I pledge allegiance to the Constitution...

[Oso]

It seems the conflict concerning the Pledge is directed toward the flag, but that is only the symbol for the rest of the phrase, ...and the Republic for which it stands-one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.

I care very much about our flag as a symbol, but that's all it is. I would much prefer a pledge to our constitution, perhaps the finest document ever written by man.

How about this?

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic which it defines-one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.

And you could/should still salute the flag as you recite this, but the words would make it clear what your saluting.

[scotth]

Sounds quite tolerable to me.

I might shorten it even further and just say,

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America-one nation indivisibile-with liberty and justice for all."

[Plutarck]

I remain against all forms of pledging any allegiance, as it simply does not reflect a proper relationship between a free man and something else - especially a thing which is merely a construct of man.

In short, The Constitution exists to serve and protect man, but no man exists merely, or partly, to serve it. Any other possible form of consideration is inherantly misguided and wrong.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Plutarck
I remain against all forms of pledging any allegiance, as it simply does not reflect a proper relationship between a free man and something else - especially a thing which is merely a construct of man.

In short, The Constitution exists to serve and protect man, but no man exists merely, or partly, to serve it. Any other possible form of consideration is inherantly misguided and wrong.

I understand your concern. However you must remember that the constitution is not a static document. We as free men can modify it as we feel is required. The allegiance is to a principal not to words in stone.

The fact that it has retained it's strength for over 200 years already puts it in a special class. Neither the quran nor the bible were as revered by as many people so quickly, and the reason for this is not because of some edict from god but because it's damn good!

[corplinx]

I would never pledge allegiance to the amendments allowing the income tax or the 17th amendment. These two amendments have screwed up our government beyond belief.

[swellman]

Originally posted by corplinx
I would never pledge allegiance to the amendments allowing the income tax or the 17th amendment. These two amendments have screwed up our government beyond belief.

Why the 17th amendment? Election of senators?

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. Are you refering to the recent situation in NJ?

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Oso


I understand your concern. However you must remember that the constitution is not a static document. We as free men can modify it as we feel is required. The allegiance is to a principal not to words in stone.

Then why not say that, rather than require any such reading-between-the-lines? Sure it looses the rythem, but what it lacks in fluency it gains in clarity of meaning.

I would still, however, be against it, as it remains an improper relationship. There is no moral force or weight in alliance to something which is harmful - only to the extent that the constitution is good can it be a proper target of alliance.

Even then the word "allegiance" is problematic, as it seems to suggest a subserviant relationship - Citizen subserviant to State, Individual subserviant to Society, Man subserviant to that constructed - and controlled primarily by - other men. Yet it is the exact opposite relationship that is proper; the government should be the one required to pledge allegiance to the governed, the constitution required to pledge allegiance to the citizenry (setting aside the obvious physical limitations upon the latter, for the sake of argument), society existing solely to the extent that it behooves individuals to be a part of it.

The only possible construction of allegiance I can envision is to self-benefit and to the betterment of the station of others. All else is merely a device, a tool to bring about such ends.

The fact that it has retained it's strength for over 200 years already puts it in a special class. Neither the quran nor the bible were as revered by as many people so quickly, and the reason for this is not because of some edict from god but because it's damn good!

Well, multiple problems here. For one, there is the kind of compound fallacy of argumentum ad populum and confusing effectivness, success, and/or longevity with goodness. Secondly, that does not change the fact that it is valuable only to the extent that it is good and desirable; the allegiance is to betterment, not to the constitution itself.

[Oso]

Originally posted by corplinx
I would never pledge allegiance to the amendments allowing the income tax or the 17th amendment. These two amendments have screwed up our government beyond belief.

You'll notice that the pledge does not say the Constitution and it's Amendments. These articles of amendment can be and have been repealed, which is the very beauty of the Constitution.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Oso


You'll notice that the pledge does not say the Constitution and it's Amendments. These articles of amendment can be and have been repealed, which is the very beauty of the Constitution.

Err, so you aren't including the 1st through 10th amendments, either? Well in that case I'm even more opposed than I would otherwise be.

Further, I do think your missing the meaning of "amendment" - it is a change in the constitution. It is just that rather than rewrite the thing every time something changes, they just add something else on the end of it. The amendments are part of the constitution, not sepperate from it.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Plutarck
Then why not say that, rather than require any such reading-between-the-lines? Sure it looses the rythem, but what it lacks in fluency it gains in clarity of meaning.
...
The only possible construction of allegiance I can envision is to self-benefit and to the betterment of the station of others. All else is merely a device, a tool to bring about such ends.


And you know what, I agree. I just think the US Constitution is the best embodiment of those principals so far. The Magna Carta before that, it has been an evolution. The pledge becomes a vehicle to discuss and reinforce what is meant by the words in the Constitution.

No one should be forced to say it except public servants.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Plutarck


Err, so you aren't including the 1st through 10th amendments, either? Well in that case I'm even more opposed than I would otherwise be.

Further, I do think your missing the meaning of "amendment" - it is a change in the constitution. It is just that rather than rewrite the thing every time something changes, they just add something else on the end of it. The amendments are part of the constitution, not sepperate from it.

You are correct, (edited to add) the Bill of Rights are probably more important than the original Constitution. The reason for not including amendmants in the pledge is that they then become the example of it's dynamics. It also makes it read better, very important for a symbol.

Again I'm not saying anyone (except public servants) should be forced to recite it. That allows us to easily identify the infidels.:cool:

[a_unique_person]

I'm not going to swear allegiance to the Flag or the Constitution.

[shemp]

I never swear, but I know all the words.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by swellman


Why the 17th amendment? Election of senators?

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. Are you refering to the recent situation in NJ?

I am not referring to that at all (sorta). I am referring to the all around pollution of the Senate. Its filled with people elected for name recognition (Dole, Clinton), people elected out of almost machine like politics, people elected because they look good (John Edward), people elected as place-holders (Thurmond), and people who are only senators because they can't be president.

I think if we let the state assemblies elect senators it would solve the problems of senate campaign finance, apathy in local elections, gridlock in the senate, judicial nominations, and other problems. Lets put statesmen back in the Senate.

The thing that miffs me most is the bringing in of "ringers" to win elections. Hillary, Dole, Mondale, and even NJ as you mention. Enough is enough. In the case of Dole and Clinton, you had two people who basically didn't even reside in the state they ran in. Jefferson is crying in his grave. This sort of carpet-bagging further breaks down the notion of 50 states and makes us look more like one big one.

[kedo1981]

When you join the military or get elected to office you pledge to “Defend the constitution against all enemies.” That what kids should be saying in school

[Oso]

Originally posted by corplinx
...
Jefferson is crying in his grave.
...

And Hamilton is applauding.

[Smalso]

"...with liberty and justice for all who can afford it."

[billydkid]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I'm not going to swear allegiance to the Flag or the Constitution.

Yes, it's curious and interesting and most people look at me crosseyed when I say it, but I believe. The Pledge of Allegiance is fundamentally un-American. In fact, I believe pledges of allegiance in principle are un-American.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by billydkid


Yes, it's curious and interesting and most people look at me crosseyed when I say it, but I believe. The Pledge of Allegiance is fundamentally un-American. In fact, I believe pledges of allegiance in principle are un-American.

Speaking of that, how about this:

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

It was not until Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom" (or was it the other way around?) where he spoke of it that I realize...how, that is such total and utter ******** that I can hardly believe I didn't notice it before! Neither clauses represent even the smallest semblance of the proper relationship of a free man in a free society to his country or government.