The Pledge of allegiance

[Bobby]

This has been a hot topic for a few. I personally have always had a problem with the pledge taking place within the schools. Especially with the words; 'under god.'
With the pledge of allegiance being a daily practice within our schools, why isn't it better that it be brought back to its original form that would allow it to be suitable for all walks of life?
Maybe the pledge should be removed all together. Maybe school rooms are not the place to pledge ones allegiance to their flag. Maybe this act should be done at the post office.
What do you think?
[/i]

[ST88]

Now while you question the legitimacy of monotheistic deities in nationalist codes, I must continue to ask; what of those who do not wish to bow before a cloth idol and declare their allegiance to an inanimate object, and the illusory power structure that it stands for?

Whether or not governance is a good idea at all, for me, is not a question, and I recognize that we disagree on this point. I think government is necessary, if only because humans are not inherently good and decent. For me, anarchy is an undesirable condition, and IMHO America is the best version of anti-anarchy that the world has come up with so far. (This is perhaps better discussed further as a different thread.)

[Crixus]

Whether or not governance is a good idea at all, for me, is not a question, and I recognize that we disagree on this point.

Yes, clearly we disagree; our disagreement however was largely my point. You find insulting that someone compels you and your children to pledge allegiance to something that you perhaps do not believe in, as do I. My question though is, why do you ask for the removal of "under God" in the name of your beliefs, yet neglect either the existence, or the beliefs, of those who take exception to the rest of the pledge? The only true solution is to abolish the pledge completely; or place your beliefs higher than mine, and fall to the same prejudice as those you now rail against.

[Corvus]

Crixius, I do not believe anyone should be made to recite a pledge or anthem. Oaths of any kind should be completely voluntary. But I do believe that a government can create a pledge that recognises its own status as a democratic republic, one nation, &c, even if its citizens' sympathies lie elsewhere.

We in Australia have no pledge, but on Australia day, we used what was called "An Affirmation for All Australians", which were some stanzas lifted from the pledge spoken by new citizens. So politically correct are we in Australia that, in the newspapers and websites in which it was printed, it would always come with the text that, "The Affirmation is a voluntary statement of commitment to the values that all Australians share."

I happen to like the pledge. It's simple, direct, and straying from this oath would probably result in your incarceration:

As an Australian citizen
I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people
Whose democratic beliefs I share
Whose rights and liberties I respect
And whose laws I uphold and obey

[ST88]

Whether or not governance is a good idea at all, for me, is not a question, and I recognize that we disagree on this point.

Yes, clearly we disagree; our disagreement however was largely my point. You find insulting that someone compels you and your children to pledge allegiance to something that you perhaps do not believe in, as do I. My question though is, why do you ask for the removal of "under God" in the name of your beliefs, yet neglect either the existence, or the beliefs, of those who take exception to the rest of the pledge? The only true solution is to abolish the pledge completely; or place your beliefs higher than mine, and fall to the same prejudice as those you now rail against.

My belief here is that you have fallen into a logical trap. A couple of them, actually. By pitting belief systems against one another, you have sought to make a 1:1 correspondence where none exists. I would submit that my stance on this subject cannot be categorized as a "belief system" because it is based on reason. I reason that the mention of a deity which requires irrational behavior for obeisance contained within an oathlette to a nation of which one is a citizen would tend to cause one to believe that the deity is a given. Is this a belief? I have not done the required empirical experiments to work it out, but I can reason out the result from other work done on the subject.

This is how advertising works -- associate your product with something that people already know and find acceptable in a specific way. I find citizenship acceptable, and I would argue that elementary school children do also. The association to God would almost be unconscious in this way. Unconscious, but present.

The advocacy for complete pledge removal in the context you provide is based on a logical fallacy. The very fact of public education is, by itself, an association to the state. The pledge is merely an appendage of this association. My contention here is that the pledge is a formal invocation of a part of what public education represents. This is not true with "under God."

If someone advocates the removal of the pledge from a government classroom based on the belief that the lack of government is better than the existence of it, I would have to question whether or not the intent was to protect children from unnecessary inculcation or was just a politically incremental compromise. Implicit in pledge removal is the acceptance of the institution for which the pledge is otherwise an impediment.

I comment on how the pledge is used within the system because I buy into the system. You comment on how the pledge is used within the system because you don't buy into the system. But if you don't buy into the system, how can you sincerely comment on how it is used? I don't mean to sound contentious, but I really don't see what purpose it serves for you to focus any attention on the pledge if your ultimate goal is removal of government.

[perfessor]

Corvus wrote:

"The Affirmation is a voluntary statement of commitment to the values that all Australians share."

