I knew people during the previous Presidential administration (and other people, during the one previous to that) who would sit out the National Anthem and other similar things on the grounds that they were so personally offended by the occupant of the White House that, “The anthem no longer represents ME.”

I saw enough of that kind of sentiment (and remembered a fair share from the previous eight years) during those years that I felt compelled on a number of occasions (here and here, for example) to be proactive in renouncing any such on my own part.

I think I was expressing my frustration with what McGehee noted, and also the fact that, if a person waits for this country to be exactly 100% in line with every ideal of “fairness,” they’ll be waiting a long time. Or they won’t like what they get when they actually get that long-expected fairness.

There may be stuff wrong with the country, but in general, there’s more right than wrong. (And even if same-sex couples can marry, at least they’re not arrested, like they used to be in the UK.)

I knew people during the previous Presidential administration (and other people, during the one previous to that) who would sit out the National Anthem and other similar things on the grounds that they were so personally offended by the occupant of the White House that, “The anthem no longer represents ME.”

To me, that seemed monumentally silly: for one thing, the anthem and all related things (including a pledge) are not directed to whomever may currently sit in government. And second, in a lot of cases, it seemed largely the refusal was making something all about them.

If the kid really is that troubled by the fact that same-sex couples can’t marry in some states, I would think there’s something more productive he could do (even at ten) than refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance…even writing letters too representatives and Senators.

But perhaps the statement is not really saying what he is assuming. The pledge does not in fact claim that all persons enjoy liberty and justice. I rather think that the “for” in “for all” denotes that liberty and justice are for all, that is, for the benefit of all, and ideally to be dispensed to all — even when, as it happens, not all have managed to get them. So the statement is true if read in this sense, which I think is the right one. If the kid thinks of it that way, maybe he can give his assent to it.

Consider further that this side of the eschaton, it would be an absolute impossibility for all persons to have both liberty and justice. First because human institutions are imperfect, but also because the two ideals are incompatible. If we somehow managed to give everyone perfect justice (which includes punishing all crimes), some persons would perforce be deprived of their liberty (such as criminals). So “liberty and justice for all,” if it means what the kid thinks it means, is not only impossible but also undesirable.

A lot of times in school I didn’t feel totally free and totally treated with justice…little eggheads were persecuted, probably not to the extent of gay kids (I think, in the 70s, most of us didn’t know what “gay” was until high school at least), but it could be pretty miserable to go to school all the same. (I guess I just accepted it as “it is what it is” and prayed that adulthood would be better)

And I said the pledge. Except for that one year that a kid’s parents objected to the idea of making what they say as amounting to an oath (I think that was what it was), so we sang the first stanza of “My Country Tis of Thee” instead (the teacher’s compromise)