So I’ve done two days of political blogging, and I’m a little tired. So today I’m going to discuss a topic that comes a little more easily to me: The Pledge of Allegiance. This may seem to be a bit more of a rant than my previous posts, but this is after all a blog, and that’s how I’m feeling today.
I’m going to start with the most obvious problem: “Under god.” The United States of America is in no way intended to be “under god,” and thus such a statement has no place in a recitation of allegiance to America and American ideals. This nation was created as a secular nation, outside all influences of religion or faith.
Easy solution: Put the Pledge back how it was before 1954, which is the year those two words were added. In case you were not aware, before 1954 the Pledge ran “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
But that easy solution isn’t enough; I do not think that the Pledge of Allegiance should be recited in schools even without the words “under god.” Children are taught from a young age to recite the words with no knowledge of their meaning. They are taught the words completely out of context. If I’m not incorrect in my definitions, I would call this indoctrination and brainwashing. Students should learn to believe in America through knowledge of its history and current political and cultural state, not through a poem pledging their allegiance to something they know little about.
The Pledge also alienates those who are unable or unwilling to recite it, such as Atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and those who believe in globalism, or in fact anything other than American supremacy.
On a side note, the Pledge of Allegiance is a poem written by Edward Bellamy. How would you feel if you wrote a poem which masses of people recite, except that they decided to just change a bit, add a few words, to add some extra meaning? I highly doubt Edward Bellamy would support additions to his poem to “make it better.”
-Ilan Seid-Green
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Haha, when I was a little kid, I use to think that the word "indivisible" was "invisible". I don't think I ever corrected myself until I googled the pledge. It is true, when I was kid I didn't know what the heck the pledge meant. However, I wouldn't consider the pledge of allegiance a brainwashing method. It's more of a tradition in my opinion. The pledge does not mandate a religious belief or religion. I don't even think kids are punished for not saying the pledge of allegiance.
As for the words "Under God", it's more of a political statement than a religious one. Wasn't "Under God" added during the McCarthy era? During that era, people were scared of communists and scared of being called one. Most communists were Atheists, and thus by adding "Under God", Americans were able to differentiate themselves from communism. "Under God" doesn't really have a religious meaning to it. When I first started stating the pledge of allegiance, my beliefs were a bit towards Buddhism. After quite a few years of saying the pledge of allegiance, I'm an Atheist with some Buddhist influence (or I should probably call myself an Agnostic because people tend to think of Athesism as un-American...)
Pledge of Allegiance is an abomination, in addition remove that awful song during the 7th inning of baseball games as well. Beyond all the obvious points about them being propaganda and indoctrination they are simply bad songs/poems and no one gets their loyalty to their country from them.
Ilan I agree with most of what you have said throughout your post but in terms of America being "created as a secular nation" I will have to disagree in a few respects. The first colonies contained Puritans which built their governments on religious principles and who left England to escape the King because of his need to create a church in order to divorce his wife. Another religious aspect to our country is how all our presidents but Kennedy are protestant. Lastly, I would like to point out that churches and other religious facilities in the U.S. are exempt from having to pray property taxes.
It is easy to see how America today has religious toleration and more pluralistic views than before but the undercurrents of religious presence are unmistakable.
I feel like the under G-d portion like Justin said was used as a mechanism to feel more American in the face of the Red Scare era and now that that time has passed we could very well keep or delete the phrase with little consequence on either end. However, from Bellamy's standpoint and being an artist myself, I would not want someone tampering with words that I had deliberately chosen for very specific purposes.
If I had to pick a side I would probably want the "under G-d" taken out because for me it would restore the original power to the poem and would make America a little more open toward those who do not associate with religion or G-d.
Keeping time like a Rolex,
Seth K
I agree that making kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school is ridiculous, but it falls quite short of indoctrination. They're not being told anything about America. They're not being required to parrot the beliefs of their instructors. They're pledging allegiance to a nation, and at the end of the day, constantly repeating a pledge is not going to brainwash anyone.
The words have changed from how Bellamy originally wrote it. So? He wrote it, but it's become the American Pledge of Allegiance. Whether or not it would be disrespectful to Bellamy is unimportant. Besides, his original pledge was "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Quite honestly, I think that pledge is pretty bad, and I'm glad they've modified what Bellamy wrote.
Francis Wang
"They're pledging allegiance to a nation, and at the end of the day, constantly repeating a pledge is not going to brainwash anyone."
