Skip to main content

Change the Pledge of Allegiance

I am not much on symbolism, much less "pledges of allegiance" (oaths are a different story).

The fact that we formally have an allegiance pledge to a "flag" (much less any inanimate object) is absurd, a vestige of 'flag-waving' purism lingering from a more simplistic antiquity.

But if we're going to have it in this nation, repeated by millions - drone-like, I would propose the Pledge of Allegiance be changed to :


I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America

And to the Republic by which it stands

One nation indivisible in liberty and justice for all.



ADDENDUM : Commenter Miko got me thinking. Here is a possible alternative :

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America

And to the freedoms for which it stands

One Republic, indivisible in liberty and justice for all.

Comments

Anonymous said…
hey and it's shorter too :)
Miko said…
I'd shorten it even further: "Liberty and justice for all."

"One nation" is troublesome as it's an attack on the idea of multi-jurisdictionalism. "Indivisible" is an attack on the right of secession. Pledging allegiance to the Republic is a bad idea, since the Republic may not always live up to Constitutional principles and its important to know where your true loyalty lies. And pledging allegiance to the Constitution suffers the same problem as pledging to the flag: it's also an inanimate object. My version also has the benefit of no longer being a loyalty oath.

But I suppose we need gradualism in practice, so trimming it down one or two words at a time is a fair strategy. ;-)
Tyler Nixon said…
Good points, Miko, all of which I thought about believe it or not, especially about "to the Republic", without turning the phrase around, as in "to the Republic which stands for it"...

But we're talking pledges here and I figure it'd be wonderful just to include the Constitution at all, if leaving in some superfluous or dubious verbiage.

One mountain at a time is definitely the strategy here...
I like the second version better, I think.

The specificity of Republic is important....
Unknown said…
I like it Tyler. And Miko's suggestion is a good one.
Hifi said…
Even conservatives should be opposed to the Pledge on principle as contrary to the principles of a Federated Republic. When first introduced by the national socialist, Edward Bellamy, conservatives viewed the Pledge with great suspicion. Why? Because of the then foreign concept of pledging allegiance to “one nation”.

To Americans of the late 19th century, “allegiance” was a feudal concept denoting subservience to a master. Americans considered themselves sovereigns, not subjects. They feared that the natural supremacy of the individual over his government, as reflected by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the constitutions of the United States and of the several states, might eventually be overturned by the ideas expressed in the Pledge.

They, unlike so many Americans today, understood that those who exercise the instruments of government — public servants — feel more comfortable ruling than serving.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4794f563-c844-4835-85a7-d9a1c3737731

More on the Pledge at:
More at: http://members.cox.net/patriotismforall/
Anonymous said…
The Pledge was written by a socialist and it was the origin of the stiff-arm salute adopted later by the National Socialist German Workers Party. see the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
Tyler Nixon said…
Thanks for the comments. We have a flag, it is not going anywhere.

We have had, at least in the last century or so, this pledge and it is taught to and recited by children.

Much as I said I have no use for pledges or symbolism, the pledge exists and is still widely recited, and is not likely going away.

My goal is to see it (and a change to it) bring attention and homage to our constitution, our constitutional republic, and the freedoms they represent...rather than "God" and "flag".
David said…
I am sure that you are shocked that I disagree with you. I posted my reasons at DP.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...