You're welcome to your opinions of course and I'm not going to insult you for thinking the way you think.
I am pointing out that reality of the POA which is that it has socialist roots and isn't as intertwined in US history as many are lead to believe it. It wasn't officially adopted by the country until 1945 and originally had no reference to the US as a nation and was rather blind allegiance to the government. This is not a tangent or a wild accusation- it's simply the truth.
When Francis Bellamy penned our pledge in 1892, his focus was really on the 'liberty and justice for all' part.
bigthink.com
Just like it being a relatively modern component of our history, so is the hand of the heart practice which many feel is a deeply interwoven into our history as being a sign of respect towards the flag when in reality- it isn't. It was a change 'made on the fly'... here's the original "appropriate" posture called the Ballamy Salute and it might look a little familiar to many here...
View attachment 8620365
A little light reading and yes, it was in fact changed for the reasons that one may suspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
Present company excluded, after all this has been a civil discussion, but many folks rattle their sabers, gnash their teeth, and vehemently fight any questioning of perceived displays of patriotism without having any understanding of what they are defending (often times for fear of being accused of being unpatriotic much like they often do when defending these displays).
If it makes you feel good that your children engage in reciting the pledge that's fine and if you are paying for a private school then I applaud you for seeking out a school that aligns with your values (and I mean that sincerely). But with the POA in particular- I would suggest that the present evidence shows that it has very little if any measurable impact of creating good citizens. I'd even suspect that we'll soon be seeing many adults that continue to frequently state the POA before governmental proceedings being charged with embezzlement of billions worth of US tax dollars enriching themselves and their families at the expense of their countrymen. So I'm not seeing how the inclusion of the POA is keeping anyone on the 'straight and narrow' path.
When you ask about whether I think the flag is being just a piece of cloth to be burned, that's a bit of a loaded question don't you think? I also do believe that burning of the flag has been ruled on as being protected speech and something any citizen has a right to do should they decide to and my personal thoughts are irrelevant. I do find the sacred symbolism behind the flag though to be a bit overblown and often times conveniently short sighted.
By that I mean there are groups that will argue that seeing old glory flying brings a tear to their eye every time they see it but also ignore it being slapped on commercial products such as beer cans, bikini tops, condoms, vehicles, shower curtains, whatever. Doesn't seem too revenant to me seeing the American flag as a color option on yoga pants that are filled by assess exceeding the tensile strength of the spandex by several hundred pounds but for some reason that use of the flag "doesn't count" at least not to the point where any voices bemuse the practice even if it's slapped on an advertisement to sell mattresses over holidays dedicated to our fallen servicemen. Strikes me as contradictory 'rules' being applied to the same exact symbol that are inconsistent because it's just something we made up.
The National Anthem- I'm arguing for it, against it. Sing it or don't makes no difference to me but I fail to see how it has any place being played before every sporting event when the Country has very little/if anything to do with the sport. In many cases, the sport doesn't won't even have American roots and Hockey being a great example, if you have an American team playing a Canadian team then now you get two different national anthems played before the game instead of one. With few exceptions (such as the olympics which I mentioned) I believe that we've injected national/governmental ties into institutions completely exclusive to having anything to do with the country being inserted.
If one enjoys it being included, that's fine and they're welcome to feel that way. But, and this is the big but, that's exactly what it boils down to, how it makes a small group feel and all arguments for keeping it seems to reduce to, how they "like" it and that it makes them 'feel'. And that's ok too but that's also a counterpoint that often times isn't acceptable in any other context to the same people saying that and accuse the 'other' political party and women of being incapable of governance because they act off of feelings rather than logic.