Correct, people aren't brainwashed unless their beliefs are being affected. Their beliefs can't be affected if the people who recite the pledge don't know what the words mean.
"I will have to disagree in a few respects. The first colonies contained Puritans which built their governments on religious principles and who left England to escape the King because of his need to create a church in order to divorce his wife."
I knew somebody would say something like this.
The colonies were not American at the time, and they certainly weren't the United States, so is not valid to say that the US was founded upon religion. You would, however, be correct if you said some of the colonies were intended to be religious. I don't ever remember the Articles dealing with this issue, but it doesn't mean that the US itself was conceived on the basis of religion. The Constitution, as far as I know, dealt with religion by separating it from government.
We have a lot of Protestant presidents simply because they represented a large majority of the country.
"Lastly, I would like to point out that churches and other religious facilities in the U.S. are exempt from having to pray property taxes."
As are most non-profit organizations.
Good post. No one would perform the Pledge if the truth were taught about it. It was actually written by Francis Bellamy, cousin to Edward Bellamy, both self-proclaimed national socialists who promoted their dogma of military socialism through government schools. As you note, the Pledge has changed including adding "under God" although that phrase appears in Bellamy's original program that included the pledge (Bellamy was religious). Also, the gesture changed. The early gesture was the stiff-armed salute adopted later by the National Socialist German Workers Party, as shown in the discoveries of the symbologist Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). The Bellamys influenced their dogma, symbols and rituals.
To Tinny Ray.
First of all, do you even go to this school?
"It was actually written by Francis Bellamy, cousin to Edward Bellamy, both self-proclaimed national socialists who promoted their dogma of military socialism through government schools."
Maybe they were pro-federal government, but I think you are exaggerating their belief by calling it socialism. Right-wingers are too quick to label federal government supporters as socialists.
"Also, the gesture changed. The early gesture was the stiff-armed salute..."
State your evidence here, or else it's not fact.
A bold claim like that requires substantial ground-breaking evidence.
Justin: Of course "under god" is a religious statement. You are correct in saying it is a political statement: It was created because of the "oh no godless communists, we must reaffirm in any way possible that we are religious and believe in god" and the "we must make sure our children believe in the god we believe in or they will become godless communists" thoughts of the red scare.
Seth: Nowhere did I deny the religious undercurrents. They do not mean that the United States was made as a religious nation, or should identify as such. The Puritans were looking for religious freedom, which they can, according the the Constitution, able to have in the United States.
Francis: It may be a minor attempt at indoctrination, and may make little difference in and of itself, but that does not make it any less an attempt to indoctrinate. Also, it is most definitely teaching them something about the United States: It is in itself a statement of United States superiority.
Kevin: I did not say they never know what it means. I meant that when they are taught to recite and thus believe it, they do not know what it means. Just because they learn what it means does not mean they will suddenly form an independent opinion of it; they have already been taught to believe what it says.
Tinny Ray is correct: the flag salute was arm straight out towards the flag before it was hand on heart. I quote To The Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance by Richard J Ellis: "The salute was performed with the arm stiffly extended and raised at about arm level. The only substantial difference was that the Nazi's performed the salute with the palm facing down, whereas the Pledge of Allegiance was performed with the palm facing upward... the amended salute to the flag was incorporated into Public Law 829 which passed December 1942."
-Ilan Seid-Green
To Kevin,
"The colonies were not American at the time, and they certainly weren't the United States, so is not valid to say that the US was founded upon religion."
I never said the colonies or the U.S. were founded upon religion but I did say that "the undercurrents of religious presence are unmistakable" which is a completely true statement. There is no way to deny that our country has religious roots embedded within it. Even if the colonies were not the U.S. they did eventually evolve into just that. Evolution even from a Darwin point of view indicates that traces of the past remain in everything of the present.
In terms of Churches being nonprofit, a lot of places and organizations claim that due to loopholes in legal infrastructure (i.e. many private universities). Churches do make profits on membership and programs that are run on temple grounds.
Ha, the Pledge of Allegiance...I haven't recited that since elementary school, let alone remember how to say it. I feel the pledge is less more of a "brainwashing" method and more of someone's way of showing off their patriotism. Anders, baseball is kind of a classic "American" pasttime and putting in the pledge shows that we are proud as being Americans. Not that you don't have your own opinion on it of course.
