tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post1462741113647652411..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Pledge Project: Should There Be a Pledge?Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3607374506394761852011-09-14T18:26:40.279-06:002011-09-14T18:26:40.279-06:00the pledge is not a loyalty oath.
it looks like a ...the pledge is not a loyalty oath.<br />it looks like a loyalty oath but it is not.<br /><br />when a governement official gives an oath of office they say it once, at the begining of their term. it is a verbal contract between a consenting adult and the public that they represent.<br /><br />children are not of a legel age to sign contracts nor do they have the ability to judge to whom they should pledge their loyalty. the pledge in public schools is obviously NOT a mere promise of loyalty.<br /><br />the pledge is something that children must recite over and over again. this is a propaganda tool, akin to brain washing, in the same way that religions or cults try to indoctrinate followers.<br /><br />under DU one could ask "does it work to indctrinate children into believing in liberty and justice for all?" in other words "is it good brain washing? is it effective brainwashing"<br /><br />but this kinds of indoctrination inhibits peoples ability to think critically about their governemnt. it is for this reason that people shout that if you sit during the pledge you are anti-freedom. it is because they are not thinking, and indoctrinating children in this manner teaches them not to think about the issues of governance. <br /><br />under DU i assert that all methods of repetitive indoctrination tend to thwart desires. they create a population of people who do not think about the value of propositions, this is akin to the noble lie. while it might have some ends that are noble, teaching people to reach them through lies or brain washing are counter productive to the health of society. <br /><br />loyalty oaths are not bad.<br />using repitition to brain wash children is bad. even if your brain washing them to believe in liberty and justice for all. good end, bad means.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50909460532613243352008-06-09T11:55:00.000-06:002008-06-09T11:55:00.000-06:00I have to agree that I've never seen these sorts o...I have to agree that I've never seen these sorts of pledges as anything other than a device to seperate the in-group from the out-group. The actual words may be important, but they are not the purpose of a pledge. I think this is exactly why the most passionate advocates of the pledge are right-wing authoritarians, even though the pledge supposedly enshrines "liberty and justice for all". If the main purpose of the pledge was captured in it's words instead of it's in/out-group designations, it would be the liberals who'd advocate the pledge, instead of the other way around.<BR/><BR/>So when someone recites the pledge what they're really saying (for the most part) is "I am a part of this group. I give my loyalty to it's leaders, may their will be done." In theory, some of that will is described in the actual words of the pledge. But regardless, it seems to be a tool to create conformist/authoritarian habits rather than to create any desires. And for that reason I object to any national pledge.<BR/><BR/>However life is what it is, and we are stuck with a national pledge for now. I do fully support your efforts to restore the pledge and I spread the word where I can. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78680345971380057402008-06-08T05:35:00.000-06:002008-06-08T05:35:00.000-06:00Alonzo - "the mere fact that a tool was used by ev...Alonzo - "the mere fact that a tool was used by evil people does not give us reason to reject the tool." Now, if people could keep this in mind and read the Communist Manifesto, they may discover that the world "rejects" it because "Lenin" was an evil person, not for the intelligent approach it takes. Of course, the "capitalist" structure saw it as a threat and would have us embrace religion because it has proven an effective means to control the masses. It has become common usuage to refer to it as "Marxsist/Leninist". When one actually "reads" the CM they find that what we don't like today about the western world are the same things framed eloquently by Karl Marx. I doubt if very many Christians or Americans know that the CM objects to slavery, particularly of children and child labour. It was the first major declaration made for the emancipation of women. Christians can not say their Bible evem addresses the "emancipation" issue. (If fact, the Bible goes out of its way to support men's supposed superiority). The most famous, or should I say infamous, statement made by Marx was that "religion is the opiate of the masses". In light of what is happening in our world today, I think his seven word statement sums up why "common sense" can not make any headway in dealing with the problems that confront our world. (I know in advance that my comments will be dismissed by many of your loyal Americans as "pinko" but most of them are the same individuals who dismiss the claims of non-believers)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88793238715186526632008-06-07T20:58:00.000-06:002008-06-07T20:58:00.000-06:00Alonzo,Glad I could help.Your efforts, in general,...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>Glad I could help.<BR/><BR/>Your efforts, in general, and particularly in this project are greatly appreciated by me.<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>Benbpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9685818430087759042008-06-07T20:07:00.000-06:002008-06-07T20:07:00.000-06:00bpabbotYour corrections were accurate. Sorry about...<B>bpabbot</B><BR/><BR/>Your corrections were accurate. Sorry about the errors. This was one of the posts where my attempt to edit turned into a substantial rewrite.