I never said anything of the kind. In fact, I think that's downright repulsive, as well. To swear allegiance to the flag, not to the Republic but to the flag itself is repugnant. Hence my original question about whether you thought being forced to recite the pledge was problematic or not, and whether the wording "under God" made a difference or not. For me, the whole thing's disgusting, and the "under God" part even more so.
I'm not sure what you were expecting to prove by loading up on dictionary definitions. I know the meaning of the word allegiance, but thanks anyway. It always adds to the argument when someone belittles your intelligence.
I guess that's where we differ. In my (admittedly irrelevant to anyone other than myself) opinion, pledging allegiance to real, concrete, extant entities (like the state or a flag) is far and away the more problematic part, as the state can take action to force you to comply with your words. God doesn't. In fact, the inclusion of God makes the whole oath less binding, since it introduces elments of absurdity into it. If it were also to include fealty to the Seelie Court, the flying spaghetti monster, and the Great Pumpkin, I think noone would even begin to take the pledge seriously. I realize that this is an atheist board, and therefore concerned with issues of religious encroachment, but I thought there were more important issues. As for using dictionary definitions, I do that because you asked me how I defined etiquette. So I defined it, not as
I would define it, but as the word is
actually defined, and then evaluated my thoughts and your question in relation to that. Were I a lexicographer, I would be a prescriptive one. I will confess annoyance to personal definitions. Words mean what they mean, the only way to engage in reasonable discussions is to agree on the meaning of words beforehand. Otherwise, you wind up like Xeno wiggling his fingers on the side of the road. I'm glad you included the wink, it was never my intent to belittle your intelligence. Quite the contrary. I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who wasn't smart.
Ah, well then why didn't you just say so in the first place unstead of passing the entire thing off as inconsequential and inoffensive?
But see, that's just it. Since the pledge is a bit of inconsequential, non-literal, poetic fluff, I don't take it seriously enough to care about it. It's therefore inoffensive to me. Only things that
matter, that can harm you, that you can compete with can be considered threats.
Apparently you haven't been in a public school in the last decade.
True. And never in Texas.
FYI, the Texas House of Representatives passed a state law on May 31, 2003 requiring public high school students to cite the Pledge of Allegiance not only to the U.S. flag but to the Texas flag as well (which makes me wonder when they'll throw in a county and city Pledge of Allegiance to make it complete), followed by a moment of silence.
I'll admit to not understanding how this happened, other that thinking "It's Texas." I do notice that this is dated four years ago. Has this not been Challenged? It seems like a standard ACLU case. And they'd win.
but how may students want to be singled out as the atheist amidst a horde of Christians?
Things must have changed since I was a high school student (back in the Reagan years and in another state). Then, conformity to authority was not well regarded. Bad boys got laid, good boys didn't.
Originally Posted By: Nechochwen
Originally Posted By: atheist
Are you saying that recitation of the Pledge should be required because it teaches students that liberty is an illusion?
straw man
No, it was a question. It would be a straw man if I asserted that you had claimed the recitation of the Pledge should be required because it teaches students that liberty is an illusion and then proceeded to tear apart your presumed argument. Questions and arguments are two different things.
In this case, I really don't think it was a question. Or rather, it was a rhetorical question, one not intended to elicit information, but designed to highlight what you think is a flaw in the argument by
reductio ad absurdam. I.e., "Do you realize that your premise leads to the following consequence?" is technically a question (hence the question mark) but functionally a statement. What makes the "question" particularly egregious is that nowhere did I even begin to advocate the compulsory recitation of the pledge nor the concept that freedom is an illusion, so your question was doing some begging as well.
Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that however meaningless that micro-ceremony may seem, it is a violation of freedom of religion that makes a mockery of the concepts of freedom and patriotism. Sorry, but I don't like being forced (or having my children forced) by my government to swear an allegiance to something I/they don't believe in. I detest the hypocrisy of it, the insensitivity of it, and the irrationality of it.
etiquette also teaches people to be considerate of others' feelings... Hence, it would be bad etiquette, not good, to force other people to pray to your God or admit his existence, and even worse etiquette to pass a law to make them do it.
It's also bad etiquette to kick in someone's door in the middle of the night and to put them in prison for recreational drug use, but that's the government for you. I do have an honest question: At what point does the aversion to religion become more important that courtesy? Does it matter if it's in your own country, or will the extra burden of being a guest in another land make you more or less likely to swallow your beliefs? I'm thinking of the Japanese custom of saying
itadakemasu and
gochisousama deshita at meals. There's a strong element of religious thanks in the meaning, and they're universally used, even by non-believers, as a simple matter of courtesy. At a Catholic wedding, will you refuse to sit/stand/kneel with the congregation? Would you not even attend a church wedding? The graduation of a friends child from a religious school? Or is it all about government coersion? In that case, would you visit a
Sharia-governed country?
