Thread: Time To Change The Pledge of Allegiance

Where is the "indivisible" part in that new pledge?
Why "to the freedom for which it stands"? Why not "the Republic", or even "the Nation"?
Why repeat "freedom", "free from Tyranny" and "liberty", basically the same thing three times?

I tried to find the spokewoman intervention, couldn't find it. Not sure if the Constitution would do much better at representing... ... ... than a flag does.

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Yes. Stupid flag. Soldiers are supposed to pledge allegiance to the constitution as that is what they are sworn to protect and defend. Pledging allegiance to a flag is quite possibly the most misguided thing anyone can do. The constitution is a much stronger symbol of what this country is all about. You don't pledge allegiance to politicians, do you? You don't pledge allegiance to the state, do you? You don't pledge allegiance to the federal government, do you? Pledging allegiance to any of those three things is misguided. Why should anyone pledge allegiance to those who govern over us? Those who govern over us should pledge allegiance to us and is the very purpose for them being elected to represent us. The flag is misrepresentative of what it so called symbolizes.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The flag is a symbol of our country AND the constitution by which we're governed. The one in the case on my fireplace mantel is definitely not just a "stupid flag"...it was earned in service to our country.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Why should we pledge allegiance to anything? I certainly haven't since being essentially forced to do so in public schools.

I suppose you'll never be married or shack up with a significant other?

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Why should we pledge allegiance to anything?

With freedom comes responsibility. We delegate power and with power comes responsibility. I sign non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements all the time. These are pledges that come with the trust put in me in my capacity as an officer of a corporation.

Citizens should pledge allegiance. But I reject the idea that people should automatically become citizens precisely to avoid the problems your question poses to a free people.

Originally Posted by Vuld Edone

Where is the "indivisible" part in that new pledge?

Indivisibility is an abomination of the principles our government was founded on. See the Declaration of Independence. The notion of indivisibility was put in precisely to overtly counter the South's attempt to secede, applying the very principles our government was founded on.

Originally Posted by Vuld Edone

Why "to the freedom for which it stands"? Why not "the Republic", or even "the Nation"?
Why repeat "freedom", "free from Tyranny" and "liberty", basically the same thing three times?

Maybe b/c it is important no matter how enemies want to twist it.

Originally Posted by jotathought

I suppose you'll never be married or shack up with a significant other?

I fail to see that that has to do with overt nationalism in the form of flag-waving and pledges of allegiance. Are you trying to equate it to the notion of fidelity in some relationships which stems mostly from jealousy?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

With freedom comes responsibility. We delegate power and with power comes responsibility. I sign non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements all the time. These are pledges that come with the trust put in me in my capacity as an officer of a corporation.

Citizens should pledge allegiance. But I reject the idea that people should automatically become citizens precisely to avoid the problems your question poses to a free people.

Non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements obviously have nothing to do with this topic since you don't pledge allegiance to a corporation - at least the vast majority of people don't.

But I'm not surprised in the least that you are advocating Robert Heinlein's scheme of only bestowing citizenship on those deemed worthy by proving themselves in some way. Fortunately, the US Constitution has completely different ideas on that topic, as do the vast majority of similar documents which are used by virtually all modern civilized countries.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

I fail to see that that has to do with overt nationalism in the form of flag-waving and pledges of allegiance. Are you trying to equate it to the notion of fidelity in some relationships which stems mostly from jealousy?

Marriage is based on jealousy? I thought the poster to whom you were replying was unfair... and then you posted this.

No, fidelity in a relationship is based primarily on jealousy. Just ask any psychologist.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements obviously have nothing to do with this topic since you don't pledge allegiance to a corporation - at least the vast majority of people don't.

It's funny you write this AFTER I demonstrated how it is untrue. I've demonstrated the applicability of allegiance. It has nothing to do with majority.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

But I'm not surprised in the least that you are advocating Robert Heinlein's scheme of only bestowing citizenship on those deemed worthy by proving themselves in some way. Fortunately, the US Constitution has completely different ideas on that topic

I'm not so sure it is fortunate. I'm simply separating citizenship from living someplace in a way you are not. My reasons are clear. What importance do you put on the word "citizen" if not to imply responsibilities?

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

No, fidelity in a relationship is based primarily on jealousy. Just ask any psychologist.

Why don't you provide us with some proof to back up that statement?

Ahhh yes... the Too Kool For Sckool Kids have come out to play yet again. Whereas they cannot or will not conceive of anything larger or more important than themselves.

They do this in a vain attempt to avoid both responsibility and judgement. This generally means that they possess huge egos and very small intellects, and almost no honor.

They are not worthy of the society in which they live.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Why don't you provide us with some proof to back up that statement?

It's not exactly a secret as a simple google search reveals.

Jealousy, Monogamy, and Power « freaksexual

Whenever nonmonogamy is addressed in popular culture, romantic jealousy is brought up as an overwhelming obstacle to any sort of successful nonmonogamy. Sometimes the author states that they themselves could never get past jealousy enough to be nonmonogamous. Other times, therapists are quoted as saying that nonmonogamy is impossible due to jealousy. We see quotes like “there is no getting around the ultimate problem of jealousy” (Coren 2005) and similar examples when polyamory is profiled in the media (DeDonato 2008; Jackson 2006; Lewis 2005; Marech 2001). This immediate conflation of nonmonogamy and jealousy hints at the cultural role jealousy plays in creating monogamous conformity – I will describe this role in detail below.

When our culture examines jealousy, we tend to fall back on biological imperative. Research has not been immune to this essentialization (for an overview, see Lucas 2007). Recent advances in DNA fingerprinting have revealed that sexual monogamy is pretty much nonexistent in the natural kingdom (Barash and Lipton 2001), and jealousy is generally understood in academic circles to be constructed by culture rather than a biological phenomenon (Sharpsteen 1993; Stenner and Rogers 1998; White and Mullen 1989: 66-75). However, this knowledge has not filtered through the public awareness, and jealousy and monogamy are generally considered to be biological and inevitable, as we see in journalism (e.g. Barash and Barash 2005; Martell 2003; Stephens 2007) and pop psychology (e.g. Barash and Lipton 2001: 30,120; Buss 2000; Espejo 2007: 29; Rodgers 2002: 8,11,123,346). The mainstream often considers jealousy situations to be a problem which should be addressed (as I describe below), but the jealous response itself is rarely questioned.