I happen to like the pledge. It's simple, direct, and straying from this oath would probably result in your incarceration:

As an Australian citizen
I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people
Whose democratic beliefs I share
Whose rights and liberties I respect
And whose laws I uphold and obey

Wow - that sounds great. What are Australia's immigration policies like? If the theocracy currently in charge steals another election, I may be coming over! (half joking)

[Crixus]

Crixius, I do not believe anyone should be made to recite a pledge or anthem. Oaths of any kind should be completely voluntary. But I do believe that a government can create a pledge that recognises its own status as a democratic republic, one nation, &c, even if its citizens' sympathies lie elsewhere.

Because we disagree on the legitimacy of states in general, we will naturally arrive at a disagreement on the legitimacy of a state pledge as well. However, attempting to distance myself from an anti-state view point, I would also argue that while a state can create a pledge, it is somewhat irrational for a society that claims to be politically and socially pluralistic to create a narrow and exclusive oath for its citizens to pledge. We find no disagreement of course on whether or not the pledge should be compulsory.

The U.S. pledge of allegiance is something quite different from the Australian Affirmation when closely examined. In the U.S. pledge the first line is to pledge allegiance to a flag, so essentially whoever carries this banner I will therefore blindly follow. Secondarily I, by taking the pledge, would pledge myself to the republic, but not the citizens, so hail Caesar if he should happen to wave my flag. Thirdly I would reject any notion of rebellion or of any divide, no matter how legitimate, that might exist within the nation; remember the pledge was written after the civil war. And lastly I would profess that liberty and justice for all exists under this banner, which seems to me very Orwellian since it is well know that liberty and justice are two very expensive commodities in America that a poor man will most certainly never see.

The Australian Affirmation I do not find so objectionable, though it skirts the edges of what I find acceptable, if you look at the wording of it is very unimposing compared to the U.S. pledge. My only disagreement with your affirmation is the concept of state citizenship, which I see as excluding the concept of global citizenship, and of course the precondition it sets for upholding the laws, which one may or may not know or agree with.

My belief here is that you have fallen into a logical trap. A couple of them, actually. By pitting belief systems against one another, you have sought to make a 1:1 correspondence where none exists.

Well first I dispute that I set belief systems in opposition, this is not about atheism vs. anarchism, it is about your belief that part of the pledge is restrictive and unnecessary, and my belief that the whole pledge is restrictive and unnecessary. Whether or not they correspond perfectly has nothing to do with my statement that by only seeking the removal of part of the pledge, you are legitimizing the rest of the pledge and thereby dismissing the beliefs of those who take exception to its other portions, which actually include many groups not just anarchists.

I would submit that my stance on this subject cannot be categorized as a "belief system" because it is based on reason.

I don't understand your meaning here. Are you saying that beliefs systems lack reason? If so I disagree, most beliefs are borne of reasoned evidence or they would not be believed.

I reason that the mention of a deity which requires irrational behavior for obeisance contained within an oathlette to a nation of which one is a citizen would tend to cause one to believe that the deity is a given. Is this a belief? I have not done the required empirical experiments to work it out, but I can reason out the result from other work done on the subject.

If you hold it to be true it is a belief. Since you claim to have reasoned it I do not think it is too much to assume you believe it. Though I do believe that a deity is a given, I understand why one who doesn't might find objection in pledging allegiance to a state under a deity. It is for the same reason that I object to the rest of the pledge, I do not feel that justice, liberty, or unity are a given under this "republic" nor do I feel that they can exist under it, therefore I must object to the state compelling its subjects to profess such.

This is how advertising works -- associate your product with something that people already know and find acceptable in a specific way. I find citizenship acceptable, and I would argue that elementary school children do also. The association to God would almost be unconscious in this way. Unconscious, but present.

I agree, just as it suggests the association of liberty and justice with a state that possesses neither, at least in any reasonable quantity. However I would argue that elementary school children are not exposed to any debate on the matter of whether citizenship is acceptable, and therefore cannot be expected to arrive at an educated conclusion on the subject. But clearly Jehovah's witnesses do not agree, and since their children do not recite the pledge, having been told it is a bad thing, then it should not be to difficult to conclude that the only reason these children recite the pledge is that they are told, or influenced to believe, that it is good; not because they naturally believe in citizenship or states. Obviously were children told it was bad, they would, without any input to refute the claim, despise citizenship. It is without question manipulative, and unconscionable to have children pledge to something they clearly have not, in an educated fashion, opted to of their own volition.

The advocacy for complete pledge removal in the context you provide is based on a logical fallacy.

How so?

