When I was in sixth grade I found out (I am not sure how actually) that I didn’t have to say the pledge if I didn’t want to. I didn’t (and don’t) believe in God, and I didn’t believe in the “under God” part of the pledge, so I decided that I wouldn’t stand for the pledge anymore.
This was an extremely conservative area, and so my teachers were very upset. I told them I don’t have to say the pledge if I don't want (and I believe I had even memorized the specific court case with the Jehova's Witnesses about it). This went on for a week, until I was eventually sent to the principal's office for it.
The principal asked why I wouldn't just say it, and I told him because I don't believe in God and I don't have to. He said "well let's just see what your parents see about that". He picked up the phone and called my house, and my dad answered.
The situation was explained, and then my dad said "why is he in trouble again? I'm pretty sure he doesn't have to say it if he doesn't want to."
The principal responded back with "well sir, it's very disrespectful if he--".
My dad interrupted and said "it doesn't matter if it's respectful, if he doesn't have to say it then he doesn't have to say it. You should probably send him back to class". I went back to class and nothing that day came from it at school.
I was slightly afraid that I would get in trouble when I got home. I knew my dad had fought for me but I thought that he might have just wanted to make sure I don't get into any official trouble, so when I got home I was prepared for a lecture and maybe being sent to my room.
My dad sat me down and said "You're not in trouble, you did what you thought was right, but why does it really matter if you have to say the pledge? It'd probably be easier if you just said it" and I quickly responded back with "because I don't believe in God and I don't think I should be forced to say it."
My dad basically said that if this important to me, then he will support me. He wrote a note explaining that he doesn't have an issue with me not saying it if I don't want to, signed it and put his phone number if they have any questions, and he said to keep it in my backpack and show it to teachers if there's ever an issue.
I love America most of the time, but I think America can be great even if there isn't mandatory indoctrination. I look back and feel grateful that my parents were pretty cool with this.
The “under god” part always rubbed me wrong. I was surprised to learn it was added relatively recently in 1954. I wish we could go back to the prior one.
You can thank Billy Grahm, a major US preacher, for that under God [1] in which the GOP and religious right started to get more aligned around 1950.Indeed, Graham could often be seen later with Regaen (US president 1980-88).
I think it's decently accurate to write US founders were religious except:
(1) church private and state public was more of a thing even though the majority shared similar private values
(2) God was away/apart more so in a static background way
I think the Christian Nationalists have overplayed their hand and revealed that their belief is politics takes priority over religion. Going back to the pre-1954 pledge is feasible within our lifetime.
Hopefully as part of the upcoming rebuke of sacrificing our nation's values for a megalomaniac coopting religion for political gain (with very public examples of hypocrisy). Jesus preached feeding the hungry, healing the sick, caring for the poor, loving thy neighbor. Any politics that goes against those basic principles is anti-Christian. Any attack or hindrance on a neighbor with a different faith is anti-Christian.
I agree. Culture wars have distorted, then corrupted a lot to the point where Christains think the state is their personal PR guy, bouncer, and front man ... with an undertone of entitlement to pursue while state is obligated to comply.
To me it smacks of desperation.
Wanna get more adherents? Live your life right, and keep stronger boundaries between personal and private. People will see and respect that.
When things cross, stop already with seeing public comments as an opportunity to evangelize, and blabber on about holiness.
Good example: there's a guy rusty (US state secratary) I believe got caught in the middle of Trump's 2020 election nonsense on the issue of alternative electors. He testified Jan 6 saying cooperation was against his faith and morals whatever the outcome.
Man, I had big respect for his actions and explanation. Short, factual, backed up by action.
Your comment reminds me of what one American college student said in public in Italy. It was 2018, Trump was president, I was on a shuttle bus that takes tourists up and down a viewpoint. It was just leaving the viewpoint when it stops, a man hops in and asks in English "Did anyone see an Apple Watch?". "Yeah, right here!". The first person had forgotten it in the bus, and the second person had found it, and returned it to him. The bus drives on, and the second person (American college student in a tour group) says loudly "Boy, he's lucky this bus is full of Americans!".
I wish I was clever enough to come up with something witty, something like "Oh yeah, because everyone else is a thieving bastard, is that what you're saying?".
No idea, but this was an overwhelmingly conservative part of Florida (Niceville, probably most famous for being where Matt Gaetz is from), so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Southern Baptists or Pentacostals in the area would get their children in trouble over that.
Even twenty-three years later, I'm still a little surprised that they sent me to the principal's office over it. It seems like it was a waste of everyone's time, considering it would have been considerably easier to just roll their eyes and let me sit in class.
Good for you. Not doing this is one of my regrets about middle school. I told my kids they didn't have to say the pledge, and that I would happily go to the mat for them on this issue.
In communist Romania you had to kiss the party's behind every morning the exact same way, just without a god being mentioned. I don't think it helped the party in any way, but what do I know.
Lots of people take for granted that their government exists and doesn't suck as bad as those in other places. Say what you want about it, but every successful country cultivates a national culture and identity. This is especially important for countries where the people are very heterogeneous in other identity facets. If people feel no particular affinity for the country because they are rarely encouraged to stop and think about it, how exactly would anyone be found who is willing to defend the country itself and thus their own existence which they take for granted?
To be the contrarian, I actually don't mind a call for more patriotic programming to celebrate the USA's 250th. That makes sense. I definitely mind the slippery slope this precedent introduces. (Why not just keep doing this?) I'm also concerned that this letter is more of a "mandate" than a "call."
