Talk:Pledge of Allegiance criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removed text

I nuked the following paragraphs for POV:

Another objection to the Pledge of Allegiance - which everyone seems to have overlooked, arises out of the idea that to "pledge allegiance" is arguably the same thing as taking or giving an oath of allegiance - something that would be or is politically incorrect in America, that is, when one considers the following quotes from the syllabus of a certain supreme court case circa 1795 - a time when those in the position of dealing with legal matters were still highly familliar with the old world concept of allegiance or oaths of allegiance (and the relation of such to America after 1776):
"Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and neccesity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude."

If there's anything in there worth salvaging, someone else can find it. SFT | Talk 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The Case in Question is Talbot v. Janson, further quoting:
"The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140. "
"Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance. The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry. Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance. When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms. But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it. Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. "
"Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. "
"Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man. "
"In Russia, the volunteers who supply the fleet with officers, or literary institutions with professors, are naturalized. In Poland, an American citizen has been made Chancellor to the Crown. In France, Mr. Colbert, who was Minister of Marine, and Mr. Necker, who was Minister of Finances, were adopted, not native, subjects. In England, two years service in the navy, ipso facto, endows an alien with all the rights of a native. "
"These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for, though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign."
thus allegiance is incompatible with the rights of a Citizen and to put it bluntly, the Pledge of Allegiance is un-American.

[edit] Blatant POV fork

Merge this pronto. theProject 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this merger, but all of the material on this article should be moved into the other article, and this page should be converted to a redirect. --Kalmia 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
America is POV for forcing the nation to pray to the Christian "God". Honestly, I cannot stand this nation and its double standard BS. The pledge of allegiance DESERVES to have an article about what bullshit it is.J'onn J'onzz 01:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No merge: there is more material available about the criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance than there is about the pledge itself. It would be intolerable for the Pledge of Allegiance article to have more about what's bad about the pledge than about the pledge itself. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "indivisible" clause

* The "indivisible" clause and the propriety of permanent allegiance to the republic are disputed, by those who hold secession legitimate; arguing that the American Union has as much right to break itself up as the Soviet Union did. This does not appear to have been the original intent of the people who adopted the Constitution: Although both New York and Virginia affirmed the right of revolution, by which they had attained independence, the Virginia ratifying convention determined, and its secretary James Madison informed New York, that "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other states". According to the convention, reserving the right to withdraw would be "worse than a rejection".[2] On the other hand, the right of association (freedom of association) logically infers the right to not associate with others; this fact places the political intentions of an everlasting, inescapable obligation imposed on one's descendents in a questionable moral position.

Specifically:

"This does not appear to have been the original intent of the people who adopted the Constitution"

This is disputed. Hamilton would likely support the idea that this was the original intent, but most would not, and secession was largely seen as legitimate up until the 1860s. See Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the Hartford Convention. Those aren't the only examples. --Kalmia 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indivisable

The United States is comprised of separate states, each state is a nation. the U.S. is not one nation, indivisable. The Union has effect only with regards to the outside world. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under God

The U.S. is under its citizens (we are not subjects) rather than under God. Calling the US one nation under God, pushes the citizens from their rightful place, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, not given privileges by their government. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oath of Fealty

Allegiance is the same as fealty, not the same as alliance. Fealty is a subservience to another, and the Union is the servant of the people not vice versa. Free people do not pledge their servitude. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christians and the Pledge

Christians (in the sense of followers of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth) do not make oaths, or swear. The Bible says "make no oaths" and "swear not at all". A pledge is an oath.67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Is there a specific reason why most of the "Objections on the grounds of religion" paragraph is struck out now? I'm going to assume vandalism and revert it. I'm curious as to why they left the bit about Jehovah's Witnesses, though... Hopelessshade 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The only country?

I've removed the sentence "Currently, the United States is the only nation in which the majority of school children take a pledge of allegiance daily." At least in Singapore it is a daily thing every morning after flag-raising and national anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if many other similarly-run countries did the same in their state schools. JREL (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not sourced. I dispute the factuality of the assertion that the majority of school children make the pledge daily. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)