The very fact of public education is, by itself, an association to the state. The pledge is merely an appendage of this association. My contention here is that the pledge is a formal invocation of a part of what public education represents. This is not true with "under God."

Actually I believe that this is a logical fallacy known as a post hoc; that is, because public education exists and because the public invests power in the state you conclude public educations comes from the state. Not so however, minus the state public education comes from the only true source of power, the public. As an anarchist I necessarily believe strongly in public education, however I consider state education much closer to private education and the pledge to be an obfuscated subscription, and profession of submission to that institution, and its doctrine however flawed.

If someone advocates the removal of the pledge from a government classroom based on the belief that the lack of government is better than the existence of it, I would have to question whether or not the intent was to protect children from unnecessary inculcation or was just a politically incremental compromise. Implicit in pledge removal is the acceptance of the institution for which the pledge is otherwise an impediment.

My reasons for seeking the removal of the pledge do not begin with my being anti-state, though clearly they are reinforced by it, they begin with my despising all forms of totalitarian propaganda, which I view the pledge, as it is written and applied, as being. If you want your children to recite the pledge then that is your prerogative and I would not seek to impede that, but that you would want my children or my neighbors children to do so, or even to daily sit and listen to such dogma I find objectionable.

I comment on how the pledge is used within the system because I buy into the system. You comment on how the pledge is used within the system because you don't buy into the system.

No, I comment on the pledge because I believe that the attempt to indoctrinate children into a culture of pseudo-freedom, and faux-liberty is abhorrent in every sense.

But if you don't buy into the system, how can you sincerely comment on how it is used? I don't mean to sound contentious, but I really don't see what purpose it serves for you to focus any attention on the pledge if your ultimate goal is removal of government.

My ultimate goal is freedom of the masses, and I see the pledge and all other forms of misleading propaganda as being an impediment to that goal. It is for the same reason that I oppose advertisement to children, or Hitler youth, or any other coercive method used for the prorogation of a flawed, or inherently destructive institution, through the manipulation of children. The pledge is merely a cog in the immense machinery of indoctrination that the state uses to control its subjects; if one cog can be removed then that is one step, no matter how small, closer to liberation.

[ST88]

I think we were able to outline our disagreements nicely, but I'd like to resond to a couple of your arguments.

By pitting belief systems against one another, you have sought to make a 1:1 correspondence where none exists.

Well first I dispute that I set belief systems in opposition, this is not about atheism vs. anarchism, it is about your belief that part of the pledge is restrictive and unnecessary, and my belief that the whole pledge is restrictive and unnecessary. Whether or not they correspond perfectly has nothing to do with my statement that by only seeking the removal of part of the pledge, you are legitimizing the rest of the pledge and thereby dismissing the beliefs of those who take exception to its other portions, which actually include many groups not just anarchists.

Point taken. I would argue that my ideas here work within the context of what a nation necessarily is. Libertarians, for example, might disagree with me about what a nation should provide or not provide for its citizens. But anarchists would disagree with the very notion of nationhood. It is by this that I say I have more of a legitimate claim on how the pledge is used. I am trying to say that without irony, more on this below.

I would submit that my stance on this subject cannot be categorized as a "belief system" because it is based on reason.

I don't understand your meaning here. Are you saying that beliefs systems lack reason? If so I disagree, most beliefs are borne of reasoned evidence or they would not be believed.

What I am saying is that anarchy is necessarily based on a specific belief system. It is oriented towards just one goal, the removal of the state. Behind this is the belief, if you like, that it is better not to have a state than to have one. The reason I say that I do not have a 1:1 system of beliefs to yours is that I do not have a similar goal that is in opposition to yours, in the academic sense. That is, I do not advocate the institution of a state where none exists. The fact that it is impossible to hold this "belief" because the state already exists causes my argument to rise above the level of belief (or does not rise to the level of belief, if you disagree with that imagery) that would equate it with yours.

Your argument was that I should regard the anarchists' arguments as on equal footing with the atheist (in this case, agnostic) arguments. Sir/Ma'am, I can't do this. The arguments do not come from equal positions. Maybe the word belief and its shaded and shady meanings are the root of this problem.

The very fact of public education is, by itself, an association to the state. The pledge is merely an appendage of this association. My contention here is that the pledge is a formal invocation of a part of what public education represents. This is not true with "under God."

Actually I believe that this is a logical fallacy known as a post hoc; that is, because public education exists and because the public invests power in the state you conclude public educations comes from the state. Not so however, minus the state public education comes from the only true source of power, the public. As an anarchist I necessarily believe strongly in public education, however I consider state education much closer to private education and the pledge to be an obfuscated subscription, and profession of submission to that institution, and its doctrine however flawed.