Regardless, Carr's letter searches hard for nostalgia. "Schoolhouse Rock" not being in syndication is eroding our nations educational strength according to him. This makes me wonder who this letter is really written for and how far-reaching they're "asking" content providers to take this.
Most Americans consume traditionally-broadcasted content through streaming platforms (Disney+ has Schoolhouse; the future of our kids is safe).and/or social media. Does Carr want Netflix to show the Pledge before every stream? The first stream of the day? Are they asking streaming providers to prioritize nationalistic programming in their recommendation algorithms outside of nationalistic holidays? Will they subsidize TV and movies for having a little more freedom in them? So many questions.
(All of this has been done before; I think there were pro-military Looney Tunes episodes back then these were shown in theaters, and the DoD does throw studios some cash to make the military look awesome and help full their recruitment pipeline.
> Does Carr want Netflix to show the Pledge before every stream? The first stream of the day? Are they asking streaming providers to prioritize nationalistic programming in their recommendation algorithms outside of nationalistic holidays? Will they subsidize TV and movies for having a little more freedom in them? So many questions.
These scenarios all seem imminent, their precedence not withstanding.
In a strange way this notice actually comes across as transparent, considering the thought that everything you described could be achieved without the public being informed of the cooperation between the state and media.
Tangentially, this entire thing could be a veiled notice to Netflix on how to curry the favor necessary to wrestle Warner Bros. away from the Ellisons.
Conspiratorially, I’ve read that a lot of production for TV/film is moving overseas and I can’t help but imagine these studios and sets being used for other purposes.
Does the pledge of allegiance actually do anything? I can't even remember if I did it in school. I first thought "oh, my State must not have done the pledge in school", but after more reflection I think I did but just doing remember.
I went to a grand total of five schools in Florida: one grade school, two middle schools, and two high schools. The first two were in upstate conservative Florida, the last three were in Orlando (which is comparatively more progressive).
Wow, that doesn't terrify you? We're talking about a thing that, if you did it, you would have done at least ~2000 times in a typical 12 years of school. Every morning. Do you remember other school events?
Sure sure -- I can't tell you what I ate for dinner on an arbitrary Tuesday or something but a routine thing from 12 years? Knowing whether or not you did that routine at least? Seems like something you should probably remember? I donno I'm only 36 maybe it just gets lots harder from here.
It reminds kids that they live in the United States, and that the country has values, and that they will be expected to defend the country as part of the social contract. I don't know if other countries have pledges like this but on the surface it seems OK to me. I think it also inspires worthwhile conversations about what we owe to the country (or not).
pledging allegence aloud to anything is bizarre and reminds of some sort of knights of the round table cosplay. It's especially weird making kids do it.
Fun fact: the Pledge of Allegiance was written by an avowed socialist [0] and was intended to counter the individualistic and capitalistic tendencies he saw in American culture.
Regardless of who wrote it I've always kind of thought it was weird. If America is a great country then it should be self-evident and we don't need to try and indoctrinate children with it.
Great information! I assumed it was some random patriotic thing, but this sounds sinister. It's probably not a big deal but I don't really know how much influence it actually has. Most people seem to see it as tolerable or cheesy, not some great and worthwhile gesture.
This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it? Iirc, they have (legally not mandatory, but functionally mandatory) pledges at the start of every school day right?
I definitely never did it in high school in Denver, nor did any of the other schools that my friends went to in the city.
I don’t have a list of schools for you.
Sure peer pressure can be a thing (at the school I went to you would have been bullied for doing the pledge), but it is pretty firmly established law that a student has every right to not participate and not be pressured to participate by public school staff.
Interesting, didn't know that was a thing in Denver. No need for a list of schools.
In my case the pressure came from my teachers and the principal. I never got in any official trouble but I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to say it and it required a phone call with my dad for them to begrudgingly let me continue to not say it.
This seems like something the current SCOTUS might shut down in 13 months. Long enough to do some real damage to our country, but short enough that true believers will claim it was never given a chance.
I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the
Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.
The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.
They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
>Although it’s described as voluntary, Carr said broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations by taking the pledge. This is notable because Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
But apparently Europe are the ones with freedom of speech issues.
Pretty much. Americans want to export their fascist ideology to Europe under the guise of "freedom of speech". They need to get their own house in order first, frankly.
Calling stuff you disagree with "fascist ideology" does not make it so. Freedom of speech is also meaningless if it does not protect even unpopular, offensive, inaccurate, "hateful", etc. speech. We have way more freedom of speech in the US than basically any other country. Many of the clowns who throw shade on us from across the pond live in dystopian hellscapes where grandmas are arrested for tweets and rapists are given more lenient sentences than their victims who utter insulting words toward them. I'm not exaggerating at all, by the way.
> Many of the clowns who throw shade on us from across the pond live in dystopian hellscapes...
Rose tinted much?
These are all fucking awful. The UK is bad because it took leaking of state secrets before Andrew proper action, being a paedo and involved in trafficking just means you have to move to an "out of the way mansion". At least now its getting the attention.
But the US ignores the sitting president involvement.
And shoots unarmed people in the street.
Most of the clowns throwing shade from the US ignore their hypocrisy.
You are limited to a realitwhere words have consistent meaning. the fascists and republicans have no such limitation, which gives them a lot of power if you think you can debate them with logic.
