7 ms·

Personally, I'm glad my children say the "pledge" every day to start school. Yes, I'm religious, but I'm also liberal on some things. For instance, I think anyo

by cpher 13y ago

Personally, I'm glad my children say the "pledge" every day to start school. Yes, I'm religious, but I'm also liberal on some things. For instance, I think anyone charged with marijuana possession should be freed from jail-- that's absurd in my opinion. However, you have to draw the line somewhere. My childrens' identity isn't tied to "religion" per se, but rather "faith." But I wouldn't expect someone with hostility towards religion/faith to get that...

jlgreco 13y ago
What do you think the benefits of having them recite the pledge at school every single day are? Some sort of loyalty to government that could not be taught? If you think loyalty to government is a good idea, that is fine, but why not teach them why that is the case? I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons lined up, so give them those reason instead of making them recite a pledge...
- cpher 13y ago
  It has nothing to do with "loyalty to government." It's loyalty to the concept of a free country, where you can even choose not to say the "pledge." I really don't care what you do. The point of the pledge has nothing to do with a physical piece of cloth, and everything to do with the "republic for which it stands." That's the benefit. It's a reminder to be loyal to the people, not to the mechanisms of the government. The fact that people from all backgrounds/countries can be united under common principles is the point. So, no, I don't teach my children loyalty to "government", but rather their country, which, up until recently was pretty free from their government.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The pledge is not teaching, it is brainwashing. If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried). Explain to them why it is something to be valued, don't merely have them accept it as axiomatic by having them repeat it ad nauseam. Also, the pledge is absolutely to a particular government; I don't know how that could be any more clear.
    - cpher 13y ago
      Your condescension does nothing to further your argument. And I'm quite happy with what I teach my children about their country--warts and all. I was simply replying to the GP about the pledge. If you don't like my opinion I don't care and you can go pound sand.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I don't think there was condescension in my comment. I am saying that if you believe something, you should be able to defend it. I am confident that you are right, a free society is something that is to be valued, and I am confident that you could teach it. If you are also confident that you are right, then you don't need to brainwash your children to agree. So if you are pleased with what you are teaching your children, as you claim, then why is the pledge important? Your lessons should carry sufficient strength. Brainwashing is the tool of people who are not confident in what they say; it is not a tool for you.
        cpher 13y ago
        Let me put this briefly: the pledge was used to teach children the basics of what this country values. You can argue that this is brainwashing. So, then, argue that teaching rote math and English rudiments is brainwashing. Children can't internalize the important concepts of the constitution when they're 5-6 yrs old. They can recite them for a while, but the ideas are too abstract until they get older. You say "indoctrination", I say "rote memorization until they can understand it." Do you think my 5 & 6 yr olds will understand my explanation of what Snowden did, and why? And, yes, there was lots of condescension in your comment, just so you know for the future... If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried). Not to be a dick, but if you were one of my personal friends and said that to me at a bar, I'd slap you in the nuts to get your attention. Maybe midwestern Americans take that differently.
        jlgreco 13y ago
  - Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
    As a non-American responder, are you talking about the original pledge, or the 1948-1954 changes that added the words "under God" to it?[1] The original was formally adopted in 1942 by Congress, prior to this change: The original: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This change was largely brought about by the realization that the pledge was dangerously close to the NAZI party's way of indoctrinating Nationalism (however Fascistic it was)[2] and that there should be some manner to differentiate between the good, moral, American version and the evil, unethical German version. Nationalism (and Socialism) were ideologies of the 19th Century, and America does not have a great history of citizenship for all, with certain cultures not sharing in it until post WW1.[3] So, I'm afraid: the pledge does, and always has had, a streak of Nationalism a mile wide to it. I find the modern American denial of this fascinating. And, if you cannot see how it is used to indoctrinate children, then I am happy to provide non-wiki specific psychology papers proving that it does. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924
    - cpher 13y ago
      I'm talking about the current incarnation which makes the most sense to me anyway. I know there were different versions but I like the current version the best. And it's clearly the most "liberal" in language.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        The only differences between the current pledge and the pledge as it was many decades ago are superficial. Changing the salute and adding the (problematic for other reasons) reference to a god serve to change the appearance of the pledge, but not its substance. It remains as nationalistic as ever. (Also, the addition of the words "under god" and a reference to a particular government hardly make it more "liberal"?)
      - deleted 13y ago
phaus 13y ago
Not every non-believer is hostile towards religion and/or faith. I dislike the pledge because every time I hear it I'm reminded that Americans were once stupid enough to believe that modifying the words to it would be enough to thwart communist spies. It's like they forgot that athiests don't really acknowledge the concept of blasphemy.

