Dec 18 2012: If you mean this they way that I interpret it then I think you missed my intention with this new pledge. I was not, by any means, lowering the bar. Actually, in many aspects I was RAISING it by holding the pledge to something with legitimate meaning. The bar was extremely low in the respect that people were just pledging allegiance either because they were required to, as I was from elementary school to high school, or just because they dont really feel obligated to a piece of fabric.
Dec 17 2012: Well, not all people HAVE those rights. Currently this pledge is solely focused on the citizens of America who would be reciting it. If it said all people, it would seem like a much broader pledge, which isnt a bad thing, but isn't the intention of this pledge. This is a pledge focused on America and American ideals/citizens. If it included of all people, then it would be focused more outwardly, which again isnt a bad thing, just not the intention here.
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.
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: The Pledge of Allegiance should be changed
A reply on Conversation: The Pledge of Allegiance should be changed
A reply on Conversation: The Pledge of Allegiance should be changed
A reply on Conversation: The Pledge of Allegiance should be changed
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.