@ebrown p,
Quote:Do conservatives understand irony?
I guess you are implying that reciting the pledge is a result of inculcation by parents or other adult influences.
Probably so, but since I have not voiced support for mandating the pledge, I fail to see the irony in my questions of edgar. Perhaps you can provide a clue.
Did he not state that he
never said the pledge as a
child?
It didn't occur to me (nor do I know why it should have) that it was understood that he actually meant "as a child old enough to form an independent opinion on the existence of God and the virtue of loyalty oaths."
Certainly his response that he never attended kindegarten doesn't add any clarity.
There are a fair number of posters on this thread who seem to be falling over one another to testify how they refused to say the pledge when they were in school. I really have no problem with a child opting out of the pledge, but I detect (perhaps erroneously) a certain assumption, by these folks, that any child capable of free thought would necessarily opt out.
If edgar, indeed, never recited the pledge as a child, I suspect it was due (at least initially) more to his parents' thoughts than his own, but if I am wrong then it certainly follows that some of the children who did recite the pledge came to the decision based on their own independent thought.
If there is anything wrong with the pledge it is that it is mandated. If one feels there is something inherently wrong with pledging allegiance to one's nation, why should we insist that they partake in a sham? By the same token, if one believes it is a proper thing to do, what harm is there in joining in the recitation?
Please spare me the peer pressure argument. Those days are long gone. If a group of thugs beat up a kid who opts out, the chances are excellent that they would have found another moronic reason to do so.
The whole issue of loyalty oaths is inflated by both sides of the argument, with the sole exception of cases where someone is affirmitively punished for not agreeing to take the oath.
A true subversive isn't going to be found out by his or her refusing to take a loyalty oath. Somehow I can't see an enemy spy, when asked to recite or sign an oath thinking,
Quote:"Damn I would have been able to carry out my plans for espionage and subversion if only they hadn't demanded I take this #*%! oath. Now I have to admit I'm a spy!"
I do think though that there are certain sensitive jobs relating to national security for which taking a loyalty oath could be a condition of employment.
(Need to leave out references to God of course).
Of course the oath will not catch spys or subversives but it will reveal people who find loyalty to their country relative or ambiguous. It is wrong to assume that someone who divulges state secrets out of concious is doing the right thing. Maybe they are, yet maybe they are not, but in both cases the secrets have been divulged.
More irony that I don't understand?