Keeping or removing “under God” from the US pledge of allegiance is simply the wrong question entirely.
SJC to weigh wording of pledge
The state Supreme Judicial Court will begin hearing arguments this week in an atheist Acton couple’s quest to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance their children say in the Acton-Boxboro Regional School District.
Why are children forced to pledge fealty to the state? Why is there a pledge at all? Isn’t it the job of the state to preserve the freedom of the people? Shouldn’t the state be pledging its allegiance to the people?
The entire “under God” debate is just an idiotic distraction from the real issue – we are all slaves to states that demand our allegiance to them, when it should be the other way around.
Rennie, you have the wrong slant on this, to my mind.
I don’t know if you were around – I was – when “under God” was added to the pledge. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments at that time – just as there will be should the Supremes make a decision, whichever it might be, now.
But the pledge is not to the state, not to the government. It is a pledge to the concept(s) that pretty much established the existence of the USA. Not a pledge to be taken lightly, nor a pledge that school children could be expected to understand – after all, a significant number of the adult populace that mouths the words have no real conception of the true meaning of that pledge (at least, in my experience). It is a commitment to lay down one’s life, if need be, to support and maintain the concepts put forth in the documents relating to the constitution. It is *not* a pledge to the state, but a pledge to the concepts that allowed creation of that state. While the state has changed, those concepts have not. I once put my body on the line to defend those concepts, that pledge. Doesn’t make me special, just committed – or altruistic, if you prefer.
It is not a pledge of fealty: it is a commitment to support of an ideal that few citizens recognize today. Don’t let yourself be counted as one (1) of those who cannot read the words and feel their true meaning.
I doubt we’ll agree here. But that’s fine. I simply think that governments should pledge their service to the people, and not the other way around, and the pledge there gets it backwards as far as I can see. Now, a bit about why I think that…
Well, if it a pledge to certain principles, it’s written piss-poor.
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.
As a quick rewrite, it would be more clearly and better stated as:
I pledge allegiance to the principles of liberty and justice for all, for which the Flag of the Republic of United States of America stands as one Nation (under God), indivisible from its principles.
I’ve taken some liberty in there, but not a massive amount. But that more clearly sets out the principles, which the United States of America has grossly forsaken. It now represents almost the exact opposite.
But the actual pledge has no such meaning as my rewrite there. They are fundamentally different. The pledge puts the flag and country first. This is simply perverse. It’s a regression to feudalism at best. Anything after that is just a band-aid on cancer.
If the pledge is to principles, then why isn’t it? Why substitute principles for a flag or country? The country needs to represent the principles, and not the other way around.
The success of it is in people somehow thinking that USA = liberty. Perhaps that was true once upon a time. Today? Not so much.
But USA or wherever – different countries have different indoctrination rituals to create mental subservience to the state. We have the same nonsense in Canada. A look at any national anthem reveals the same everywhere.
What *is* the “country/flag” if it’s not the government? I simply don’t see government as worthy of any admiration or loyalty.