Hold on a second. This is not a post hoc situation. I can prove that the state is directly involved in funding, curriculum, hiring decisions, teacher education, construction and maintenance, textbook approval, etc. for public schools. You cannot remove the state without removing public education. If you do, you will have to build it up again somehow based on a different model. We may have two different definitions of "public school" here, but because the pledge is only an issue in state-funded public schools, I submit that this is the only area open for public debate.

If someone advocates the removal of the pledge from a government classroom based on the belief that the lack of government is better than the existence of it, I would have to question whether or not the intent was to protect children from unnecessary inculcation or was just a politically incremental compromise. Implicit in pledge removal is the acceptance of the institution for which the pledge is otherwise an impediment.

My reasons for seeking the removal of the pledge do not begin with my being anti-state, though clearly they are reinforced by it, they begin with my despising all forms of totalitarian propaganda, which I view the pledge, as it is written and applied, as being. If you want your children to recite the pledge then that is your prerogative and I would not seek to impede that, but that you would want my children or my neighbors children to do so, or even to daily sit and listen to such dogma I find objectionable.

This may be the crux of our disagreement. If you believe that the U.S. is a totalitarian regime, and that the pledge is a totalitarian anthem, then I can see your point of view. However, I think you are engaging in relativism. The U.S. is not a totalitarian regime, nor is the pledge totalitarian propaganda, by definition. But you say it is for you.

Definitions of and comments on Totalitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/cou ... lrule.html
http://www.fact-index.com/t/to/totalitarianism.html

Outside of any other arguments I could make, a pledge, oath, national statement, etc. that includes "liberty and justice for all" does not meet this definition. There is no reason for a citizen of a nation to be threatened by an oath that promises "liberty" from it. Unless, of course, you view it as Orwellian irony from the start. I can't help you there. "Belief" in such things is more powerful than reason and will stay stuck in your hair no matter how many logical combs you try to run through it. In this case, I can dismiss the argument from the get-go because we are not starting from the same rational bases.

But if you don't buy into the system, how can you sincerely comment on how it is used? I don't mean to sound contentious, but I really don't see what purpose it serves for you to focus any attention on the pledge if your ultimate goal is removal of government.

My ultimate goal is freedom of the masses, and I see the pledge and all other forms of misleading propaganda as being an impediment to that goal. It is for the same reason that I oppose advertisement to children, or Hitler youth, or any other coercive method used for the prorogation of a flawed, or inherently destructive institution, through the manipulation of children. The pledge is merely a cog in the immense machinery of indoctrination that the state uses to control its subjects; if one cog can be removed then that is one step, no matter how small, closer to liberation.

I believe you're making my point for me, here. I am an incrementalist when it comes to changing government, so I'm with you there. But your arguments are based on a proposition that is non-incrementalist. Your "no matter how small" argument is necessarily flawed because the rationale behind it renders all "small" victories meaningless. And just so we're clear, the argument fails not because it is presented by an anarchist, but because the anarchist uses anarchy to make it. By eliminating the pledge, you are painting yourself into a corner, because, as I stated before, implicit in its elimination is the belief that it is an impediment to the education offered by the state.

And to stay on topic, the pledge is not manipulative unless the words "under God" are used. Maybe we're having a disagreement about the word "allegiance" also?

[Crixus]

Point taken. I would argue that my ideas here work within the context of what a nation necessarily is. Libertarians, for example, might disagree with me about what a nation should provide or not provide for its citizens. But anarchists would disagree with the very notion of nationhood. It is by this that I say I have more of a legitimate claim on how the pledge is used.

I disagree. As I am bound to live under the same threat from the state, so should my opinions bear the same weight as those who prefer its existence. We are both in chains, simply because you enjoy the experience should not grant you more say on how they are situated.

What I am saying is that anarchy is necessarily based on a specific belief system. It is oriented towards just one goal, the removal of the state.

Just to be explicit, the singular goal of anarchism is equality; however the abolition of the state and property happen to be necessary in the realization of that goal.

Behind this is the belief, if you like, that it is better not to have a state than to have one. The reason I say that I do not have a 1:1 system of beliefs to yours is that I do not have a similar goal that is in opposition to yours, in the academic sense. That is, I do not advocate the institution of a state where none exists.

You do not hold the perfect antithesis of my beliefs, however the preservation of the state is an opposing belief to mine. Just as an abolitionist holds views in opposition to proponents of slavery.