by cpher 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

What do you think the benefits of having them recite the pledge at school every single day are? Some sort of loyalty to government that could not be taught? If you think loyalty to government is a good idea, that is fine, but why not teach them why that is the case? I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons lined up, so give them those reason instead of making them recite a pledge...

cpher 13y ago
It has nothing to do with "loyalty to government." It's loyalty to the concept of a free country, where you can even choose not to say the "pledge." I really don't care what you do. The point of the pledge has nothing to do with a physical piece of cloth, and everything to do with the "republic for which it stands." That's the benefit. It's a reminder to be loyal to the people, not to the mechanisms of the government. The fact that people from all backgrounds/countries can be united under common principles is the point. So, no, I don't teach my children loyalty to "government", but rather their country, which, up until recently was pretty free from their government.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The pledge is not teaching, it is brainwashing. If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried). Explain to them why it is something to be valued, don't merely have them accept it as axiomatic by having them repeat it ad nauseam. Also, the pledge is absolutely to a particular government; I don't know how that could be any more clear.
  - cpher 13y ago
    Your condescension does nothing to further your argument. And I'm quite happy with what I teach my children about their country--warts and all. I was simply replying to the GP about the pledge. If you don't like my opinion I don't care and you can go pound sand.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I don't think there was condescension in my comment. I am saying that if you believe something, you should be able to defend it. I am confident that you are right, a free society is something that is to be valued, and I am confident that you could teach it. If you are also confident that you are right, then you don't need to brainwash your children to agree. So if you are pleased with what you are teaching your children, as you claim, then why is the pledge important? Your lessons should carry sufficient strength. Brainwashing is the tool of people who are not confident in what they say; it is not a tool for you.
      - cpher 13y ago
        Let me put this briefly: the pledge was used to teach children the basics of what this country values. You can argue that this is brainwashing. So, then, argue that teaching rote math and English rudiments is brainwashing. Children can't internalize the important concepts of the constitution when they're 5-6 yrs old. They can recite them for a while, but the ideas are too abstract until they get older. You say "indoctrination", I say "rote memorization until they can understand it." Do you think my 5 & 6 yr olds will understand my explanation of what Snowden did, and why? And, yes, there was lots of condescension in your comment, just so you know for the future... If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried). Not to be a dick, but if you were one of my personal friends and said that to me at a bar, I'd slap you in the nuts to get your attention. Maybe midwestern Americans take that differently.
        jlgreco 13y ago
- Helpful_Bunny 13y ago
  As a non-American responder, are you talking about the original pledge, or the 1948-1954 changes that added the words "under God" to it?[1] The original was formally adopted in 1942 by Congress, prior to this change: The original: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This change was largely brought about by the realization that the pledge was dangerously close to the NAZI party's way of indoctrinating Nationalism (however Fascistic it was)[2] and that there should be some manner to differentiate between the good, moral, American version and the evil, unethical German version. Nationalism (and Socialism) were ideologies of the 19th Century, and America does not have a great history of citizenship for all, with certain cultures not sharing in it until post WW1.[3] So, I'm afraid: the pledge does, and always has had, a streak of Nationalism a mile wide to it. I find the modern American denial of this fascinating. And, if you cannot see how it is used to indoctrinate children, then I am happy to provide non-wiki specific psychology papers proving that it does. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924
  - cpher 13y ago
    I'm talking about the current incarnation which makes the most sense to me anyway. I know there were different versions but I like the current version the best. And it's clearly the most "liberal" in language.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      The only differences between the current pledge and the pledge as it was many decades ago are superficial. Changing the salute and adding the (problematic for other reasons) reference to a god serve to change the appearance of the pledge, but not its substance. It remains as nationalistic as ever. (Also, the addition of the words "under god" and a reference to a particular government hardly make it more "liberal"?)
    - deleted 13y ago

phaus 13y ago

Not every non-believer is hostile towards religion and/or faith. I dislike the pledge because every time I hear it I'm reminded that Americans were once stupid enough to believe that modifying the words to it would be enough to thwart communist spies. It's like they forgot that athiests don't really acknowledge the concept of blasphemy.