You won't explain. I am always anxiously awaiting your well thought out explanations to set me straight. But you usually copout with something like "Ya Just Don't Get it!". Get what?
Pledging Allegiance Does Not a Patriot Make Published on Sunday, November 25, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times by Cecilia O'Leary and Tony Platt
BERKELEY -- Rituals of patriotism have made quite a comeback in the last couple of months. The New York City Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution last month to require all public schools to lead a daily Pledge of Allegiance each morning and at all school events. "It's a small way to thank the heroes of 9/11," explained the board's president. In Orange County, Celebration USA Inc., a nonprofit patriotic organization, synchronized a nationwide recitation of the pledge at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Oct. 12. Several states are considering the adoption of laws that would require the pledge in all public schools, and Nebraska has dusted off a 1949 state law requiring schools to devise curricula aimed at instilling a "love of liberty, justice, democracy and America ... in the hearts and minds of the youth." In the aftermath of Sept. 11, people are hungry for social rituals and eager to communicate a deeper sense of national belonging. But this new rash of prescribing and orchestrating patriotism is not the answer.
Rituals of patriotism were first institutionalized between the Civil War and World War I, when organizations such as the Grand Army of the Republic, Women's Relief Corps and Daughters of the American Revolution campaigned to transform schools, as educator George Balch put it, into a "mighty engine for the inculcation of patriotism." Balch, a New York City kindergarten teacher and Civil War veteran, held what is believed to be the first celebration of Flag Day as a way of teaching his mostly immigrant students about the flag. But his was not a patriotism that embraced pluralism. His purpose, as he described it, was to instill discipline and loyalty in what he called the "human scum, cast on our shores by the tidal wave of a vast migration." He wrote what is considered to be the first pledge to the flag, a clunky manifesto in which students promised to "give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One nation! One language! One flag!" In 1890, Balch published a primer for other educators, "Methods for Teaching Patriotism in the Public Schools," that called for the use of devotional rites of patriotism modeled along the lines of a catechism. "There is nothing which more impresses the youthful mind and excites its emotions," noted the West Point graduate, than the "observance of form."
To commemorate the first Columbus Day celebration in 1892, Youth's Companion magazine asked Francis Bellamy to write a new pledge to be recited by children at school. Bellamy, a Christian socialist with a commitment to social reform, dismissed Balch's formula as a "childish form of words invented by an ex-military officer." He wanted a pledge that would resonate with American history and make students into active participants in a "social citizenry." For Bellamy, the notion of "allegiance" evoked the great call for unity during the Civil War and "one nation, indivisible" recalled a phrase used by Abraham Lincoln. Bellamy was tempted to add the historic slogan of the French Revolution--"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"--to the language of his pledge, but, in the end, he decided that this would be too much for people to accept. Instead, he settled for the final phrase "with liberty and justice for all." This way, he reasoned, the pledge could be ideologically "applicable to either an individualistic or a socialistic state," a matter for future generations to decide.
Bellamy's words--"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"--were gradually adopted throughout the country. But the pledge, once imagined as a living principle of justice and liberty, quickly became suffused with militarism and obedience to authority. On Columbus Day 1892, according to newspaper reports, children marched with "drilled precision" as "one army under the sacred flag."
In the wake of the Spanish-American War, state-sanctioned rituals of patriotism became more common. In New York, soon after war was declared in April of 1898, the legislature instructed the state superintendent of public instruction to prepare "a program providing for a salute to the flag ... at the opening of each day of school." Daily rituals aimed at reaching children's hearts were backed up with new civics curriculums to secure their minds with heroic images of virile soldiers and the honor of dying for one's country. A typical children's primer published in 1903 taught that "B stood for Battles" and Z for the zeal "that has carried us through/When fighting for justice/With the Red, White and Blue."
During World War I, worries arose about citizens with dual allegiances, and some feared that Bellamy's pledge allowed cunning fifth-columnist immigrants to swear a secret loyalty to another country. To close this loophole, the words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States." Many states now required students to salute the flag every day.
In Chicago in 1916, an 11-year old African American student was arrested because he refused to respect what he saw as a symbol of Jim Crow and lynching. "I am willing to salute the flag," Hubert Eaves explained, "as the flag salutes me." Meanwhile, Boy Scout troops across the country staged massive operettas in celebration of "America First."
Between the world wars, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted and their children expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag. What began as an attempt to encourage loyalty to a nation "with liberty and justice for all" devolved into the suppression of dissent and unquestioning homage to the flag.
In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an obligatory loyalty oath is unconstitutional, thus putting the law on the side of any student who refused to participate in patriotic or religious rituals. But even after the ruling, refusal to say the pledge took both courage and conviction.
The pledge remained unchanged until Flag Day 1954, when President Eisenhower approved the addition of the constitutionally questionable phrase "under God" to differentiate this country from its godless Cold War antagonist.
