells me to 'move to France' going to pay my way? Somehow, I doubt it.

Teaching children to mindlessly regurgitate the pledge, in addition to its effect on the children, devalues the pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance should be something undertaken with the requistive knowledge. You mentioned immigrants swearing an oath...Those same immigrants must study and take tests first. When they take their oath, they know what it is they're swearing fealty to. Children are not allowed to do certain things, such as enter into legal contracts. Why should swearing allegiance be any different? The only thing mindless rote teaches these children is that oaths don't matter.

[phoenixtoashes.livejournal.com]

nationalism

Whoa. 'Scuse me, but nationalism is a bad thing. It's been one of the causes of two world wars.

Patriotism is okay. It's good. Being loyal to one's country and saying "My country is great" is lovely.
Nationalism is bad. Being so loyal to one's country that you're thinking about what's good for your country first instead of yourself is not healthy. Thinking or saying, "My country is not only great, but we're better than you, and you, and you, and yeah you over there too" isn't all that healthy either.

Nationalism is what Hitler (may his corpse be bitten and spat out by alien bugs) used to convince Germany that they were the Master Race and deserved to rule the world. Nationalism is part of what caused World War One - everyone was too stuck on their egos to back down and actually think for five seconds, 'Hey, y'know, maybe they're right and we're wrong,' because they'd been told, all their lives, that their country was better than all those other countries and so, those other countries couldn't possibly be right.
'Course, imperialism, alliances (secret and otherwise) and arms races had their part too. But nationalism was one of the big players in the cause of the first and second world wars. [/rant]

Thank you for listening.

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

Second, exactly why should I be pledging anything to a country being run by someone who did not even get the majority of the votes? Someone who won on a technicality? An idiot who wants to force his religious beliefs on the whole nation? A country which does *not* have equal rights for all, and if continues in this trend, will be removing more and more rights from women and minorities?

The electoral college is not a technicality, and overrules the voter majority. That's one of many reasons why this nation is not a democracy. I won't even touch on the rest of your statements here, but at least do some research on the electoral college, its actions during the election you question, and its position in relation to citizen votes. If you're going to rant and rail, you are entitled to whatever opinions you like, but please do not misrepresent facts.

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

I wonder if we actually talked if I would like you or if you would hate my guts. Did you ever use the name Toxic on a MUSH?

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

GarouMUSH. Way back when. And I don't tend to hate people based on talk, only on deed. Get contemptuous of, sure. Get disgusted with, sure. But hate...Hate is a thing I reserve for special occasions and special people who really, really go out of their way to earn it.

Hell, for that matter, I might like you. You never know. I do like some people who I believe are great people, generally speaking, but when it comes to their understanding of society and politics are flipping idiots...No doubt some of them feel the same way about me.

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

Wow, I figured out who you are. Woof, I say. Woof.

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

Aaaaaaand who might you be?

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

To confuse you further, I met you once at a party at forkmonkey and caredhel's house about eight years ago. We didn't talk much.

I should probably stop, because I'm being amused by this too much. Once, I sort of played a wolf on GarouMUSH and was a wizard.

[conuly]

According to the ACLU, the Supreme Court says you cannot be compelled to stand, nor to recite, nor to leave the room if you won't do either. The reciting, at least, has been the case since I *think* the second world war. Pair of Jehovah's Witness' took the case up saying it was idolatry. But many schools don't understand the law.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Interesting, thanks for the info! It seems understandable that some schools might not understand how the laws work (not that that makes it right, just that I can see how they wouldn't).

Thanks!

[conuly]

*nods* Of course, some schools just don't care because they don't expect that anyone will actually speak up. They understand the law, they just think that their students don't.