Let's start with some readings of the Declaration of Independence.
They promised us another American Revolution. They neglected to mention that they were planning on taking the position of King George and the redcoats.
Ideals are much more inspiring than a specific attempt at implementation, which if we're being honest with ourselves as systems engineers, has failed pretty spectacularly in a few ways.
“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Almost all of history's greatest, most-destructive conspiracies were not concealed in smoke-filled rooms, they were published and advertised to great fanfare. This one included.
> Almost all of history's greatest, most-destructive conspiracies were not concealed in smoke-filled rooms, they were published and advertised to great fanfare. This one included.
I agree, and I've always found it kind of amusing. There is a conspiracy of elites that are actively trying to bring you down to enrich themselves, and they exert absurd amounts of control on the government, tax policy, and actively use their platform to move public opinion in their favor.
We call that group of elites "billionaires", and it's not really even hidden. Elon Musk was the CEO of like five companies while still heading a government "department", but for some reason Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson aren't going on long tirades about how utterly inappropriate that is. Instead they go on about "satanists" and "child sacrifices" and then their listeners will replace those with "Jews".
I didn't say the intentions weren't plain as day for anyone not stuck in the Fraudster in Chief's reality distortion field. Just that they abused the reference to the history without actually owning up to where in the analogy their agenda sits. Lawless gangs of soldiers terrorizing American cities for political purposes is straight out of the Revolution.
And yeah "bloodless, if the left allows it". It's always projection and gaslighting with these fascists. "Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself. Look what you made me do."
(see also "TDS" to describe anybody not in the Fraudster in Chief's reality distortion field)
It takes quite a bit of chutzpah to lament that "classic programming such as Schoolhouse Rock! is now only found in online archives" when this same administration defunded the CPB, previously responsible for developing just that kind of educational content.
There's no way to make a thing more unpopular with a massive swathe of Americans than to force us to participate.
I think they should use up all their social capital and definitely force government to do this, and it will go brilliantly for them in the midterms. Definitely do this. Maybe even send police around to rough up everyone and say it randomly, Americans love that.
I mean, think about it. If they were truly competent and trying to indoctrinate people, they would ask YouTube and TikTok to force people every 24 hours to watch the pledge of allegiance.
Other big countries all have their propaganda outfits. Why shouldn't the US at least have something to promote their point of view? The alternative as we are experiencing now is that point of view is never even expressed among the competing points of view and thus any ideas deriving from it never get discussed.
But it was directed at a different audience. This propaganda direction - inwards, serves another purpose: to remind the listener who's boss, or Daddy, if you will.
I used to think stuff like this was immoral and cringe. As I’ve aged, it’s become more and more obvious you need a tribe or you’ll lose to somebody that does. I’m not personally Christian, but I grew up and generally like white Christian societies compared to the alternative. And my morals are basically inline with the religion - how could they not be? The west was a Christian project until very recently. It’d be like a fish asking “what’s water?”. So ubiquitous you don’t even realize it until it’s gone.
That being said, Trump is awful and his admin is not gonna do anything but gaslight his supporters, so while im ok with this in principle, I’m aware in reality it’ll be used for net negative things (akin to his cruel fumbling of deportations).
> And my morals are basically inline with the religion - how could they not be?
The religion is aligned to fit your cultural moral code.
Because original Jesus would be _very_ disappointed in most US christians. "it is harder for the rich to enter heaven than for a camel walking through the eye of a needle", and all the parables about the good samaritain and the temple merchants, presenting the other cheek, etc. Catechism basically told me "god do not exist and whatever the original teaching were, it has been a very long time since anyone of importance ever followed them"
1. read from the bible between between 16:00 and 20:00
2. At 20:00 show Trump's picture for 5 minutes with people praising him
3. rest of the programming are shows based upon Leave it to Beaver and my 3 sons, make sure only WASPS are the actors and producers.
That is what the US admin. really wants. If I see more than one of these "PSAs" in a 4 hour period, I will never watch that network again. FWIW, I stream as opposed to using Cable. So they will know why I cancelled their service.
Those are’t the prime slots. Before 8 in the morning (before school), and somewhere between 6 and 7, during or right after dinner (make it a family activity)
I think it’s incredibly important to have active and engaging conversations about the FCC on HN, regardless of political ideology, because of our shared identity as those deeply involved with tech.
We should be openly discussing whether freedom of speech and information is being infringed by governments around the world in ways which can and do infringe upon our world.
It simply shouldn’t be? Nationalistic and forced religious belief (i.e., which is what the altered Pledge is) are antithetical to the US Constitution and are NOT in the public interest.
Do you believe that such a campaign would not exist under a President who is a Democrat?
I’m sure it’s easy to assume that these questions aren’t in good faith. Of course I have a point of my own that I could make, but then we’d be arguing over that instead and I’m less interested in trying to speculate better than you than I’m curious about what you think on your own.
So there isn’t any way that an administration led by a Democrat would implement such a campaign? You can’t imagine that? If not under an identical premise (viz. the US semiquincentennial) but under some other initiative to instill non-partisan nationalist pride at a time where it is virtually absent?
By an earnest suggestion from an administration that respects the United States, our freedoms, and our institutions. Not an implicit threat from a wannabe dictator who hangs giant pictures of himself up on government buildings to glorify himself, throws vindictive hissy fits when he doesn't get his way, and rambles at length about how he hates most American values.
