Obama, his preacher, the English language, and Patriotism
(but not in that order)
The English language is a wonderful means of communicating ideas, and has advantages over some other languages in that English, when properly used does not rely as much on the listener or reader needing to infer ideas and details from words not used. Many other languages rely heavily on this, getting much of the intended meaning from the context of the words as well as the words themselves. English does this to a degree as well, but not as much as some other languages.
One drawback to our English language is that when we do rely on context, or when we do not choose our words with precision, two people can read the same words, and reach two widely different interpretations. And that is part of the argument over the Pledge of Allegiance.
Like nearly everyone of my generation, I grew up reciting the Pledge every morning in school. I learned the words, and thought I understood them, but they had little real meaning to me for many years. As I got older, and more thoughtful, I cane to realize that the words of the Pledge did have a real and important meaning, if understood the way I came to understand them.
Each of us has a legally protected right to our own beliefs and opinions, and I am not asking any of you out there to change yours, only to consider how I understand the Pledge, and why I feel the way I do. For those who find some of the wording objectionable, my opinion is that you are not reading it the way I do. Arguments and reasons why certain parts of the Pledge are objectionable have been made, but the way I see it, I don't see any valid basis for them. I don't care who wrote the Pledge, or who had it modified, or even why, as I don't see any way any agenda could be promoted, if you understand the words the way I do.
I pledge allegiance (not obedience, we are pledging to be allies, not slaves)
To the Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands (not the government of our republic, or the people in it, or their policies, just the idea of our republican form of government)
One Nation, under God (and here many are having issues, but my opinion is that these words are a
description of our nation, and we are not pledging anything to this line, it is simply a description. A clearer phrasing would have been "One Nation which is under God". And (like it or not,) since the overwhelming majority of Americans profess a belief in some form of Diety, and those religions all profess that God's laws come before man's laws, it is accurate to describe our nation as one which is "under God".
With Liberty and Justice for All (again, a description, this time of the ideals we hold for our nation. Not the absolute way it is, because, after all we are fallible mortals, but the way we wish, and strive for it to be.)
So, we pledge to be Allies of our flag and our system of government. Nothing more. All the rest is padding without any meaning to our pledge. I do not understand how anyone who desires to live in the US could object to that. After all, the flag is just a symbol, neither good or bad, and our system of government allows each of us to disagree, agree, object, hate, love,support, or even actively work against the administrators of our government and their policies, provided you do not cross the line into physical violence. That is our "freedom of speech", and we all use it to some degree daily. If you are not OK with that concept, you really ought to find some other part of the world, one where the people are more in line with your views.
Obama's Preacher (I do love the sound of that!
) Has upset a lot of folks with his sermons as currently being shown on the Internet and other sources. I can understand the origin of his anger, but I do deplore the words he choose to express his ideals. It truly conveys the impression of intolerance and racism, which doesn't play well with most of us. I think his main problem is communication, after all, saying America (meaning all of us) are responsible for the "sins" of our fathers is a flawed concept for modern times. We are certain responsible for admitting that these things did happen, WE didn't make them happen, or at least I didn't, and I don't think you did either. The good reverend has every right to be as angry and upset as he wishes, but only at those truly responsible for his percieved injuries, not at America, the ideal, or even America, the people. We are constantly told we should not hate the Japanese people for what was done in WWI, or the Germans, for what some German people did, or the Russians for what the communists did, how can it be right to hate America for what some americans did? I don' think it is.
And on the placing the hand on the heart as the flag passes by (giving the salute), while it may not be required by law or ordinance, it is custom, it is proper, and it is just good manners. We each have the right to abstain, should we so choose, but again, I have to wonder why? Not following our custom, shows only bad manners, as it appears rude. Not doint it as a sign of protest? Fine. But what are you protesting, really? Our flag, which has a long and honorable history? Or the actions and decisions of certain individuals with which you disagree? If only done for personal satisfaction, fine. But if done as a public protest, it loses a lot when people don't understand what and why. Simply not saluting (or standing) doesn't put across any message, other than you are being rude (or stupid). Obama can make a political statement by not doing it, provided it is explained. When private citizens don't do it, there is no explanation for the rest of us, and so it reflects badly on those who choose to protest this way.
To put it another way, if I am upset with something the President or Congress has done (or proposes to do), I will curse them, maybe even burn (or shoot) their pictures, but I won't burn our flag, just because scoundrels operate under, or hide behind our flag, doesn't mean the flag, or our system is at fault. Flawed, perhaps, but what isn't? Flawed, yes, as everthing done by man is to some degree, but responsible? No. At least, that's how I see it.