The Pledge of Allegiance
Oct. 16th, 2014 12:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
averygoodun42So, some of you might know that I'm taking a public speaking class to, theoretically, overcome some of my social fears. (Not going very well. The fear has been ramping up.) We have to not only give six different types of speeches, but also critique each classmate's speech (one nice thing, one thing that could be improved).
This week's speeches have been of the persuasive sort, with most of the same old topics that everyone covers. I generally am pretty generous with my praise and pretty gentle with my critiques where speeches are concerned because, yeah, golden rule and such. They're mostly doing the best they can.
But there was an exception today.
This girl, I'll call her "Jane," had her entire argument based on "tradition." We Americans have been saying the pledge of allegiance for overtwo hundred years one hundred years (she had bad math, too! AAACK!), and been using the words "under God" for over 60, so we should continue to do so, no matter the (paltry [my take]) reasoning for inserting the words in the first place, nor how offensive a small minority of people find the phrase.
That was her entire argument.
When I asked, in the question period, what the point of saying the pledge of allegiance was, she kind of hemmed and hawed about supporting our troops and honoring our country.
I was not impressed.
(I also pointed out that Athiests are not the only people who might object to saying the pledge or the "Under God" bit, as the pledge is, in fact, idolizing the flag, which, I believe, is a big no-no in Judeo-Christian belief system, isn't it?)
Now, I know I am in the minority of Americans who find the very concept of a pledge of allegiance (especially to a frickin' flag) offensive, but I can respect a good argument. My argument against saying the pledge is that its purpose is to indoctrinate children into a false patriotism that can then be used to manipulate them into supporting all sorts of evils. It is a tool of totalitarianism, not democracy, because it encourages behavior without thought. And making young kids repeat words (oaths!) that they don't understand the meaning of (as evidenced by this young woman's "argument") is really quite low.
So in my critique I told her that "tradition" is a weak argument as it generally shows a lack of critical thought. I imagine she will not be pleased. Oh well. That's what college is for.
Harrumph.
Anyway. That's my daily rant. I'll probably have something else to rant about by the end of the day, but I just needed to get that out of my system.
This week's speeches have been of the persuasive sort, with most of the same old topics that everyone covers. I generally am pretty generous with my praise and pretty gentle with my critiques where speeches are concerned because, yeah, golden rule and such. They're mostly doing the best they can.
But there was an exception today.
This girl, I'll call her "Jane," had her entire argument based on "tradition." We Americans have been saying the pledge of allegiance for over
That was her entire argument.
When I asked, in the question period, what the point of saying the pledge of allegiance was, she kind of hemmed and hawed about supporting our troops and honoring our country.
I was not impressed.
(I also pointed out that Athiests are not the only people who might object to saying the pledge or the "Under God" bit, as the pledge is, in fact, idolizing the flag, which, I believe, is a big no-no in Judeo-Christian belief system, isn't it?)
Now, I know I am in the minority of Americans who find the very concept of a pledge of allegiance (especially to a frickin' flag) offensive, but I can respect a good argument. My argument against saying the pledge is that its purpose is to indoctrinate children into a false patriotism that can then be used to manipulate them into supporting all sorts of evils. It is a tool of totalitarianism, not democracy, because it encourages behavior without thought. And making young kids repeat words (oaths!) that they don't understand the meaning of (as evidenced by this young woman's "argument") is really quite low.
So in my critique I told her that "tradition" is a weak argument as it generally shows a lack of critical thought. I imagine she will not be pleased. Oh well. That's what college is for.
Harrumph.
Anyway. That's my daily rant. I'll probably have something else to rant about by the end of the day, but I just needed to get that out of my system.