How could the current administration appropriately suggest—and how could any institution earnestly commemorate—a democracy with all things considered with respect to its present state?
This feels a little excessively cynical, you still might hate it, but it's specifically for the 250th Anniversary of America.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr today urged broadcasters to join a “Pledge America Campaign” that Carr established to support President Trump’s “Salute to America 250” project.
Carr said in a press release that “I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration.” The press release said Carr is asking broadcasters to “air patriotic, pro-America programming in support of America’s 250th birthday.”
Carr gave what he called examples of content that broadcasters can run if they take the pledge. His examples include “starting each broadcast day with the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ or Pledge of Allegiance”; airing “PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history”; running “segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites”; airing “music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, and George Gershwin”; and providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events from US history.
I don't know that "pledge" should be the right word, just maybe like encourage? And like way to speed run the death of broadcast television, but whatever.
> This feels a little excessively cynical, you still might hate it, but it's specifically for the 250th Anniversary of America.
> I don't know that "pledge" should be the right word, just maybe like encourage?
The article addressed this.
Although it’s described as voluntary, Carr said broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations by taking the pledge. This is notable because Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
“If this were genuinely intended as voluntary, and genuinely about celebrating America, there is no reason to limit this to broadcasters,” Feld told Ars. “Cable operators are equally free to celebrate America, as are podcasters for that matter.”
We used to play the National Anthem at night when there were no programs to run. Disdain nationalism all you want, but something has to bind is together more than a European hate of our own country.
By the time I started staying up late, it seemed that most United States-based stations didn't "sign off" much at all.
However, the "border blaster" stations in Mexico would sign off precisely on schedule, playing the Mexican National Anthem [audio] with men's chorus and brass band.
The radio stations were required to broadcast "The Mexican National Hour" in the Spanish language, which turned Sunday evenings into a series of special-programming blocks.
Every day at noon one of the radio stations in my city plays either the national anthem or America the Beautiful. I'm sure all 20 people still listening to FM radio hear it.
I don’t see a problem with a broadcast channel deciding what it is they want to air on their station.
I do, however, have a serious problem with the government /potentially/ forcing nationalistic and god-fearing content (e.g., the altered Pledge) on the country’s inhabitants who choose to listen to broadcast networks. These are supposedly voluntary; and, if so, cool. But; if they later use it against a network, then it’s a big issue.
Freedom of speech and expression is an inherent right of the US under its Constitution; government-forced nationalism and religious ideology is not in the public interest, regardless of which political party is in power.
When I was in sixth grade I found out (I am not sure how actually) that I didn’t have to say the pledge if I didn’t want to. I didn’t (and don’t) believe in God, and I didn’t believe in the “under God” part of the pledge, so I decided that I wouldn’t stand for the pledge anymore.
This was an extremely conservative area, and so my teachers were very upset. I told them I don’t have to say the pledge if I don't want (and I believe I had even memorized the specific court case with the Jehova's Witnesses about it). This went on for a week, until I was eventually sent to the principal's office for it.
The principal asked why I wouldn't just say it, and I told him because I don't believe in God and I don't have to. He said "well let's just see what your parents see about that". He picked up the phone and called my house, and my dad answered.
The situation was explained, and then my dad said "why is he in trouble again? I'm pretty sure he doesn't have to say it if he doesn't want to."
The principal responded back with "well sir, it's very disrespectful if he--".
My dad interrupted and said "it doesn't matter if it's respectful, if he doesn't have to say it then he doesn't have to say it. You should probably send him back to class". I went back to class and nothing that day came from it at school.
I was slightly afraid that I would get in trouble when I got home. I knew my dad had fought for me but I thought that he might have just wanted to make sure I don't get into any official trouble, so when I got home I was prepared for a lecture and maybe being sent to my room.
My dad sat me down and said "You're not in trouble, you did what you thought was right, but why does it really matter if you have to say the pledge? It'd probably be easier if you just said it" and I quickly responded back with "because I don't believe in God and I don't think I should be forced to say it."
My dad basically said that if this important to me, then he will support me. He wrote a note explaining that he doesn't have an issue with me not saying it if I don't want to, signed it and put his phone number if they have any questions, and he said to keep it in my backpack and show it to teachers if there's ever an issue.
I love America most of the time, but I think America can be great even if there isn't mandatory indoctrination. I look back and feel grateful that my parents were pretty cool with this.
The “under god” part always rubbed me wrong. I was surprised to learn it was added relatively recently in 1954. I wish we could go back to the prior one.
You can thank Billy Grahm, a major US preacher, for that under God [1] in which the GOP and religious right started to get more aligned around 1950.Indeed, Graham could often be seen later with Regaen (US president 1980-88).
I think it's decently accurate to write US founders were religious except:
(1) church private and state public was more of a thing even though the majority shared similar private values
(2) God was away/apart more so in a static background way
[1] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/pledge-alleg...
There was a good book[0] about where that came from. Big business and religious leaders joined forced to fight the New Deal.
[0] One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America Kevin M. Kruse https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22928900-one-nation-unde...
I think the Christian Nationalists have overplayed their hand and revealed that their belief is politics takes priority over religion. Going back to the pre-1954 pledge is feasible within our lifetime.
