The first item on today’s agenda is a thought that I have to dissent from. Some of us believe that, to sit during the pledge of allegiance is an act of disrespect towards the dead. It seems that they’ve conflated these symbolic gestures with the honor of the deceased.
You may make the claim that they fought for the nation. But tell me, did they die for it to become the spectacle of today? They died for their image of the Nation, for their aspirations of what the nation was to become.
The virtues enshrined within the Pledge is of Freedom and Liberty, the same virtues that these men fought for. The virtue of freedom encompasses a person’s right to protest, this act of sitting being one of many forms.
A person may respect these fallen souls, regardless of their participation in this Pledge. It is their sacrifices that have allowed for our Nation to persist.
Your claim of this protest being disrespectful towards them is better suited for yourself, as you have invoked their honor to question the rights that they fought for– ultimately questioning their beliefs.
In addition to this, the Supreme Court has already established a solid precedent in regards with West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) as it’s foundation. A precedent that the lower courts have upheld in successive decades.
Your thought is one that stands against conventional wisdom, questioning constitutional doctrine. These Justices remain unquestioned in this doctrine, for each case served as an affirmation– be it knowledge or patriotism. Their lives exist in service of the Nation, so while others may die for the nation– they live for the nation.
I find that your questioning is better suited for the various Officials, who in their tenure have violated their respective oaths while continuing to uphold these symbolic rituals.
To scrutinize citizens when elected officials roam amok of their civic duties is a distasteful act, a misguided focus.
Above all, I find fault in this way of thought– as it clearly suppresses a person’s choice and adds an element of coercion to it. It allows for others to presume un-patriotism as a rebuttal to a person’s refusal. The era of McCarthyism has long since passed, an era of political coercion and blacklisting. Yet some remnants still exist, this way of thought being representative of it.
Apart from this, symbolic gestures do not necessarily represent the intent behind it– it’s sincerity is dependent on the person itself. Tell me, if Stalin were to recite the pledge– would that be seen as a form of respect or disrespect?
You’ll find this hypocrisy especially apparent when these symbolic gestures become obligatory. My example may be a bit extreme so let me give one written with my experience.
In India, it’s an established custom to stand up whenever a teacher enters your classroom until they allow you to sit down. As they have no assigned classes, they are the ones moving from class to class.
Now, this custom is meant as a sign of respect towards these teachers– a laughable notion. It’s obligatory, meaning that you’ve no choice but to stand unless you want to be disciplined. Violence may be disavowed in public, yet discipline remains paramount– its foundation being force.
You shall find that I hold contempt for these “teachers” rather than respect. While their profession demands for a degree of respect, they lack the qualities associated with this profession.
In my six years, I have stood for them at least 10,000 times– a count that has cheapened this act even more. So tell me, what good are these symbolic gestures when elements of coercion are added to it– tainting it entirely.
The same could be said for religion and opinions as people oftentimes have a penchant to force their beliefs down the throats of others. I find that even if the idea or religion itself were compatible with that person, they shall reject it.
After all, people seldom like being forced– a trait that I am well-aware of whenever I write. For who else do I leave these doors open in my writing? And so I must ask, is this the fate that you have envisioned for your pledge?
You may make the claim that among us, there are many who are obligated to recite this pledge. Your claim may raise the point that the repetition that I criticize also serves to criticize them.
I reject this claim, as they were not forced into the positions that they now maintain. They chose this mantle, so it would only be fitting for them to acknowledge their responsibilities.
In this light, the sincerity of their oaths is held true– their actions shall either affirm this sincerity or undermine it.
It seems that some of us forget that their freedom is the result of a sacrifice that our forebearers paid– interred with Military honors. This freedom is a right for us, but for others? It is a privilege.
In the end, I must give a verdict of this thought: “A private citizen holds an obligation in regards to the pledge. Their failure to meet this perceived obligation is an affront to the departed.”
This belief suspends a person’s agency, overriding constitutional wisdom. It reintroduces a moral framing that condemns a person in a disingenuous manner. It is an attempt to honor the dead that only serves to spite them in turn.
While this thought is loyal to the state, it’s principles can be found in nationalism– coercion intertwined with fanaticism. It soundly rejects patriotism with its authoritarian roots.
You may ask, what is the difference between patriotism and nationalism? Patriotism can be defined as a person’s loyalty to the principles of their nation, their loyalty to it’s people, and their loyalty to their own ideals regarding it.
Those who subscribe to this belief recognize that their nation is far from infallible and perhaps the most vocal about the faults of our nation. Their belief is one harmonizes with the people, a belief with a clear voice.