I was so appalled at this post and its comments that I decided to just a post a link instead of rebutting nearly everyone's posts.
http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm
Now my two cents.
If you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, or any other patriotic song, then an intelligent human being can reason that you are not, nor deserve to be an American. If you don't understand, care, or agree with what's being recited, fine, but don't claim to be an American or partake of it's freedoms.
Click the link, and maybe you'll have somewhat, hopefully, an idea of why the early American settlers, the Founding Fathers, and other patriots based this beloved nation on Christian values and principles. It may not be a Christian nation, but the principles and ideals applied to the historical American documents dating back to America's infant history are of Christian descent, and should NOT be criticized. Criticize the principles and you criticize the basic fundamentals the Fathers were attempting to lay down.
If you refuse to read the link (all three pages) or the the comment fully, you have no right to even attempt to reply back with an ignorant or informative response. Hopefully this will have shed light on people's misunderstandings of the Fathers' original philosophies.
Some people's comments, parts of Seth's and Kevin's, were somewhat accurate and intelligent, so not everyone posted ignorantly.
Thank You and God Bless America.
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
Andrew: Not only did I simply look at the link and was immediately disappointed that it was by something christian, but I read the first sentence and immediately knew this article was not as based in fact as I could wish. Not only can I in fact deny the first sentence, but the founding fathers were extremely diligent in keeping their religion separate from their politics. There is no excuse for our not following their example in that.
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine" -Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli, passed by Congress 1797.
Now I'm going to go on to your post.
First, you state that of course any intelligent person will agree with you. That is absolutely ridiculous; you present no evidence whatsoever for this statement.
Second, being American has absolutely nothing to do with reciting songs and poems. I am a strong believer in "justice and liberty for all." I am a strong patriot. My being unwilling to recite so-called patriotic songs and wear flag pins changes in no way my support of American ideals.
Last, America is in no way made up of the government and patriotic people who believe all the same things. Part of being an American is having your own opinion, and your own way of saying things and showing your opinion.
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government." -Edward Abbey
-Ilan Seid-Green
I want to point out that the entire point of the pilgrims and many of the original newcomers to the New World was because of religious freedom. To say that we are a nation built on Christian values and beliefs completely ruins that original purpose. The United States even has a clause in the Bill of Rights granting religious freedom. Having "under God" sort of defeats the purpose of freedom of religion. Why not say "Under Buddha" or maybe even "under Zeus?"
In response to that article that Andrew presented, I read through it and found roughly 3-4 quotes out of the 3 pages of them pertinent to religion AND government. Most were just religion. Anyway, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."-- Patrick Henry. How in the world does that make the nation have to say "Under God"? It says that through Christian values of kindness were they able to make such a nation, not because the U.S. is, by many people's views, "under god."
"Not only did I simply look at the link and was immediately disappointed that it was by something christian, but I read the first sentence and immediately knew this article was not as based in fact as I could wish"
It's About.com, what's Christian about it (besides the topic), and because it's About.com, how is it not based on fact?
"Not only can I in fact deny the first sentence, but the founding fathers were extremely diligent in keeping their religion separate from their politics"
Read this again: "No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of America were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees."
The "based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ" can vary a bit, the point cannot be missed. I will say that some Fathers were Deists, but still religious, and believed in God. As to keeping their religion separate from their politics, read about James Madison and then tell me that.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..." from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797
I believe that is the right quote. Religion and doctrine can be very different things and in this case they are.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/07/false_founding_father_quotes_f.php
There's your evidence.
"First, you state that of course any intelligent person will agree with you. That is absolutely ridiculous; you present no evidence whatsoever for this statement."
Where did I say that at all? I'm using basic logic for debate. I debate with intelligence, not with ignorance or laziness.
"Second, being American has absolutely nothing to do with reciting songs and poems. I am a strong believer in 'justice and liberty for all.'"
If you can't find the contradiction there, come on.
"I am a strong patriot."
Good to hear. Thank You.
"My being unwilling to recite so-called patriotic songs and wear flag pins changes in no way my support of American ideals."
It supports them?
"Last, America is in no way made up of the government and patriotic people who believe all the same things. Part of being an American is having your own opinion, and your own way of saying things and showing your opinion."
All very very true. Absolutely. However, if that includes criticizing our Founding Fathers' very principles then I just have to disagree with that statement.
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government." -Edward Abbey
The conservatives would love you.