Hopefully as part of the upcoming rebuke of sacrificing our nation's values for a megalomaniac coopting religion for political gain (with very public examples of hypocrisy). Jesus preached feeding the hungry, healing the sick, caring for the poor, loving thy neighbor. Any politics that goes against those basic principles is anti-Christian. Any attack or hindrance on a neighbor with a different faith is anti-Christian.
I agree. Culture wars have distorted, then corrupted a lot to the point where Christains think the state is their personal PR guy, bouncer, and front man ... with an undertone of entitlement to pursue while state is obligated to comply.
To me it smacks of desperation.
Wanna get more adherents? Live your life right, and keep stronger boundaries between personal and private. People will see and respect that.
When things cross, stop already with seeing public comments as an opportunity to evangelize, and blabber on about holiness.
Good example: there's a guy rusty (US state secratary) I believe got caught in the middle of Trump's 2020 election nonsense on the issue of alternative electors. He testified Jan 6 saying cooperation was against his faith and morals whatever the outcome.
Man, I had big respect for his actions and explanation. Short, factual, backed up by action.
Honestly I think even without the "under God" part I've always thought it was kind of weird and culty.
Your comment reminds me of what one American college student said in public in Italy. It was 2018, Trump was president, I was on a shuttle bus that takes tourists up and down a viewpoint. It was just leaving the viewpoint when it stops, a man hops in and asks in English "Did anyone see an Apple Watch?". "Yeah, right here!". The first person had forgotten it in the bus, and the second person had found it, and returned it to him. The bus drives on, and the second person (American college student in a tour group) says loudly "Boy, he's lucky this bus is full of Americans!".
I wish I was clever enough to come up with something witty, something like "Oh yeah, because everyone else is a thieving bastard, is that what you're saying?".
"If you had a bus full of Japanese people, the watch would have been precisely where you left it!"
It was added to indoctrinate children into viewing the US as a Christian nation in contrast to the "Godless" communists.
So yes, weird an culty by design and intent.
Apparently effective.
Are there really parents that would force their children to say it anyway? This feels like such a bizarre thing to have a fight over.
Absolutely. Children have been disowned and cut off for not following the faith of their families. Many parents take the "under God" part seriously.
I think it reasonable to assume that the principal, at least, would be such a parent
What? This is incredible if you don’t think a sizable portion of parents in America would force their children to say it.
No idea, but this was an overwhelmingly conservative part of Florida (Niceville, probably most famous for being where Matt Gaetz is from), so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Southern Baptists or Pentacostals in the area would get their children in trouble over that.
Even twenty-three years later, I'm still a little surprised that they sent me to the principal's office over it. It seems like it was a waste of everyone's time, considering it would have been considerably easier to just roll their eyes and let me sit in class.
Well those pearls weren't going to clutch themselves, you know.
Good for you. Not doing this is one of my regrets about middle school. I told my kids they didn't have to say the pledge, and that I would happily go to the mat for them on this issue.
Yeah, I'm grateful that my parents have always been pretty supportive of me and my siblings.
In communist Romania you had to kiss the party's behind every morning the exact same way, just without a god being mentioned. I don't think it helped the party in any way, but what do I know.
Nothing says you're selling an inferior product better than having to propagandize people into believing in it.
Lots of people take for granted that their government exists and doesn't suck as bad as those in other places. Say what you want about it, but every successful country cultivates a national culture and identity. This is especially important for countries where the people are very heterogeneous in other identity facets. If people feel no particular affinity for the country because they are rarely encouraged to stop and think about it, how exactly would anyone be found who is willing to defend the country itself and thus their own existence which they take for granted?
> Lots of people take for granted that their government exists and doesn't suck as bad as those in other places.
From the UK. Our government definitely sucks, and has basically had the same hostile policies despite switching between different parties.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53806-how-popular-is-...
People wish that we would stop pandering to the US, at least to the level that we do.
sounds like the state of AI
Sounds like "products"
Some consumers need to be educated about a product. (different problem, but that’s the why)
uh, new around here? That's what the US have been doing for the past century+
To be the contrarian, I actually don't mind a call for more patriotic programming to celebrate the USA's 250th. That makes sense. I definitely mind the slippery slope this precedent introduces. (Why not just keep doing this?) I'm also concerned that this letter is more of a "mandate" than a "call."
Regardless, Carr's letter searches hard for nostalgia. "Schoolhouse Rock" not being in syndication is eroding our nations educational strength according to him. This makes me wonder who this letter is really written for and how far-reaching they're "asking" content providers to take this.
Most Americans consume traditionally-broadcasted content through streaming platforms (Disney+ has Schoolhouse; the future of our kids is safe).and/or social media. Does Carr want Netflix to show the Pledge before every stream? The first stream of the day? Are they asking streaming providers to prioritize nationalistic programming in their recommendation algorithms outside of nationalistic holidays? Will they subsidize TV and movies for having a little more freedom in them? So many questions.
(All of this has been done before; I think there were pro-military Looney Tunes episodes back then these were shown in theaters, and the DoD does throw studios some cash to make the military look awesome and help full their recruitment pipeline.
> Does Carr want Netflix to show the Pledge before every stream? The first stream of the day? Are they asking streaming providers to prioritize nationalistic programming in their recommendation algorithms outside of nationalistic holidays? Will they subsidize TV and movies for having a little more freedom in them? So many questions.
These scenarios all seem imminent, their precedence not withstanding.
In a strange way this notice actually comes across as transparent, considering the thought that everything you described could be achieved without the public being informed of the cooperation between the state and media.