The fact that it is impossible to hold this "belief" because the state already exists causes my argument to rise above the level of belief (or does not rise to the level of belief, if you disagree with that imagery) that would equate it with yours.

If I understand what you're saying, then I do not see how the existence of the state elevates your argument beyond the level of belief. However, I would submit that because the state has not existed as well, and in fact anarchism has been successfully put to practice in "Republican" Spain during the civil war 1936-39, until Franco's fascists claimed victory, then my argument should be put on equal footing with those in defense of the state.

Your argument was that I should regard the anarchists' arguments as on equal footing with the atheist (in this case, agnostic) arguments. Sir/Ma'am, I can't do this. The arguments do not come from equal positions. Maybe the word belief and its shaded and shady meanings are the root of this problem.

Actually my argument is that you must regard my argument equal to yours, whether anarchist or atheist is moot. I do not believe in states, and you do not believe in deities. So if you cannot regard my opinion as equal to yours because I do not believe in states, then why should a theist give any credence to your argument as it comes from an atheist?

Hold on a second. This is not a post hoc situation. I can prove that the state is directly involved in funding, curriculum, hiring decisions, teacher education, construction and maintenance, textbook approval, etc. for public schools. You cannot remove the state without removing public education. If you do, you will have to build it up again somehow based on a different model. We may have two different definitions of "public school" here, but because the pledge is only an issue in state-funded public schools, I submit that this is the only area open for public debate.

You in fact can remove the state and retain public education. I doubt we need to define public schools, however it may very well be that our definitions of state differ.

"State-funded" public schools are simply public-funded schools, whereby the state appropriates the funds that it has taken from the public, to the schools. As such, the existence of the pledge in public schools, which are funded by everyone who toils under the state, is of equal concern to the whole of the public, politics and religion having no bearing on the credibility of their arguments.

This may be the crux of our disagreement. If you believe that the U.S. is a totalitarian regime, and that the pledge is a totalitarian anthem, then I can see your point of view. However, I think you are engaging in relativism. The U.S. is not a totalitarian regime, nor is the pledge totalitarian propaganda, by definition. But you say it is for you.

The pledge is a totalitarian device, whether used by a totalitarian institution or not. A housewife may use a car-jack and not necessarily become a mechanic, however the ends desired by the implementation of the tool are very likely the same for both the housewife and the mechanic.

Outside of any other arguments I could make, a pledge, oath, national statement, etc. that includes "liberty and justice for all" does not meet this definition. There is no reason for a citizen of a nation to be threatened by an oath that promises "liberty" from it. Unless, of course, you view it as Orwellian irony from the start. I can't help you there. "Belief" in such things is more powerful than reason and will stay stuck in your hair no matter how many logical combs you try to run through it. In this case, I can dismiss the argument from the get-go because we are not starting from the same rational bases.

As I have already stated the association of "liberty and justice for all" with an institution that possesses little of either, seems to me a dangerous and devious masquerade. You may disagree with my assertion that neither justice nor liberty exist under the watch of these United States, however if you dismiss it without first disproving my assertion, then you do so only that you might continue to cling to a weak, and likely false, premise. Now I must state that I am not the only one to profess such a belief, and that many of those who have are certainly not fools. For my part, since I see often the imprisonment, and harassment of my comrades for political beliefs not inline with the one party system controlling America, I do not need to argue this. If liberty and justice truly existed in this nation then institutions such as the Anarchist Black Cross, a prison support organization, would have very little need to operate herein.

I believe you're making my point for me, here. I am an incrementalist when it comes to changing government, so I'm with you there. But your arguments are based on a proposition that is non-incrementalist. Your "no matter how small" argument is necessarily flawed because the rationale behind it renders all "small" victories meaningless.

My intentions with that statement were that even small victories are important.

And just so we're clear, the argument fails not because it is presented by an anarchist, but because the anarchist uses anarchy to make it. By eliminating the pledge, you are painting yourself into a corner, because, as I stated before, implicit in its elimination is the belief that it is an impediment to the education offered by the state.

Yet I am not using anarchism to make my argument, were I my argument would be based on the premise that, because the state is illegitimate then so are all extensions of it. However my arguments are inclusive of those who believe in the state, and simply do not like the idea of children, who are too uneducated to have developed their own mind on the subject, being compelled to pledge allegiance, or sit and watch others do so, every weekday morning for 13 years.

And to stay on topic, the pledge is not manipulative unless the words "under God" are used. Maybe we're having a disagreement about the word "allegiance" also?