"How in the world does that make the nation have to say "Under God"? It says that through Christian values of kindness were they able to make such a nation, not because the U.S. is, by many people's views, "under god." <-- Franklin
If you link the principles together, you'll find your answer. It's not as simple as 1+1 = 2, but with a little digging and connecting, it'll make sense.
-Andrew Oxendine 3°
HA i used to do the same exact thing as justin.
i believe the pledge of allegiance is just a way to create a sense of nationalism for younger children. it is the tradition of Americans to pledge this allegiance at school because it allows kids to feel like an American. After all isnt that what we want?
"Students should learn to believe in America through knowledge of its history and current political and cultural state, not through a poem pledging their allegiance to something they know little about."
After reading that, i only thought, since we only recite the pledge of allegiance in elementary, it is a bit early for kids at that age to understand current political matters and cultural states, due to it is a complex topic.
Ilan: What evidence do you have that proves the statement "under God" is a religious statement? Is it because it contains the word "God"? Using the word "God" doesn't automatically make the phrase or statement religious. Saying "Oh my God!", "OMFG", "For God's sake", "God D*mmit", or "Oh dear God" doesn't have a religious meaning to it.
The Pledge of Allegiance isn't a religious statement either. It's simply a way for people to state their patriotism and respect for the United States. There isn't a statement in the Pledge of Allegiance which even hints that the speaker should be religious.
Justin: How can you tell me saying "this nation is under god" isn't a religious statement? I'm not saying the word god makes it religious, I'm saying the whole phrase is innately religious.
Tim: What right do we have to be creating nationalism in children. If they are going to have that nationalism at all, it should come naturally to them upon learning how the nation truly is.
Andrew: I admit I misread it as being a christian website.
That does not make my comments any less legit. I see no point in bringing reading about James Madison into this when we could simply read the Constitution. I definitely think that reading the result of their beliefs is a much better way to get a sense of what they meant than reading things about their lives.
I don't see how your fixing my quote changes its meaning in the slightest. And I wasn't presenting that quote so much to back up my post as to put down any arguments of the United States being a religious nation.
"..then an intelligent human being can reason that you are not, nor deserve to be an American." I certainly count myself as an intelligent human being, and do not reason that way at all.
"The conservatives would love you."
You say that only because they are not in power at the moment. I feel that it is important always, no matter which party is in power, to keep in mind that the government is not the be all and end all of the nation. The people are.
-Ilan Seid-Green
"I meant that when they are taught to recite and thus believe it, they do not know what it means. Just because they learn what it means does not mean they will suddenly form an independent opinion of it; they have already been taught to believe what it says."
On the flip side of the coin, people can form an independent opinion of the pledge. In fact, if people are completely brainwashed, you would not be making this post nor would we be arguing over this in the first place.
Saying the pledge without knowing what it means is practically the same as not ever reciting the words at all.
Brainwashing means that the person is being fed propaganda, and that propaganda must be understood and believed for it to work. People who have been consumed by propaganda are not hard to spot. Their comments and thinking are not critical. People who support the pledge may not necessarily be brainwashed, as long as they are able to reason and think on their own. Education is suppose to ward off that propaganda, and allow people to think on their own. Going along that line of reasoning, people can still be educated, not indoctrinated, and still be in support of the pledge.
Ilan, your facts about Americans officially using the Roman salute sounds enough for me.
"I never said the colonies or the U.S. were founded upon religion but I did say that "the undercurrents of religious presence are unmistakable" which is a completely true statement. There is no way to deny that our country has religious roots embedded within it. Even if the colonies were not the U.S. they did eventually evolve into just that. Evolution even from a Darwin point of view indicates that traces of the past remain in everything of the present."
Alright, point conceded.
"In terms of Churches being nonprofit, a lot of places and organizations claim that due to loopholes in legal infrastructure (i.e. many private universities). Churches do make profits on membership and programs that are run on temple grounds."
Well, if other nonprofits are doing the same thing, then the reason that churches don't have to pay property taxes may not always be religious.
Nonprofits like NPR also have similar membership fees, but I think that both churches and public radios are just using that revenue to sustain itself.
When i was a little kid, i remember reciting the pledge of alligence every morning before school. While reciting it, i never knew what i was actually saying. I can see ilan's point about how the "Under God" part should be taken out, but i don't think of the pledge of alligence as a type of method to brainwash young children.
Post a Comment