Tangentially, this entire thing could be a veiled notice to Netflix on how to curry the favor necessary to wrestle Warner Bros. away from the Ellisons.
Conspiratorially, I’ve read that a lot of production for TV/film is moving overseas and I can’t help but imagine these studios and sets being used for other purposes.
Freedom of speech, provided, of course, that it is Correct speech.
So they sent this little warning, they're prepared to do their worst
And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be coerced
I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first
Dear Leader will appreciate your help with brainwashing the masses.
Does the pledge of allegiance actually do anything? I can't even remember if I did it in school. I first thought "oh, my State must not have done the pledge in school", but after more reflection I think I did but just doing remember.
I went to a grand total of five schools in Florida: one grade school, two middle schools, and two high schools. The first two were in upstate conservative Florida, the last three were in Orlando (which is comparatively more progressive).
Every school expected me to say it every morning.
Wow, that doesn't terrify you? We're talking about a thing that, if you did it, you would have done at least ~2000 times in a typical 12 years of school. Every morning. Do you remember other school events?
Routine stuff actually just fades very easily.
Sure sure -- I can't tell you what I ate for dinner on an arbitrary Tuesday or something but a routine thing from 12 years? Knowing whether or not you did that routine at least? Seems like something you should probably remember? I donno I'm only 36 maybe it just gets lots harder from here.
It reminds kids that they live in the United States, and that the country has values, and that they will be expected to defend the country as part of the social contract. I don't know if other countries have pledges like this but on the surface it seems OK to me. I think it also inspires worthwhile conversations about what we owe to the country (or not).
pledging allegence aloud to anything is bizarre and reminds of some sort of knights of the round table cosplay. It's especially weird making kids do it.
Fun fact: the Pledge of Allegiance was written by an avowed socialist [0] and was intended to counter the individualistic and capitalistic tendencies he saw in American culture.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
Regardless of who wrote it I've always kind of thought it was weird. If America is a great country then it should be self-evident and we don't need to try and indoctrinate children with it.
Great information! I assumed it was some random patriotic thing, but this sounds sinister. It's probably not a big deal but I don't really know how much influence it actually has. Most people seem to see it as tolerable or cheesy, not some great and worthwhile gesture.
The original pledge was quite different, and indeed sounds more socialist:
> I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Also, did you know children had to do a "Bellamy Salute" to the flag? That was removed during WW2 for obvious reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
Wow; today I learned!!!
Mandatory state ideology is very worrisome.
This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it? Iirc, they have (legally not mandatory, but functionally mandatory) pledges at the start of every school day right?
Some schools do it some don’t.
Participation is never mandatory and retaliation or forcing the pledge is an invitation for an expensive civil rights suit.
Wait, which schools don't do it? I've never heard of a school not doing it. Are there states that don't do the pledge?
Even if it's not strictly "mandatory" there can be substantial pressure in conservative areas. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47095381
I definitely never did it in high school in Denver, nor did any of the other schools that my friends went to in the city.
I don’t have a list of schools for you.
Sure peer pressure can be a thing (at the school I went to you would have been bullied for doing the pledge), but it is pretty firmly established law that a student has every right to not participate and not be pressured to participate by public school staff.
Interesting, didn't know that was a thing in Denver. No need for a list of schools.
In my case the pressure came from my teachers and the principal. I never got in any official trouble but I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to say it and it required a phone call with my dad for them to begrudgingly let me continue to not say it.
They never made me say it but they did make me stand while the other kids did. That said... that was more than three decades ago.
I was only 9 the first time it happened but even back then it felt really weird.
It is certainly not mandatory. There's simply enormous social pressure to be a state toadie.
> This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it?
Yes, and it doesn't make it any less cult-like.
This seems like something the current SCOTUS would shut down very quickly, but I could be wrong.
This seems like something the current SCOTUS might shut down in 13 months. Long enough to do some real damage to our country, but short enough that true believers will claim it was never given a chance.
So was racial profiling for the sake of immigration enforcement, but, well...
The current SCOTUS has, so far, given the Trump administration a lot of rope to hang us by. If they use it to hang themselves remains to be seen.
Down the road they are taking us, there's rope for everyone. A-plenty.
Even for them, even though they may believe otherwise now. There's no loyalty among thieves.
Nothing mandatory, so no worries
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47095073
I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
With respect... the FCC is a regulatory agency. There is an obvious set of forcing functions here. It's not normal and is very concerning.
It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.
The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.
They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
>Although it’s described as voluntary, Carr said broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations by taking the pledge. This is notable because Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
But apparently Europe are the ones with freedom of speech issues.
Freedom of speech: pro-US propaganda
Lack of freedom of speech: anything else
Pretty much. Americans want to export their fascist ideology to Europe under the guise of "freedom of speech". They need to get their own house in order first, frankly.
Not just to Europe, we've seen what they did to Western Asia "Middle East" over the past decades under the guise of "freedom".
Calling stuff you disagree with "fascist ideology" does not make it so. Freedom of speech is also meaningless if it does not protect even unpopular, offensive, inaccurate, "hateful", etc. speech. We have way more freedom of speech in the US than basically any other country. Many of the clowns who throw shade on us from across the pond live in dystopian hellscapes where grandmas are arrested for tweets and rapists are given more lenient sentences than their victims who utter insulting words toward them. I'm not exaggerating at all, by the way.