If not to manipulate, or influence, then what is the point of the pledge? Clearly these children haven't made an educated and clearly thought out decision to pledge themselves to this object. So what purpose does the pledge serve? I believe the whole point of the pledge is manipulation and I am amazed that you have somehow missed that. Even in a church one must complete a confirmation process, which includes education and introspection, before one does pledge them self to God. Yet you expect the children of this nation to pledge themselves to a flag, and its false promises, before their education even begins? How can this not be deemed manipulative?

[ST88]

Behind this is the belief, if you like, that it is better not to have a state than to have one. The reason I say that I do not have a 1:1 system of beliefs to yours is that I do not have a similar goal that is in opposition to yours, in the academic sense. That is, I do not advocate the institution of a state where none exists.

You do not hold the perfect antithesis of my beliefs, however the preservation of the state is an opposing belief to mine. Just as an abolitionist holds views in opposition to proponents of slavery.

A clever analogy, but it doesn't hold up. Slavery is based on the idea that it is acceptable for a private individual to "own" other private individuals. This is an absolute -- it is either allowed or it isn't. I could argue that any abolitionist attempts to make a slave's life better under slavery are meaningless when held up to the standard of abolitionism. But this is not to say that it isn't a good idea to try and relax fugitive slave laws or to make it easier for slaves to be set free. Where the analogy fails is in the basic assumptions about where slavery comes from. My views stem from the state itself and how it might better operate. Your views stem from the legitimacy of the state and how it might be better de-ligitimized. Again, regardless of your overall belief system (anarchist, libertarian, republican, freedom-fighter), if you argue that the pledge should be removed because it does not tend to de-legitimize the state, you are not arguing from the same type of rational basis as I am.

Now, I hear you arguing that you believe this is exactly what I purport to be doing by being an agnostic arguing against where God should be mentioned. But, again, the basic assumptions are different. I do not argue that religion is an evil that must be quashed at every turn. What I argue is that God should not be mentioned in any state-sponsored way because religous belief should not be a test of citizenship. I do not believe that citizenship itself should not be a test of citizenship.

A better analogy for your position might be someone who believes fishing is immoral trying to make the sale of 8-gauge fishing line illegal.

Hold on a second. This is not a post hoc situation. I can prove that the state is directly involved in funding, curriculum, hiring decisions, teacher education, construction and maintenance, textbook approval, etc. for public schools. You cannot remove the state without removing public education. If you do, you will have to build it up again somehow based on a different model. We may have two different definitions of "public school" here, but because the pledge is only an issue in state-funded public schools, I submit that this is the only area open for public debate.

You in fact can remove the state and retain public education. I doubt we need to define public schools, however it may very well be that our definitions of state differ.

"State-funded" public schools are simply public-funded schools, whereby the state appropriates the funds that it has taken from the public, to the schools. As such, the existence of the pledge in public schools, which are funded by everyone who toils under the state, is of equal concern to the whole of the public, politics and religion having no bearing on the credibility of their arguments.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Public schools are entirely state-driven and state-owned. Funds, purpose, implementation, etc. are all done on a state level. Teachers are state employees. "The schools" is not even a separate entity. As it exists now, you cannot remove the state without removing public education. In fact, without the state there is no public education, all schools would be, by definition, private.

This may be the crux of our disagreement. If you believe that the U.S. is a totalitarian regime, and that the pledge is a totalitarian anthem, then I can see your point of view. However, I think you are engaging in relativism. The U.S. is not a totalitarian regime, nor is the pledge totalitarian propaganda, by definition. But you say it is for you.

The pledge is a totalitarian device, whether used by a totalitarian institution or not. A housewife may use a car-jack and not necessarily become a mechanic, however the ends desired by the implementation of the tool are very likely the same for both the housewife and the mechanic.

Another clever analogy, but not quite accurate. The totalitarian device must be something that tends to make whatever it is working on more totalitarian. A better metaphor might be a bucket of totalitarian paint. An amateur working on a canvas might dot or brush it here and there, and mix it with other types of dogma. The true totalitarian would wash entire buildings with it, cities even.

But because we have a total disagreement on whether or not the pledge is totalitarian, we are at an impasse. The discussion of whether or not the state is legitimate is beyond this topic.

If liberty and justice truly existed in this nation then institutions such as the Anarchist Black Cross, a prison support organization, would have very little need to operate herein.

You cannot condemn an entire system for the corruption of some of its members.

And just so we're clear, the argument fails not because it is presented by an anarchist, but because the anarchist uses anarchy to make it. By eliminating the pledge, you are painting yourself into a corner, because, as I stated before, implicit in its elimination is the belief that it is an impediment to the education offered by the state.

