i'm increasingly none-to-fond of this either...

[acroyear]

Pharyngula: Oh, well, that's all right then.:

I don't say the pledge of allegiance; I actually find it rather offensive that I'm expected to give a loyalty oath to a political entity if I attend a school board meeting. So I was a little sympathetic to this story of a student was kicked out of school for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But then…the school administrators made a fast about face and decided to let her return to school. Why, you might wonder…but I think you can guess.

She simply said she was a devout Christian and could not make oaths to anyone but her god.

Zooom! Excused!

So this means an atheist student wouldn't have an excuse and could be compelled to recite an oath to a nation "under god"? Charming double standard there.

*sigh*

I'm increasingly of the opinion that patriotism is one of those that the less you declare your patriotism, the more likely you really are patriotic.

In this, it is much like piety and faith: the less you talk about your piety, the more pious you probably are.

All loyality oaths are garbage, a means for one side in power to feel in control over you for having you state the obvious, the same obvious that someone who actually had nefarious plans would state and be lying through their teeth.

Nobody ADMITS they want to overthrow the government before actually attempting to - it would totally defeat their purpose.

Why pledge to the "flag" or to the "republic"?  Why not pledge to the Constitution itself that defines the Republic, without the respect for which, it would just fall apart in a heartbeat?  If kids had to actually know the Constitution (and not just some 1 paragraph "pledge"), they'd know a lot more about the Republic other than its something associated with some flag and one of the two parties uses it in their name.

Update - the funniest comment on that page: How about replacing "under god" with "under Canada"?

Comments

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

Gee, guess I shouldn't apply to teach there because I don't recite the pledge either.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

over time, i've increasingly become aware of how much of my political philosophy is driven by the better characters in MASH (the series).

In particular, my stance on loyalty oaths comes from the biting satire that was the episode where Sidney (the psychiatrist) actually met paranoid nutcase Col. Flagg. Flagg was pissed that Sidney hadn't signed the oath but was of mixed feelings about it - he couldn't send Sidney home (that's what he wanted) but he had no other legal means to "punish" him.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

You can get out of it by declaring it to be something that isn't done in Judaism also, which is why my father always encouraged me to abstain.

I didn't use that excuse, since I never believed in any of that anyway. I refused because it's *creepy* and I wouldn't do it. (and I am sure it is much harder to refuse now than it was when we were kids.)

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

We (Quakers) don't swear oaths because it implies two types of truth - every day truth and truth under special circumstances. Since you're supposed to tell the truth all the time, you don't need "special" truth.

Now in a legal sense, oaths or affirmations are there so you can be prosecuted if you lie. In the military, it is so you can be prosecuted if you disobey orders or do not do you duty. While I'm not rah rah on the military, I do think that people who are expected to defend our country need to be held extra accountable for that and don't think that swearing a loyalty oath is extreme. It's not like a corporate job where you can basically leave whenever you want to, esp. in a right to work state.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

ah, but if you didn't do your (military) job, wouldn't that already be its own crime? if i commit treason by betraying other troops to the enemy, then isn't that enough of a crime that having the secondary offense of "oh, and he violated his loyalty oath, too" ABSOFRIGGIN' POINTLESS? :)

it's not like they'll use that lesser "crime" as a plea bargain to avoid conviction on the greater - you f' up and they'll just whump your ass.

that includes AWOL - you pledge to do your job and do what your superiors tell you unless you can't in clear conscience and you file that official complaint through proper channels and if its denied then do your job and that's that. you disappear, you're in violation of a contract, simple as that.

no "loyalty" needed, just a pledge to do the job you signed on to do and go where they tell you to go. your personal reasons for doing the job are irrelevant, whether some oath reflects them or not.

that's the point - there's nothing that a loyalty oath in the military gives as security that the person won't commit a crime against the military.

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

Actually, the military oath is not only to be loyal to the US but to defend the Constitution. So that supports your argument in your first post.

I think personal reasons are very relevant in the military. Again, if someone is defending my country and ultimately me, as a citizen of my country, I want him or her to be damn sure that they know WHO and WHAT they are defending. Otherwise your military is nothing more than a bunch of mercenaries who's loyalty is to the highest bidder. Granted, one can argue that someone can swear and oath and not understand it, but by the time you are done with basic training, that oath is hammered into your head. Getting yelled at because "you signed a contract" doesn't have the same weight. People can get out of contracts. They can't get out of oaths. It's as much psychological as it is legal.

Case in point, a former boss of mine spent time in Israel after he graduated HS and became a citizen. Since he was a male, he had to do his 2 years in the military. When he came back to the US, he got a master's degree in International policy with a concentration in the Middle East and spoke fluent Arabic as well as Hebrew. The CIA was very interested in recruiting him but stopped when they found out that he had been in the Israeli army. They said they will not take anyone that has sworn an oath to another nation, even though he was a born and bred, white-boy US citizen and is without a doubt, loyal to the US, no matter how badly they need Arabic speakers and Middle Eastern specialists. Oaths are that powerful.

Contracts end. Oaths do not.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

so what do you do when you declare an oath to defend the Constitution and the military gives you orders that violate that?

I'm aware of the psychological factor for some.

but again, there's this: Granted, one can argue that someone can swear and oath and not understand it, but by the time you are done with basic training, that oath is hammered into your head.

My point is that there are those who will swear that oath solely to get past that stage so they can violate it. Under those circumstances, a planned betrayal, the oath is pointless.

And if you don't intend to break it, then swearing it is pointless.

With your example: Oaths are that powerful.

No. Oaths are that stupid.

The power lies only in those who give them that power. The Oath means and is nothing, only the intent behind it (on *either* side) which the oath can not IN ANY WAY indicate.

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

My point is that there are those who will swear that oath solely to get past that stage so they can violate it. Under those circumstances, a planned betrayal, the oath is pointless.

So is signing a contract or saying, "Yeah, I'll shoot the bad guys." There will be some who will always try to get out of things no matter what oath, contract or agreement they sign. But military guys take oaths more seriously than anything else. Again, it's psychological and in some respects, spiritual. The military isn't about just shooting the bad guys. It's ultimately about dying for your country. Swearing an oath to defend the Constitution might not be psychological for YOU, but to the military, it is a HUGE deal, even after they have retired or gotten out of service. It's hammered into them every day. I work for the military on a military post and it is unavoidable.

And if it wasn't such a big deal, the CIA wouldn't care to whom you swore to nor would Quakers and other religious sects refuse to take them.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

the CIA takes a lot of crap more seriously than they should (how many gay translators do they employ?).

you basically repeated what I said otherwise - the oath is only as powerful as the intent of those who swear it. now you bring up the examples of those who put LOT of power and intent into it, and that's fine.

my point is that to everyone else that power is an illusion, and no guarantee of intent. the CIA and the military are deluding themselves when they think the Oath makes a difference to a soldier with no integrity.

a soldier's personal convictions are his or her own. the oath may be a reminder, a "symbol" perhaps, but if the soldier has no integrity, the oath doesn't change that.

I'm not saying Basic Training doesn't build integrity - hell, that's its job.

have we reached something of a convergence here? I gotta go eat. :)

[thatwasjen]

Surely you've read "The Children's Story" by James Clavell?