>Russell Chapman wrote: > > > Doug wrote: > > > >> Why is it so important to indoctrinate our children if our country is > >> so great? > >> > >> Doug > > > > > > Maybe its greatness is in part due to the citizen's faith and belief > > in their country and the precepts listed in the pledge.... > >Hmmm, do you mean its greatness is due to us drumming it into our >children at a young age that we are great? > >Doug > >Who believes that turning a critical eye inward is far more important >than boasting in the matter of said greatness. >
Guatam eventually replied: >1. I am (genuinely) in awe of Russel's ability to understand something that >central to the American identity better than most Americans, particularly >better than most of those on the left of the American political spectrum. > >2. An inward critical eye is all well and good but _nothing_ can be >achieved >without some level of self-confidence. The belief of the American people >in >the virtues of their system is, I think, the single most important factor >in >the continuing success of the American experiment. It is also rather >singular, actually, as no other country in the world even approaches the >American consensus on politics and ideology. Many books in political >science have been written on this topic - some of them are even good. >There >is a difference between boasting and reinforcement. I differ with you, >Doug, in that I don't see something like that as boasting at all. It's a >critical part of forming civic character. The United States is an >agglomeration of 300 million people bound together by _nothing_ other than >a >political ideology. Not ethnicity, not religion, not even (given the size >of the country) geography. All we have is a common belief in the >Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Something like the >Pledge >in schools isn't "drumming it in" - it's the bare necessity that allows the >United States to exist. Guatam, I agree with you, but disagree with the pledge as it currently exists. Yes, the pledge should be in schools. Having a civic identity and civic unity is extremely important, as you so eloquently argue above. Civic character and belonging are very important, very worthwhile goals. But "under God" should not be in that pledge. It *wasn't* in the pledge originally, and was only added in the 1950's because someone in the U.S. government wanted to differentiate the U.S. from "those God-less commies." At least that's how my dad explained it to me some years ago. We only have one pledge as a country that every citizen knows that allows us to verbalize our allegiance to our flag and our country. That pledge should not include mention of God, even if the majority of U.S. citizens believe in God (I realize you haven't made this argument, but others have). Forcing someone who doesn't believe in God (and God with a capital "G" is almost universally percieved in the U.S. as referring to "the Christian God") to have that exclusionary phrase thrown at them every time the try to express their civic identity is wrong. Someone mentioned "the tyrrany of the majority" in a recent post. Forcing the un-Christian minority to aknowledge "God" in order to express their patriotism is exclusionary, not inclusionary. You say above that we are bound together by nothing except our political ideology, "Not ethnicity, not religion, not even (given the size of the country) geography." If we are not bound together by religion, we should not mention religion in our pledge. Reggie Bautista P.S. It's good to hear from you, Guatam. How have you been? Have you started your new job yet? I've been reading the McKinsey Quarterly since I found out you were going to be working there, and I've enjoyed it a lot. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
