Pledge of allegiance at UConn games

[meyers7]

John Baer's book from 2007 gives a wide variety of useful information on Bellamy and the pledge. It is called "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Revised History and Analysis. In the mid 1920s the DAR added the words "the United States of America." Bellamy vociferously spoke out on record against the change because it worked against his utopian sentiments which extended to all humankind.

Well that was a pretty stupid argument by Bellamy. His pledge goes "I pledge allegience to my flag (disregard of the USA) and the Republic for which it stands..."

What republic did he think it stood for? What a dope.

 

[Icebear]

Good info Ice, thanks.

I wrote a foreword for the book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Rights Alternative Version of American History, a number of years ago for my friend Chris Rodda. Her second volume is coming out soon. She and I used to write on this material regularly on the Pledge of Allegiance and the Constitution discussion boards on the old AOL.

 

[Replicant]

Back to the original OP point. I enjoy reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the National Anthem whenever and wherever possible. It's an honor. Makes me feel good.

When I'm in someone's country, home, house of worship, etc., I'm respectful and mindful of their customs, practices, faith, etc. and try my best to honor same and act in accordance. That includes UConn's house.

In the good old USA, everyone is free to do or say anything they choose with few exceptions. A great privilege. Attend UConn games and say the Pledge and rise for the Anthem, or not. Your choice. Show respect and deference, or choose not to. Your choice. Feel fortunate and proud to revel in enthusiastic national pride, or feel pressured and offended by perceived pressure [or guilt] to conform. Your choice. I don't much care what anyone else does, thinks or feels in this regard - I have no control over it.

In general, I think the Anthem alone sets a perfect pitch for a sporting event. Nearly every country in the world employs a similar standard before major events. Adding the Pledge is unique and a positive [not negative] IMO. I'd be fine if they didn't have it as well.

Point of clarification from several prior posts. The concept of the "separation of church and state" has become a popular interpretation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that was never articulated in the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence for that matter. The Constitution has one sentence with two separate points that reference religion. The first point prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a national religion and was specifically intended to prohibit the government from creating our very own New World version of the Church of England. The second point reinforces an individual's right to freely practice any faith they so choose. It does not state that the government is prohibited from employing the term "God" in it's proclamations or culture. As Meyers previously and aptly noted, the term "God" is multi-denominational:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Icebear]

Well that was a pretty stupid argument by Bellamy. His pledge goes "I pledge allegience my flag (disregard of the USA) and the Republic for which it stands..."

What republic did he think it stood for? What a dope.

His hope was that it might be used by others as a utopian statement of human spirit vs nationalism. Not saying i agree just explaining his view. His pledge read simply, "I pledge allegiance to My flag and the Republic for which it stands, One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Some argue that he did not include "equality" for the more practical reason that he knew that the state education superintendents association for whom he was working would not approve it because they did not believe in equality for women and blacks.

 

[meyers7]

So therefore you would reject Thoreau's arguments from On Civil Disobedience

Well I haven't read any of Thoreau's stuff in many, many years. I don't remember much of them.

However, just because one can call it civil disobedience doesn't mean it isn't disrespectful.

But was their action politically and personally demanded by the injustice they perceived denied to blacks.

I don't think so, but they did. But that is not relevant as to whether it was disrespectful or not. In reality they were disrespecting the flag that many of their race had fought and died for. In essence disrespecting them.

And therefore potentially arguable disrespectful to show common will with one's own nation when it acts unjustly.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[meyers7]

His hope was that it might be used by others as a utopian statement of human spirit vs nationalism. Not saying i agree just explaining his view. .

Agree or not, he had a pretty stupid argument.

 

[Icebear]

Point of clarification from several prior posts. The concept of the "separation of church and state" has become a popular interpretation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that was never articulated in the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence for that matter. The Constitution has one sentence with two separate points that reference religion. The first point prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a national religion and was specifically intended to prohibit the government from creating our very own New World version of the Church of England.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They had real fear of the cost of recreating the Hundred Years war in Europe. They knew that the emerging nation was too poor to squander resources in prolonged religious wars. There were Episcopalian (Virginia), Catholic (MD), Congregationalist (MA and CT), and more groups vying to maintain power in the states (colonies). Complicating the situation by attempting to overlay a national religion would have been divisive and led to a disastrous political and potentially physical battle. Separation of church and state as a applied concept in the New World dated to Roger Williams departure from the Massachusetts colony and his founding of Rhode Island.