Since the Vietnam War and the divides of conscience it generated, educators have not been inclined to impose rote patriotic drills on their students. Instead, schools began slowly to redefine patriotism in a more inclusive way, a way that speaks to the needs of a multiethnic, polyglot population living in an increasingly globalized world. This is not the time to reverse this trend by reverting to form over substance and rote memorization over democratic participation.
"What of our purpose as a nation?" pondered Bellamy more than a century ago when he crafted his pledge. Our students today can better use their time debating this question than marching in lock-step loyalty.
Will the left and right never stop bickering over the most meaningless political distractions?
A liberal judge rules that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are "unconstitutional," and it's pandemonium on right-wing talk radio. Quick! To the barricades! The pinkos are at the gates, ready to conquer. It will not be long before Old Glory's white and blue will be purged, leaving only the commie red. Today we lose the Pledge to the anti-Americans, tomorrow we lose America.
Most lefties, of course, respond with comparable hysteria. Hooray for the ruling that "under God" violates the First Amendment! So long as American kids pledge their allegiance to a state with no explicit relationship to religion, we are a free and rational country! Let this Cold War relic remain, and theocracy will prevail, soon followed by witch-hunts, inquisitions and crusades of all sorts.
This is a distraction within a distraction within a distraction. Whether or not "under God" is in the Pledge or not, the Pledge itself is a monstrosity. Why should American children be instructed to pledge allegiance to the government? The Pledge, penned by proto-national socialist Francis Bellamy, who did not include a mention of God in the original version although he fancied himself a Christian, fit nicely with his agenda to nationalize the minds of America's children, especially immigrant students, and turn them all into soldiers for the consolidated Lincolnian state. It is purely disgusting that public schoolteachers, paid by tax dollars, continue to indoctrinate young minds with this evil religion of state-worship.
I've actually heard one or two liberals come out against the Pledge itself, which surprised me. Usually they defend the fascistic oath but only dislike its monotheistic clause. The right, on the other hand, appears to be forever devoted to the sick idea that America's children should pledge their allegiance to an "indivisible" "republic" and that somehow it is all holy and good if God's mentioned as well.
The way young Americans originally pledged their loyalty to the U.S. government before Hitler made the gesture unpopular.
What we see in the debate over the Pledge, for the most part, is actually the Pledge doing its job. Few Americans are willing to question the loyalty oath itself. Even fewer will question the collectivist school system that violates the freedom of conscience in every last thing it does. And even fewer than that will fundamentally question the role of state in society, to the point that we now have a thoroughly socialized and militarized culture with the government creeping into every facet of our lives and attempting to remake the world in its image, and most Americans think little of it.
Thus we see the school system in general and the pledge in particular perfectly fulfilling their roles: distracting politically-minded Americans from the actions of their criminal government while simultaneously inciting them to compete with each other in a game of "who's more patriotic" and "who's more dedicated to the founding principles of our country," trumping up the glories of the state the whole time. The left sees the state as their savior from religious persecution. The right sees it as the protector of religious virtue. But the founding principles of our country — the good ones, anyway — had nothing to do with pledging allegiance to either a secular state or a religious one. The American Revolution was about rejecting the state, not projecting it into every classroom, relying on it to adjudicate national thoughts on religion and social consciousness, or elevating it to be worshipped, whether side by side with, or instead of, God.
The conservatives argue that the left always wants government to displace religion, and so it opposes God in the Pledge. But the right seems to think that it is the job of the government to uphold religion, or at least that injecting religion into government can make it run better. The Pledge itself represents all the secular socialism the conservatives claim to oppose, even as they have done nothing but sanctify the oath since 1954 when they first dragged God into the mess. Surely the conservative warnings that the Pledge as they prefer it is all that's keeping big government at bay must be taken with a grain of salt. Since when has the Pledge done anything to protect liberty and justice?
Overall, I have to agree with the left on the narrow question of separating church and state, but why stop there? Separate all of society from the state, and now we're talking real freedom. Indeed, it is impossible to have true freedom of religion, thought and association so long as the state is so involved in our lives. In particular, as long as we have public education and the federal leviathan as its overseer, none of these controversies over religious freedom can be settled "fairly." Anything done in public schools with tax dollars and coerced attendees is bound to offend somebody's senses. The whole atrocity is an imposition on all Americans, such that those who are deeply religious will object to perceived attacks on their religion carried out in schools they are compelled to finance, while many of those who are more secular will recoil at the thought of their stolen loot being used to teach children about religion. It's all very understandable, but as long as the two sides of the issue fail to see that the problem is the entire compulsory school system including its nasty Pledge, millions of Americans will continue to feel their religious freedom threatened with no solution in sight.
The politicians love this, of course. Their power over the minds of children and the lives of us all remains intact, regardless of whether the nationalist Pledge is secular or religious. This issue, emblematic of the "culture war," allows both wings of the establishment to mobilize their grassroots troops, get the votes out, and keep the campaign dollars coming in. Nothing so enhances the state as distracting and endless arguments over non-fundamentals.
