TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The Pledge of Allegiance should be changed

I don't really like the pledge of allegiance. America has sunk so far below what it SHOULD stand for and lost sight of what the forefathers and all Americans should aim for.
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America."
This was an amazing line when the flag stood for a new, powerful, and good country. It seems like this once magnificent symbol has been stripped of its meaning and is now just a piece of fabric.
"And to the republic, for which it stands,"
Like I said above, I don't think that it DOES stand for the republic. I think that it is just something that everyone recognizes and associates with one thing or another, like the Apple Logo, or the golden arches of McDonald's, which is almost as representative of America as the flag is nowadays. Which is depressing if we're going to be honest. The pledge continues with the "controversial" line,
"One nation, under God."
Now the fact that the whole country has to be so "politically correct" that THIS is controversial sort of shows that we've lost sight of what this country should stand for. If its such a big deal to you personally, don't say the line, or even the word "God". If you have such strong personal convictions that it offends you to mention a being that may or may not exist, you should look at changing yourself as opposed to making a ruckus about a pledge that has a "God" in it.
"With liberty and justice for all."
This line is CLOSE to being what it ought to be. This is really the only line that I agree with and yet, it still has its problems. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are the unalienable rights that our constitution gives us. Why should we change something that was written in the document that our country was founded on? I propose this new Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance,
To the Constitution,
Of the United States of America.
And to protecting the rights
Of the people;
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 17 2012: Why even have a pledge of allegiance.
    Isn't blind patriotism the primary hurdle against objectivity, scrutiny and infact fixing the issues (that don't exist as far as allegiance is concerned)?

    Howabout this instead:
    I pledge no allegiance to landmass, ritual or happenstance birth circumstances.
    I accept that everything can, will and must be scrutinized and must be rejected if it cannot stand up to intellectual honesty and scepticial inquiry.
    I focus my life in the pursuit of freedom, human-rights, education and societal progress above all else, and will consider all that oppose me to be my adversary.
    I will uphold the rights of my species and will strive to make the landmass I stand on worthy of the flag it holds.
    • thumb
      Dec 17 2012: '... and will consider all that oppose me to be my adversary.'

      This sub-clause seems pretty hostile to me. Isn't this just another call for a multitude of 'axes of evil'?

      What about tolerance instead, as other people may come to other conclusions than 'you' do?
    • Dec 17 2012: I completely concur that blind patriotism is bad. Thats why, as opposed to reciting the same pledge over and over every day until be comes a meaningless mantra, I decided to rewrite something that I could support and actually held some validity as a pledge.
      One of the issues with your pledge is that its based upon a totally Utopian idea. Now, the idea of the perfect ideal Utopian society is obviously... perfect, but it has the same issues that Communism has. That they work on paper but don't count in the variables known as human behaviour. If everyone was perfect, lived by this pledge, and upheld it, the result would be perfection. Now I concur with Lejan that the one line is somewhat a cause for concern.
      The other issue is that the pledge is MEANT to individualize America and Americans. We are completely unlike any nation there has been or is. We have obvious similarities because we weren't the first nation to ever exist but none the less, we are a very specific country.
      Objectivity, scrutiny, and fixing those issues are hindered much more by the fact that humans are imperfect and have their own individual goals, and when separated, they are much more erratic and cannot find common goals. So actually, by uniting a particular group through a pledge that holds meaning and doesn't rely on a symbol but an actual quotation and an idea, these can bring the individuals closer together and work towards their goals together. This is essentially what the Constitution was.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.