 

[Icebear]

Well I haven't read any of Thoreau's stuff in many, many years. I don't remember much of them.

However, just because one can call it civil disobedience doesn't mean it isn't disrespectful.

.

I wasn't suggesting as to whether it was disrespectful, it is, but as to whether there are times when disrespect can be required. To propose that one does it out of simple respect should consider whether disrespect may be appropriate or even necessary.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/co...olinaut/archive/2011/11/jesse_ventura_i.shtml

Thoreau wrote, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly the true place for a just man is also in prison."

 

[Bestiarius]

I thought the National Anthem at sporting events was just a gentle reminder to doff one's hat. - Oh, say, can you see?

 

[arty155]

National anthem or pledge...one is sufficient.

Kinda uncomfortable for foreign student-athletes. Standing by quietly works better during the national anthem.

KG,
1. Both? I am enjoying this thread, but you hit the nail on the head at the very outset, KG - this simply boils down to redundancy. In 40 years of military ceremonies, and related participation in civil ceremonies, I cannot recall the redundancy of doing both. Well intended, but it’s a bit like singing the national anthem twice.
2. Agree, the anthem seems always the way to go when you are able, like here, to have a singer or just music. These are our student-athletes, US and international, and it’s good for them to see internationals stand politely during the anthem here, exactly as we expect Americans should do, representing us, when attending other anthems overseas.

 

[arty155]

Having volunteered to serve my country for 2 years of life, with a great deal of responsibility; I for one was glad to serve. I am very proud of it. I am more than happy to sing the our National Anthem or Pledge Allegiance. If you decline to pledge or sing that is your right which I served to protect. As for God & Country, isn't their something about a "coin"?

-I hear ya, Artifact. Little debate 10 years ago.
- Neither the flag nor the anthem meant the same after the first combat out post, and we certainly never took incoming the size those Brit bomb ketches lobbed into McHenry.

 

[Icebear]

Agree or not, he had a pretty stupid argument.

It was a different time and a different historical context. The Civil War was just decades before and slaves were freed, the Industrial Revolution was rising in full force, child labor laws were emerging, socialist ideas and optimism about egalitarian ideals were flourishing. Bellamy was at a point of intersection expressing his belief of Utopianism and the stark reality of human conflict and enduring self interest. Not sure stupid is the description I would use but incredibly naive, sure. But from where we stand the view is much clearer.

 

[arty155]

Do we also have to stand, remove our hats, and cross our hearts? I sure wouldn't want one of those cameras that sees everything we do in public from driving on the interstate to parking in a shopping mall catching me being unpatriotic. Better make sure your lips are moving for the pledge.

Well, let’s Google Kibitzer’s reference:
Stand? Yup
Remove our hats? Yup, unless religious wear
Hand over heart Yup
Cross our hearts? Nope; looks like wearing a bra is your call.

 

[Icebear]

Modern custom has dropped the hand over heart aspect of respecting the flag during the national anthem. This per Snopes is according to Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner.

As I have shared before when this topic arises I was raised to stand with hand over heart for the Pledge and in respectful "at ease" and sing for the Anthem, of course, any hat was removed but few in our family wore hats or caps at the time. "Performances" of the anthem bug me as much as anything because I believe we should sing it not watch it. Hand over heart is not a good position for singing.

My grandmother explained the difference to me this way a pledge is a statement of fidelity and therefore the position of hand over heart is a sign of that action like placing the hand on a Bible or raising one's hand when swearing an oath. The anthem is an expression of remembrance and national identity in which we participate by singing. Not saying this is the right approach but for me it has always helped to define the two and the difference.

 

[arty155]

I worked in a middle school where we had several children whose parents were immigrants from another country. They were also non-Christian. The students would stand for the pledge but not recite it, which enraged some teachers. So, the students had to come to the office during the pledge recitation in order to avoid any backlash. I felt so badly for those kids, only 11 or 12 years old having to go through that.

Several school districts have done away with the pledge to avoid situations like the above and other districts have been sued by families that object to the forced recitation of the pledge.