> Many of the clowns who throw shade on us from across the pond live in dystopian hellscapes...
Rose tinted much?
These are all fucking awful. The UK is bad because it took leaking of state secrets before Andrew proper action, being a paedo and involved in trafficking just means you have to move to an "out of the way mansion". At least now its getting the attention.
But the US ignores the sitting president involvement.
And shoots unarmed people in the street.
Most of the clowns throwing shade from the US ignore their hypocrisy.
I took the comment as specifically referring to the fascist ideology being pushed by the current US administration.
You are limited to a realitwhere words have consistent meaning. the fascists and republicans have no such limitation, which gives them a lot of power if you think you can debate them with logic.
I can't tell if this is intentional or not, but you're pretty much paraphrasing a famous Jean-Paul Sartre's WW2-era quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...
Wow, i didn't know that. Isn't it an indictment for every edgelord?
Two things can be true
Let's start with some readings of the Declaration of Independence.
They promised us another American Revolution. They neglected to mention that they were planning on taking the position of King George and the redcoats.
It's always the Declaration and never the Constitution.
I suppose getting to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 is a disappointing early start to what is meant to be a uniting and patriotic activity.
Ideals are much more inspiring than a specific attempt at implementation, which if we're being honest with ourselves as systems engineers, has failed pretty spectacularly in a few ways.
No, they didn't neglect to mention it at all: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/16/project-2025...
“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Almost all of history's greatest, most-destructive conspiracies were not concealed in smoke-filled rooms, they were published and advertised to great fanfare. This one included.
> Almost all of history's greatest, most-destructive conspiracies were not concealed in smoke-filled rooms, they were published and advertised to great fanfare. This one included.
I agree, and I've always found it kind of amusing. There is a conspiracy of elites that are actively trying to bring you down to enrich themselves, and they exert absurd amounts of control on the government, tax policy, and actively use their platform to move public opinion in their favor.
We call that group of elites "billionaires", and it's not really even hidden. Elon Musk was the CEO of like five companies while still heading a government "department", but for some reason Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson aren't going on long tirades about how utterly inappropriate that is. Instead they go on about "satanists" and "child sacrifices" and then their listeners will replace those with "Jews".
I didn't say the intentions weren't plain as day for anyone not stuck in the Fraudster in Chief's reality distortion field. Just that they abused the reference to the history without actually owning up to where in the analogy their agenda sits. Lawless gangs of soldiers terrorizing American cities for political purposes is straight out of the Revolution.
And yeah "bloodless, if the left allows it". It's always projection and gaslighting with these fascists. "Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself. Look what you made me do."
(see also "TDS" to describe anybody not in the Fraudster in Chief's reality distortion field)
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
It takes quite a bit of chutzpah to lament that "classic programming such as Schoolhouse Rock! is now only found in online archives" when this same administration defunded the CPB, previously responsible for developing just that kind of educational content.
Schoolhouse was always aired by ABC, but your point stands. (Sesame Street and Fred Rogers wouldn't exist without the CPB.)
I suggest a daily airing of Leonard Cohen's 'Democracy'
There's no way to make a thing more unpopular with a massive swathe of Americans than to force us to participate.
I think they should use up all their social capital and definitely force government to do this, and it will go brilliantly for them in the midterms. Definitely do this. Maybe even send police around to rough up everyone and say it randomly, Americans love that.
I mean, think about it. If they were truly competent and trying to indoctrinate people, they would ask YouTube and TikTok to force people every 24 hours to watch the pledge of allegiance.
So basically Voice of America scaled up?
Do you really have a problem with VOA when they produce pieces like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wto1IYLRRRE
Other big countries all have their propaganda outfits. Why shouldn't the US at least have something to promote their point of view? The alternative as we are experiencing now is that point of view is never even expressed among the competing points of view and thus any ideas deriving from it never get discussed.
Haha, no, Voice of America can't be as crude.
But it was directed at a different audience. This propaganda direction - inwards, serves another purpose: to remind the listener who's boss, or Daddy, if you will.
We really are becoming the worst parts of what we were told was communism growing up, but without the redeeming parts. What a joke.
I used to think stuff like this was immoral and cringe. As I’ve aged, it’s become more and more obvious you need a tribe or you’ll lose to somebody that does. I’m not personally Christian, but I grew up and generally like white Christian societies compared to the alternative. And my morals are basically inline with the religion - how could they not be? The west was a Christian project until very recently. It’d be like a fish asking “what’s water?”. So ubiquitous you don’t even realize it until it’s gone.
That being said, Trump is awful and his admin is not gonna do anything but gaslight his supporters, so while im ok with this in principle, I’m aware in reality it’ll be used for net negative things (akin to his cruel fumbling of deportations).
> And my morals are basically inline with the religion - how could they not be?
The religion is aligned to fit your cultural moral code.
Because original Jesus would be _very_ disappointed in most US christians. "it is harder for the rich to enter heaven than for a camel walking through the eye of a needle", and all the parables about the good samaritain and the temple merchants, presenting the other cheek, etc. Catechism basically told me "god do not exist and whatever the original teaching were, it has been a very long time since anyone of importance ever followed them"
How about forcing all stations to:
1. read from the bible between between 16:00 and 20:00
2. At 20:00 show Trump's picture for 5 minutes with people praising him
3. rest of the programming are shows based upon Leave it to Beaver and my 3 sons, make sure only WASPS are the actors and producers.