Yet I am not using anarchism to make my argument, were I my argument would be based on the premise that, because the state is illegitimate then so are all extensions of it. However my arguments are inclusive of those who believe in the state, and simply do not like the idea of children, who are too uneducated to have developed their own mind on the subject, being compelled to pledge allegiance, or sit and watch others do so, every weekday morning for 13 years.

You say you aren't, and then you do. The main argument is that the state, the idea behind the state, and the means of state sponsorship are all necessarily corrupt. I am really trying to understand your point of view here. If your argument is not based on the legitimacy of the state, then what is it based on? Is your argument "Why should I have my children pledge allegiance to the state when I disagree with the things it does?" If so, our system of government allows for its citizens to CHANGE the things it does.

"...to have developed their own mind on the subject" means what exactly? To have made up their minds about what is totalitarian and what isn't? If this is your argument, then you are using anarchy as a basis. What is the "subject" in this phrase? Is it the necessity of allegiance to a nation of which one is a citizen? In my view, for a citizen to have allegiance to his/her nation is a given. Please clarify so I may disagree with you appropriately.

And to stay on topic, the pledge is not manipulative unless the words "under God" are used. Maybe we're having a disagreement about the word "allegiance" also?

If not to manipulate, or influence, then what is the point of the pledge?

I stand by my assertion that the pledge is not manipulative, though "influence" is not an objectionable term for me. It cannot be disputed that we all live within the purvue of the state. I argue that the pledge is not a manipulation but an introduction to: the state, what it means to be a member of the state, and what is required of us as members of the state. Though it doesn't spell out all of these things, it helps to prepare us for it.

Again, if you disagree with the idea of the state, then we are at an impasse.

[Crixus]

A clever analogy, but it doesn't hold up. Slavery is based on the idea that it is acceptable for a private individual to "own" other private individuals. This is an absolute -- it is either allowed or it isn't. I could argue that any abolitionist attempts to make a slave's life better under slavery are meaningless when held up to the standard of abolitionism. But this is not to say that it isn't a good idea to try and relax fugitive slave laws or to make it easier for slaves to be set free. Where the analogy fails is in the basic assumptions about where slavery comes from.

I see no faults in the analogy, slavery is derived from mans will to exploit and control other men. We could even say that slavery and the state are fraternal twins, since their births in time immemorial seem inseparable.

My views stem from the state itself and how it might better operate. Your views stem from the legitimacy of the state and how it might be better de-ligitimized. Again, regardless of your overall belief system (anarchist, libertarian, republican, freedom-fighter), if you argue that the pledge should be removed because it does not tend to de-legitimize the state, you are not arguing from the same type of rational basis as I am.

Perhaps I have failed to clarify this, however it is necessary that it be clarified. My views do not "stem from the legitimacy of the state", nor from my being an anarchist. I hold views on the legitimacy of states, and have arrived at being an anarchist because of where my views have led me. It is important that it be understood that anarchism is not the author of my views, but that my life and experiences are the authors of my views; that they happen to concur with the anarchist outlook is merely a convenient eventuality. Perhaps for you it began the other way, that is to say you first decided to be part of a certain group and thereafter took up their beliefs, this is not so for me however.

Because it seems to be a reoccurring theme in your posts, I must as well make clear that the origins of my feeling on the pledge do not come from my being an anarchist, the recognition of oneself as holding to anarchism is a destination, not an origin. My opinion of such nefarious mechanisms as the pledge originates from my despise of propaganda being used to infix nationalism into a populous. My disgust for abusive, and manipulative tactics by states that extol their own "liberty and justice" originates from my own desire for those very qualities, and the recognition that lies, and false claims to a just, and liberated society are impediments to obtaining those ends.

As to my argument's orientation to the legitimating of the state, I must reiterate that I am not making this argument as an anarchist; I am making it as one who finds attempts to indoctrinate the public as contemptuous, and unnecessary in a truly free society. If justice and liberty truly existed in these United States, then they would be self evident, and not require the proclamation of their existence by school children in order to secure their belief in them.

Now, I hear you arguing that you believe this is exactly what I purport to be doing by being an agnostic arguing against where God should be mentioned. But, again, the basic assumptions are different. I do not argue that religion is an evil that must be quashed at every turn. What I argue is that God should not be mentioned in any state-sponsored way because religous belief should not be a test of citizenship. I do not believe that citizenship itself should not be a test of citizenship.