Thanks for sharing this one…. Wow
Makes me angry these teachers apparently flubbed a great teaching opportunity; you’d think having international students politely standing during the pledge is exemplary behavior any teacher would want for highlighting what their US students should emulate if they too are fortunate enough to be attending another nations similar ceremonies overseas, or in settings outside their religious beliefs.

Really compelling comments here, and by Icebear regarding different faiths. Up to now, I completely understood the valid issue atheistic or agnostic parents had with ‘under God.’ It was beyond me that anyone might also look at that as meaning exclusively Christian today. Thanks again.

 

[Icebear]

Really compelling comments here, and by Icebear regarding different faiths. Up to now, I completely understood the valid issue atheistic or agnostic parents had with ‘under God.’ It was beyond me that anyone might also look at that as meaning exclusively Christian today. Thanks again.

Too often we only view the world from our own narrow experience and view of the world. Really it is all we can do until that viewpoint is shifted by some event or experience. It can be experiences in serving in the military, living overseas, loss of a loved one, a transitional threshold in life like getting married or the birth of one's child.

Living in PA among various orders or Mennonite and Amish and even Quakers and regularly interacting with them has shifted my very homogenized New England roots as these things are viewed by sincere and devout persons. One of the great gifts of communication and sharing is that it can in some small way take us into another world view for at least a mement and in some small way leading us to reflect on other possibilities.

 

[meyers7]

I wasn't suggesting as to whether it was disrespectful, it is, but as to whether there are times when disrespect can be required. To propose that one does it out of simple respect should consider whether disrespect may be appropriate or even necessary.

But as I can gather, you agree with me it is disrespectful, which was my point.

People can certainly choose to be disrespectful.

 

[meyers7]

It was a different time and a different historical context. The Civil War was just decades before and slaves were freed, the Industrial Revolution was rising in full force, child labor laws were emerging, socialist ideas and optimism about egalitarian ideals were flourishing. Bellamy was at a point of intersection expressing his belief of Utopianism and the stark reality of human conflict and enduring self interest. Not sure stupid is the description I would use but incredibly naive, sure. But from where we stand the view is much clearer.

If he wrote the republic about his republic (which was the USA), then argued not to have the words USA, then yes, it was a stupid argument. I don't think he was naive, just stupid. The stupidity is in the contradicting of himself.

 

[RoyDodger]

I have never actually been to a UConn game, but I would be very strongly opposed to any kind of super-patriotism, whether with a religious tinge or not. Religion and forced false patriotism have no place at a public university and no place at a sporting event. People go to sports events to have fun, not to be forced into waving the flag, praying, or being ostracized for not going along. It's a very dangerous trend. Incidentally, a lot of people associate patriotism with hands over heart and flying flags. That's not patriotism, it's borderline fascism. I associate patriotism with love and respect for the basic tenets of our Constitution, including freedom of speech and religion, and the separation of church and state. There should also be a separation of sports and politics.

This is from the World Vision website. Whether they do positive things or not, this kind of association does not belong at a public institution like UConn:

"World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."

 

[HuskyNan]

And was he "forced" to take his hat off?

If he is free to disrespect the anthem/flag, then I think people should be free to express their displeasure with someone who does ( I probably wouldn't). But they would still have the freedom to continue their disrespect.

I was going to let this go but it's been bothering me so here goes...

I am dismayed that someone would think it's OK to harass and intimidate a person who has a different belief or who thinks differently than they do - and call it patriotism. I dislike bullies in any venue, whether it's at a basketball game or on the Boneyard, and that includes verbal bullies.

How have we gotten to the point where we respect, some to the point of revering, a flag more than other human beings and how is this in any way OK? It's not patriotism, it's abusing the flag by wrapping oneself in it in order to justify bad behavior.

 

[meyers7]

I am dismayed that someone would think it's OK to harass and intimidate a person who has a different belief or who thinks differently than they do - and call it patriotism. I dislike bullies in any venue, whether it's at a basketball game or on the Boneyard, and that includes verbal bullies.

Well I don't think it is ok to harass and intimidate (well there are times for harrassment and intimidation but that's completely different - for instance harassing the electric company to get your power back). I don't think asking someone to be respectful is harassing them or intimidating them. And it's not harassing someone because they have a different belief, it would be harassing them because they are being disrespectful.