<BR/><BR/>Corrections have been made.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-38233650181781821692008-06-07T20:04:00.000-06:002008-06-07T20:04:00.000-06:00Regarding the utility of a pledge, the principles ...Regarding the utility of a pledge, the principles of the pledge which I see as having value are <I>liberty</I> and <I>justice</I>.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYSVjo0IyY" REL="nofollow">DesertPhile's</A> version would be more appropriate.<BR/><BR/>"I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all."bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31056528956406125022008-06-07T13:13:00.000-06:002008-06-07T13:13:00.000-06:00current use of the pledge in every instance i've s...current use of the pledge in every instance i've seen is:<BR/><BR/>-oath of fealty, recited in the presence of others, in settings where the expectations and judgements of others is of primary importance (in other words, the oath recitation has almost nothing to do with the text, and everything to do with the expectations of fealty of others in the room);<BR/><BR/>-identity marker of inclusiveness of the group reciting the pledge (in other words, participation decides who's 'in' and whose 'out' of the group, and the standards of 'in' and 'out' are decided by those who recite the pledge);<BR/><BR/>-a device to get kids to school on time (the recitation of the pledge is the authoritarian tardy bell).<BR/><BR/>none of these is required of u.s. citizens.<BR/><BR/>while there may be 'good desires' associated with the recitation, there are as many 'bad desires,' depending on your framework of values.scott grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334188123201041182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3457894245907936072008-06-07T10:37:00.000-06:002008-06-07T10:37:00.000-06:00Regarding arguments against pledges, what value mi...Regarding arguments against pledges, what value might the practice of a pledge bring? What can be done to prevent its manipulation toward negative value. Does the hypothetical benefit of a pledge out weight its risks?<BR/><BR/>I'm not advocating one conclusion over the other. However, I am personally skeptical of the compelling value of any practice when those advocating it must apply authority in order to coerce participation. Is not each nation's position on liberty and justice respecting the individual self-evident to each individual.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the question: "What if a Pledge of Allegiance were an effective way to promote good desires?"<BR/><BR/>I think there would be great value in such promotion. However, does our pledge do that? What values are being promoted? If the good desires are an appreciation of liberty and justice for all, is a requirement of rote recital of such a pledge not antithetical to these valued principles?<BR/><BR/>Regarding the statement: "If a pledge of allegiance to 'liberty and justice for all' helps to discourage tyranny and injustice, then inhibits freedom in the same way that laws against murder, rape, and theft inhibit freedom."<BR/><BR/>If? ... that's a good question. Does it? Is there any evidence? If there are benefits, what of the liabilities? Do we desire citizens who obediently seek the principles of liberty and freedom, or do we desire citizens whose reasoned convictions for liberty and justice produce an emergence of passion for such ideals?<BR/><BR/>Regarding oaths of office and/or oaths to testimony, these are verbal contracts, and are voluntarily entered into by individuals who are expected to intellectually understand the terms of the contract. I do not see the pledge as being comparable. <BR/><BR/>Regarding a pledge to liberty and justice having no negative effect, I think that depends upon the individual. Even before my teen years, the requirement to recite the pledge had a mixed impact on me. It ignited a passion for liberty in me. However, not in the manner intended, but simply because I saw (and still do) it as an affront to the principle of liberty ... I am very jealous of my liberty. The required practice of reciting the pledge contributed to my extreme cynicism of authority, particularly the authority of government.<BR/><BR/>My cynicism is continually reinforced by the many (majority?) who don't understand that the constitution does not enumerate rights of the individual regarding liberty. These are enumerable. What the constitution does is enumerate the powers of government. Many appear to have these reversed; thinking that rights are enumerated and the governments powers are enumerable :-(<BR/><BR/>That said, I am not an anarchist, but am disappointed in the education of our citizens regarding the founding principles of our nation.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4122590809390558942008-06-07T10:09:00.000-06:002008-06-07T10:09:00.000-06:00Some typos :-(I've used the markers (-) to indicat...Some typos :-(<BR/><BR/>I've used the markers (-) to indicate what might be removed and (+) to indicate what I've inferred belongs.<BR/><BR/>"Anyway, a state of affairs in which people utter a loyalty oath such as a Pledge of Allegiance is bad only to the degree that a person (-)would(-) (+)with(+) good desires would be averse to such a state of affairs."<BR/><BR/>"However, I will point out that we use oaths throughout our society in order to try to (-)fi(-) (+)focus(+) people’s attention on certain duties and obligations. Elected officials take an oath of office – effectively, a loyalty oath (an oath to be loyal to the Constitution of the United States, in the case of federal officials)."<BR/><BR/>"Here, too, we must weigh this against the fact that all institutions are open to abuse. The institutions of morality and law themselves are constantly being abused by demagogues (-)by people(-) seeking to manipulate the public."bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.com