The foreign butchery in our name continues while our economy is sucked dry and the Bill of Rights mutilated by the parasites in Washington, and all that some people can worry about is whether an unholy and wholly un-American Pledge of Allegiance to the state is better or worse if it includes an idolatrous mention of God. Francis Bellamy, you are a brilliant rascal.
I'm with Ciero on this one, this cartoon plays to the small minded. Throughout history people have been forced into obeying and worshiping their leaders. One of the truly great things about this country is we have the choice of whether or not we need to do this. If anything this troop fought for the right of people not to have to blindly worship our government like a cult.
If you hate this country, the government, the military, the soldiers that have served, the polie, the first responders, the politicians and everything about it so much, why do yo u still live here!
Would you fukken ask Jesus this question.
Fighting and killing after being spoon-fed political hogwash is wrong.
Self defense I can understand. Everyone has a right to exist.
We were under no threat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I do not support killing except for direct self defense.
If you hate this country, the government, the military, the soldiers that have served, the polie, the first responders, the politicians and everything about it so much, why do yo ustill live here!
The people who supported invading other countries creating millions who now hate us are the ones who hate America.
Yes I would....dissenters found ways to escape. Not all could, but many wanted to if they were able to. You are fully able without concerns of Government preventing you...SO ???????????? But I have to say...VERY POOR ANALOGY!!!! If you believe life here is in anyway comparable to life there in 1939, then you really should pack up and go where you believe you wil be happy!
Or work to take the murderous powers away from war mongering blindless followers such as yourself.
You want to invade the world and eradicate the nonbelievers in this country.
Simply friggin' amazing...a cartoon that attempts to call attention to those that have served (like it or not; agree with it or not) has taken left and right turns into a political quagmire of dissent, hatred and out right anger.....comparisons to Nazi Germany; asking if same question would be asked of Jesus????? Are you all for real? Bash me, bash my comments, continue your discussions, but I have nothing more to say on this topic, becuase it's like PI$$ING UP A ROPE!!!!!! Couple of you were probably ones that spit on me when I came home from Nam....and you're still spitting!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Couple of you were probably ones that spit on me when I came home from Nam....and you're still spitting!!!
Not me, I would have welcomed you back and demanded that congress levy a tax on the defense contractors that made their money off American dead and wounded soldiers to provide the veterans and families of fallen veterans food, clothing, shelter and medical care for the rest of their lives.
You on the other hand may have been one of the ones that saluted the general that gave the command to raze and carpet-bomb villages filled with women and children. How long did it take to realize that the people living in straw huts and working rice patties were not a threat to the United States?
Not me, I would have welcomed you back and demanded that congress levy a tax on the defense contractors that made their money off American dead and wounded soldiers to provide the veterans and families of fallen veterans food, clothing, shelter and medical care for the rest of their lives.
You on the other hand may have been one of the ones that saluted the general that gave the command to raze and carpet-bomb villages filled with women and children. How long did it take to realize that the people living in straw huts and working rice patties were not a threat to the United States?
i said I was done, but I must reply to you. 1st - I did not blindly slaute anyone and blindly follow them into battle or anything else. Like my colleagues, we had a brain and thinking mechanism of our own. 2nd - How long will it take for you to understand that Media and Government are the ones that published stories that lead people to proclaim we were there to protect America. It doesn't mean that me or anyone else that served beleived that was what we were doing. My training and everything we were explained by our command was that we were there to help the Vietnamese pople and prevent their oppression. My personal experience with the Villagers and everyone I interacted with followed that exactly...we were there to help them. Now, did we succeed....personally, my group succeeded in helping them....overall, it was the worst bum*uck disaster in history becuase it was driven by business and politcal ineptness. If done correctly without the BS, war could have been over in 1 year....but we weren't there to win! Would I do it again if I had to do over....my answer is YES. The interation with the Vietnamese people and what they personally thought and achieved as a result of our presence cannot be described in words. To this day if I wear anything with my military background showing (i.e. hat, shirt, etc. with logo), and I run into anyone from Vietnam, they say 2 things....did you fight in my country? and THANK YOU for what you did. There is no way to make some people understand how that means so much and justifies in many ways why I ws there and why I would do it again.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
2nd - How long will it take for you to understand that Media and Government are the ones that published stories that lead people to proclaim we were there to protect America. It doesn't mean that me or anyone else that served beleived that was what we were doing.
That was the point of me calling the cartoon war propaganda. When the public school teacher tells a child that won't stand for the pledge is his right, and that the paralyzed soldier was wounded fighting for the students right to do so, I call them out on it. Maybe you and I interpret the cartoon differently. I see the cartoonist using the wounded soldier to sell a lie. If the cartoonist said this soldier can't stand and pledge allegiance to the flag because he choose to sacrifice himself in hopes of liberating the oppressed Afghan and Iraqi people and nation building, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But PLEASE to use guilt school aged children with lies and war propaganda.
Logged