But I consider being disrespectful, harassing and intimidation to all be bad. You seem to think that being disrespectful is ok. And it dismays me that someone would think it's ok to be disrespectful to not only the flag and one's country, but also to the men and women who have fought and died for their right to be disrespectful.

How have we gotten to the point where we respect or even revere a flag more than other human beings and how is this in any way OK?

Well we've gotten to the point where respect for animals is greater than for humans. We (not we you and I, but we collectively as a society) devalue humans all the time. Not saying any of this is ok, but it is the reality.

It's not patriotism, it's abusing the flag by wrapping oneself in it in order to justify bad behavior.

And being disrespectful is not bad behavior? Why is one kind of bad behavior ok with you and other kinds not?

 

[HuskyNan]

Well I don't think it is ok to harass and intimidate (well there are times for harrassment and intimidation but that's completely different - for instance harassing the electric company to get your power back). I don't think asking someone to be respectful is harassing them or intimidating them. And it's not harassing someone because they have a different belief, it would be harassing them because they are being disrespectful.

But I consider being disrespectful, harassing and intimidation to all be bad. You seem to think that being disrespectful is ok. And it dismays me that someone would think it's ok to be disrespectful to not only the flag and one's country, but also to the men and women who have fought and died for their right to be disrespectful.

Well we've gotten to the point where respect for animals is greater than for humans. We (not we you and I, but we collectively as a society) devalue humans all the time. Not saying any of this is ok, but it is the reality.

And being disrespectful is not bad behavior? Why is one kind of bad behavior ok with you and other kinds not?

So someone that's standing quietly during the anthem but who hasn't removed his hat is not only disrespecting the flag but also our men & women in the armed forces? And this disrespect is so great that it's ok for the people around him to shout rudely at him? I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.

Just to let you know, I'm dropping this now as this is one of my hot buttons, people that can justify any rude or even mean behavior without any qualms because they're blind, indifferent or uncaring of others' opinions. I don't want to be rude myself.

 

[boontonbomber]

I have never actually been to a UConn game, but I would be very strongly opposed to any kind of super-patriotism, whether with a religious tinge or not. Religion and forced false patriotism have no place at a public university and no place at a sporting event. People go to sports events to have fun, not to be forced into waving the flag, praying, or being ostracized for not going along. It's a very dangerous trend. Incidentally, a lot of people associate patriotism with hands over heart and flying flags. That's not patriotism, it's borderline fascism. I associate patriotism with love and respect for the basic tenets of our Constitution, including freedom of speech and religion, and the separation of church and state. There should also be a separation of sports and politics.

This is from the World Vision website. Whether they do positive things or not, this kind of association does not belong at a public institution like UConn:

"World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."

i very much appreciate your last 3 sentences. they express my feelings perfectly on "forced" shows of patriotism. they are,in fact, nothing more than a show.
p.s. and my appreciation of your words is in no way related to the fact that i have been a dodgers fan since 1947.

 

[Icebear]

I want to thank evertyone for the excellent and respectful discussion about a topic that can be deeply passionate and devisive. That fact is a strong indication of how diverse we are as people and how we react to the actions of others. Those actions are often well intended but often not fully thought through in all their ramifications.
I, too, am passionate about many things related to the topic and hope that no one is offended or hurt but what has been offered. Blessings.

 

[meyers7]

So someone that's standing quietly during the anthem but who hasn't removed his hat is not only disrespecting the flag but also our men & women in the armed forces?

I would say yes. You obviously don't agree. We just have different views of respect.

It's really a simple courtesy, and fairly disrespectful not to.

And this disrespect is so great that it's ok for the people around him to shout rudely at him?

As I said I do not believe that. Why do you insist that I do? I believe they would not be out of line to say something to the person about being disrespectful. (I personally probably would not. You usually don't get very far with jerks/disrespectful people.) But shouting would be disrespectful. I am against being disrespectful, unlike you who seems to believe it's ok sometimes.

Again, why do you insist on someone who is being disrespectful, be given respect? And that it is ok for this person to be disrespectful but not another?

Just to let you know, I'm dropping this now as this is one of my hot buttons, people that can justify any rude or even mean behavior without any qualms because they're blind, indifferent or uncaring of others' opinions. I don't want to be rude myself.

Obviously, as you have tried to do. (i.e. I consider being disrespectful as rude, obviously we disagree here.)