Actually I'm not arguing that, because I recognize that regardless of where your argument originates from, there are legitimate reasons to remove any attempt to force dogma on children. I am however tired of debating whether or not I am allowed to hold a legitimate opinion on this subject due to my being an anarchist. As I am human, and live under this state, so my opinion is as valid as yours; should you wish to disagree with it then you must address the tenets of my argument, not my overall political bent. If you chose to dismiss my argument simply on the basis of my being an anarchist, then you do so out of unabashed prejudice, and not by any logical discrediting.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Public schools are entirely state-driven and state-owned. Funds, purpose, implementation, etc. are all done on a state level. Teachers are state employees. "The schools" is not even a separate entity. As it exists now, you cannot remove the state without removing public education. In fact, without the state there is no public education, all schools would be, by definition, private.

There is no misunderstanding; I understand how public schools in the U.S. work. However since the state is essentially a non-entity without the public, that is the state honestly doesn't exist it is simply a means of organizing the public, then the schools are not "state-funded" because the state has no resources that are not acquired from the public. Now, simply because in this nation the states are charged with organizing the schools does not, as you claim, mean that "you cannot remove the state without removing public education". As I said earlier public schools can exist in absence of the state, they in fact have, in Spain public schools were funded by the public, organized by voluntary associations, all minus state interference, and under an anarchist premise. Therefore your statement follows the false presumption that the state must exist to organize the public to fund schools. Since it is not true that the state is necessary to create public schools, and since the state itself has no resources to do so without the public, then the public is the true force behind the organization of public schools and I retain my original argument that the whole of the public, regardless of politics, has equal say in how they operate.

Another clever analogy, but not quite accurate. The totalitarian device must be something that tends to make whatever it is working on more totalitarian. A better metaphor might be a bucket of totalitarian paint. An amateur working on a canvas might dot or brush it here and there, and mix it with other types of dogma. The true totalitarian would wash entire buildings with it, cities even.

Well, I think my analogy demonstrated adequately what I intended it to. That is, that while we may not be totalitarian, yet, the implementation of the pledge aims to bring us closer to a totalitarian society. Whether the aims have thus far proved themselves is debatable, however the motive is difficult to see as benevolent.

You cannot condemn an entire system for the corruption of some of its members.

I cannot? Why can I not condemn a system that seems to allow miscreants to be in constant control of it? Perhaps in a society bereft of bad people our system would work fine, but then in that society dictatorship would be just as lovely, however in this society we have many maladjusted people and they are the ones who tend to gain strength in our system. Therefore I will condemn this system; it is corrupt now, as it has been from the start, and its sense of justice and liberty is perverse. I feel your assertion is a delusion for apologists of failed or debauched systems, and I reject any argument that could be, or has been, used in defense of Communist China, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge or any other despotic and murderous regime.

You say you aren't, and then you do. The main argument is that the state, the idea behind the state, and the means of state sponsorship are all necessarily corrupt. I am really trying to understand your point of view here. If your argument is not based on the legitimacy of the state, then what is it based on? Is your argument "Why should I have my children pledge allegiance to the state when I disagree with the things it does?" If so, our system of government allows for its citizens to CHANGE the things it does.

To clarify, I do not, and I don't see anywhere in that paragraph where I did, base my argument on the legitimacy of the state.

My argument is that, a state that is not corrupt does not need for its youth to recite a praise of the liberty and justice, and the value of unity within. So, under the assumption that the reasons are not corrupt, what purpose does the pledge serve?

"...to have developed their own mind on the subject" means what exactly? To have made up their minds about what is totalitarian and what isn't? If this is your argument, then you are using anarchy as a basis. What is the "subject" in this phrase? Is it the necessity of allegiance to a nation of which one is a citizen? In my view, for a citizen to have allegiance to his/her nation is a given. Please clarify so I may disagree with you appropriately.

The subject to which I was referring is the pledge itself, what it means, and implies to those who take it. Since the children are on average 5 years old when they begin taking it, and they begin before they've even had their first day of kindergarten, we can assume that very few, if any, have made an educated decision to pledge themselves to a flag and any "republic" that waves it.

I stand by my assertion that the pledge is not manipulative, though "influence" is not an objectionable term for me.

As well I am sure manipulative would not be objectionable to you if I were referring to a potter and his relationship to clay. However in this context I am speaking of the influence over citizens that the pledge is meant to have, and if you do not find that objectionable then why do you care if "under God" is removed or not?

It cannot be disputed that we all live within the purvue of the state. I argue that the pledge is not a manipulation but an introduction to: the state, what it means to be a member of the state, and what is required of us as members of the state. Though it doesn't spell out all of these things, it helps to prepare us for it.

I don't know what sort of introduction you prefer to concepts, but I believe in education over slogans. Children go to school to be educated by facts and truths, never mind that they hardly receive that, not to be loaded full of nationalist mottos encouraging preconceptions about the state they live under.