Well, I think that's sort of the point. The flag is the artistic representation of those ideas and principles: Pledging allegiance to the flag is pledging allegiance to those principles.
Not always. When politicians looking for an easy way to boost their popularity call for a ban on flag-burning, they're trampling the principles of free expression and dissent that America embodies in order to protect a piece of cloth that means nothing without those principles. So they're placing their allegiance to the material symbol above their allegiance to its meaning, and that's missing the whole point. It's the same when people try to erode American liberties and rights in the name of protecting America from its enemies. It's putting blind patriotism as an end in itself over allegiance to the core principles that define America. That's why I think indoctrinating schoolchildren to pledge allegiance to a physical symbol of the country, rather than instilling a respect for its principles, is missing the point.
Well, sure, but this is the Federation we're talking about. One would hope that its populace wouldn't separate the symbol from its meaning but would always keep both in mind.
Maybe such a pledge should read, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the principles for which it stands...?"
(For that matter, the whole idea of making children stand up and make a pledge of allegiance by rote, without necessarily understanding what it means, is ethically questionable. Allegiance should be an informed choice.)
Actually, I agree on that last point. If I were a member of the Federation Council, I'd probably sponsor a bill prohibiting Federation public schools from indoctrinating children by having them memorize such a pledge by route. I'd make it a pledge that politicians would be required to proclaim, not children.
No, but the United States is a multinational state.
True, if one defines the word literally. The key is that the word "nation" is from the Latin word for "birth," same as "natal," "nativity," "innate," etc. A nation is a group of people sharing a common birth, a common origin.
However, I think most Americans don't think of it that way. We usually think of ourselves as Americans first, other ethnic identifiers second. America is our nation, our common origin.
Well, first off, I'm a graduated political science major, so of course I use the poli sci definition of "nation" and rail against the tendency of the American public to use the words "nation," "country," and "state" rather interchangeably.
But, yes, I do use the word in its technical meaning. And I also think you're overstating the idea of America as our common origin: It isn't. HUGE swaths of the American population are the descendants of very recent immigrants. Furthermore, we're increasingly being forced to confront the understanding that the entire Latino population of the United States either consists of people who are recent immigrants or of people who are the descendants of people that Americans conquered. Either way, the Latino population in America rather noticeably constitutes a distinct nation within the United States.
And all that is to say nothing of Native Americans, who of course do not share any heritage with Americans of European descent unless they're the products (however distantly) of European/Native American relationships.
So it's one nation formed from many nations. E pluribus unum. And I think that makes us better off than parts of the world where they place ethnic or religious identity above all other identities and insist that groups that are different from each other must be segregated into separate nation-states and can't live together.
Oh, certainly. That's why I used the term "multinational state." The ability of many different nations to combine into a single, functional, democratic, egalitarian state is, to me, wonderful, and something that really sets America apart from other states.
No, it depends on whether the Articles of the Federation legally subordinate the Federation to any divine entity. If it does not, then legally the Federation is not subordinated to any god under Federation law.
Neither is the United States. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a legally binding policy, it's just a bit of pageantry and ritual. And as stated, the "under God" part was only added 56 years ago.
Yep. And that's why I support the repeal of "under God" from the Pledge, and other references to God from the currency or other government documents or acts. The United States is not under any god. It is under the people of the United States, from whose authority its right to exist and govern derives.
ETA:
My uncle is a Mexican-American whose family has been in Texas since it was a Mexican province. ("We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!") My grandfather is an immigrant from Canada of Scottish descent. My father's family is Finnish, my grandmother's family is English, and my cousin-in-law's grandfather is Italian. And I'm 1/8th Cherokee.
That's a really nice mix,
Sci.
An astonishingly diverse family- I wish mine were that interesting.
Thank you very much! I have a pretty nifty family, if I do say so myself.
Though I'd point out that one of the things my family has taught me is that
every culture is interesting. So there's no reason to feel like a monocultural family is any less interesting than a multicultural one.
It takes an awful lot to convince them they don't need someone or something else to give the orders or justify their actions. If not a person, a religious authority, holy book, God- or a flag to salute, which embodies their supposed principles. Remove the authority of the pack leader, even if it manifests in these ways not actually featuring a dominant person, and they get confused. They need to hold up something as "above" them, which is why (again, as I personally see it) a nation is "under God" or "under its citizens" even when it's made a conscious decision not to be "under His Royal Supreme and Innate Superiorness". I prefer the idea that the group serves the individual and the individual serves the group- no-one and nothing "under" anyone else. It seems suitable for the UFP in my book. But would humans or other hierarchial peoples (which most seem to be) accept it? I mean, okay, they're bound in common cause, but who determines that cause? Ideally of course, they all arrive at a consensus or submit to a majority vote, but they'll find it easier if someone or something is there above them. So, I'd personally support "united in common cause" over "under whatever", but I think sooner or later the people will switch back to being under something- hopefully a set of principles or honour codes or a pretty flag/insignia or a non-threatening vaguely defined God or a holy book containing a list of beneficial behavioural codes, etc, rather than a guy with a big sword...
)