Nationalism can be defined as a person’s loyalty to the identity of the nation. It is not a belief of ideals, it is a loyalty towards the image of the nation.
Those who subscribe to this notion are inherently intolerant of criticism of the nation, as they see the nation as a collective self. To criticize the nation is to criticize themselves, as they have a sense of belonging for this image they conjured.
In their eyes, there is no wrong or right when it comes to the nation– their hearts are blind, allowing decay to ferment. They affirm the righteousness of the nation by making the claim that it is their nation– effectively sanctioning it’s conduct unconditionally.
This belief is one that seeks to dominate, a voice that is loud. It seems that they’ve conflated the volume of their voice with it’s authenticity. A person’s words cannot be true even if spoken like thunder, for it is us who decide this truth.
I remain a staunch opponent for those who subscribe to nationalism, as patriotism cannot coexist with nationalism– these two beliefs remain diametrically opposed. I’ve long since subscribed to the notion of patriotism.
In recent times, it seems that the people have become confused– attributing any positive sentiment towards the nation as patriotism. They’ve conflated nationalism and patriotism, thus tainting the word “patriot”.
I critique my nation as it is my civic obligation to do so. Even then, my words must endure– partisanship being a pitfall that must be avoided. I recognize the events that unfold day and night, the wrongs of my nation being sanctioned in broad daylight.
While my writings may have political tones and subtones, you’ll find my critique towards recent events to either be subtle or non-existent. I’ve my reasons and I shall lay them out.
In ‘Censor’s Identity’, I wrote about unwritten law– essentially society’s unspoken agreement of what is tolerated. While there may be no harm in me expressing my political sentiments, I believe that I’ll be negatively affected if I write it too explicitly.
My writing is meant to be enduring, so my statements are not so easily revocable. I have no intentions on becoming a target for the fanatics of cancel culture.
The future that I have envisioned for myself requires me to remain apolitical for the most part, and so it wouldn’t reflect well for my political thoughts to seen as partisan. While I may have no qualms in expressing it, I prefer that no fingerprints are left behind.
In addition to this, I simply cannot keep up with the events being referenced here. I condemn them without hesitation, that much is certain. But, I cannot dedicate the time required to make a piece about it. By the time I finish that piece, five new issues shall manifest.
My pen remains silent, to avoid taking on same burden that our judicial system faces today. The president is meant to be an energetic executive, to allow him to faithfully commit to his duties in a timely manner.
Congress is meant to be the chamber of deliberation, to restrict this energy by deciding the scope of his authority. The Judiciary is meant as a check against both executive and legislature branches, serving as the impartial arbiter of the constitution and statures.
The people have the right to challenge the actions of their government, to question them. It is the Judiciary that answers their doubt, either confirming it or dispelling it. While Congress may deliberate for days or weeks on end, a single court’s judgment may take months.
So tell me, what happens when the Executive clashes with the Judiciary? The system cannot deal with this energy in a satisfactory method. The Judiciary’s grasp only takes hold long after the executive has abused his authority, allowing him to create more challenges for the Court to strike down.
The system cannot deal with such strain, thus rendering the Courts as ineffective by overwhelming them with cases beyond their ability to bear– allowing the executive to roam with impunity.
The courts have accepted this, as it is their obligation to fulfill– to continue precedent. Yet I refuse to create my own precedent in this regard, as I fear that it would serve as a form of coercion. One that morally charges my silence as a sanction.
You’ll find some of my thoughts to be aligned with the Federalists, a claim that I accept and reject. I am aligned with the Federalists of the past, men whose stance would contradict the stance of it’s modern adherents.
If I am to dissent in writing, then I shall do so with my full capacity– for the roots of these issues are older than what a person assumes. That would be more fulfilling, as multiple issues arise from a single root.
Author’s note: I’m splitting my pieces into smaller ones, this was originally supposed to a part of ‘Thoughts#2’. This being the first to split off. I got a lot of stuff to write and it’s supposed to be connected to each other smh. So instead I’m going to have to connect them in a different way.
This is going to the be the first dissent, as I plan on writing more in the future. I forgot how much I enjoyed picking arguments apart. This author’s note is going to be a bit short since I’m writing parallelly, the unified whole being ‘Thoughts_2’.
For the record, I’m not exaggerating about standing 10,000 times. I gave a general estimate but it should be around 12,000 times. I might be meticulous, but I’m not bored enough to make a more approximate one.
References: 16-Censor’s Identity 34-Thoughts_2 32-Doubt