That is what the US admin. really wants. If I see more than one of these "PSAs" in a 4 hour period, I will never watch that network again. FWIW, I stream as opposed to using Cable. So they will know why I cancelled their service.
Those are’t the prime slots. Before 8 in the morning (before school), and somewhere between 6 and 7, during or right after dinner (make it a family activity)
Eh, they wouldn't do Leave it to Beaver, just reruns of The Apprentice.
Yeah, Leave it to Beaver had an episode where Beaver befriends a Hispanic boy that only speaks Spanish.
[flagged]
How might this campaign appear under an administration ran by a Democrat?
It would probably be mostly the same, except maybe not suggesting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Except for that most of the kinds of things it gave as examples are close to the kind of things you'd find your local PBS or NPR station.
it just wouldnt? what are you trying to say
What purpose is this submission supposed to serve? What kind of discussion around it do you think would be more appropriate?
I think it’s incredibly important to have active and engaging conversations about the FCC on HN, regardless of political ideology, because of our shared identity as those deeply involved with tech.
We should be openly discussing whether freedom of speech and information is being infringed by governments around the world in ways which can and do infringe upon our world.
So how might a campaign such as this be advanced or advertised in ways that don’t infringe upon Democratic values?
It simply shouldn’t be? Nationalistic and forced religious belief (i.e., which is what the altered Pledge is) are antithetical to the US Constitution and are NOT in the public interest.
Do you believe that such a campaign would not exist under a President who is a Democrat?
I’m sure it’s easy to assume that these questions aren’t in good faith. Of course I have a point of my own that I could make, but then we’d be arguing over that instead and I’m less interested in trying to speculate better than you than I’m curious about what you think on your own.
So there isn’t any way that an administration led by a Democrat would implement such a campaign? You can’t imagine that? If not under an identical premise (viz. the US semiquincentennial) but under some other initiative to instill non-partisan nationalist pride at a time where it is virtually absent?
I suppose we'll have to see.
Right now we have a Republican administration pushing it.
After some thought, a better question could be:
How might networks effectively satisfy this appeal from the FCC without drawing the ire of the current administration and its supporters?
By an earnest suggestion from an administration that respects the United States, our freedoms, and our institutions. Not an implicit threat from a wannabe dictator who hangs giant pictures of himself up on government buildings to glorify himself, throws vindictive hissy fits when he doesn't get his way, and rambles at length about how he hates most American values.
How could the current administration appropriately suggest—and how could any institution earnestly commemorate—a democracy with all things considered with respect to its present state?
This feels a little excessively cynical, you still might hate it, but it's specifically for the 250th Anniversary of America.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr today urged broadcasters to join a “Pledge America Campaign” that Carr established to support President Trump’s “Salute to America 250” project.
Carr said in a press release that “I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration.” The press release said Carr is asking broadcasters to “air patriotic, pro-America programming in support of America’s 250th birthday.”
Carr gave what he called examples of content that broadcasters can run if they take the pledge. His examples include “starting each broadcast day with the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ or Pledge of Allegiance”; airing “PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history”; running “segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites”; airing “music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, and George Gershwin”; and providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events from US history.
I don't know that "pledge" should be the right word, just maybe like encourage? And like way to speed run the death of broadcast television, but whatever.
> This feels a little excessively cynical, you still might hate it, but it's specifically for the 250th Anniversary of America.
> I don't know that "pledge" should be the right word, just maybe like encourage?
The article addressed this.
Although it’s described as voluntary, Carr said broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations by taking the pledge. This is notable because Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
“If this were genuinely intended as voluntary, and genuinely about celebrating America, there is no reason to limit this to broadcasters,” Feld told Ars. “Cable operators are equally free to celebrate America, as are podcasters for that matter.”
The FCC has no jurisdiction over podcasters and no regulatory oversight on cable content.
Over the air content is something they have power over.
Oddly enough, this is the FCC staying on their lane… kind of
A request without power is a request. A request with power and context of threats may be a threat.
Sorry, i thought that this country took "freedom of speech" seriously. Being compelled to air anything of any description seems to contradict that.
'i thought that this country took "freedom of speech" seriously.'
What in god's name in anything that's happened in the past 10 years gave you that idea?
twitter's continued existence
Oh yes Twitter, bastion of free speech, not an extension of the censorship arm of the government at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...
In isolation, it makes sense.
In context it comes off as a thin veneer of jingoism on top of an implied threat.
In a time when the president’s face is on a giant banner hanging from the DOJ, it feels appropriately cynical.
We used to play the National Anthem at night when there were no programs to run. Disdain nationalism all you want, but something has to bind is together more than a European hate of our own country.
By the time I started staying up late, it seemed that most United States-based stations didn't "sign off" much at all.
However, the "border blaster" stations in Mexico would sign off precisely on schedule, playing the Mexican National Anthem [audio] with men's chorus and brass band.
The radio stations were required to broadcast "The Mexican National Hour" in the Spanish language, which turned Sunday evenings into a series of special-programming blocks.
I remember the national anthem as the last thing played before the tv station went off the air. If that was playing, it was a late bed time!
Every day at noon one of the radio stations in my city plays either the national anthem or America the Beautiful. I'm sure all 20 people still listening to FM radio hear it.
I don't see a problem with it.
I would have a massive problem with someone like KEXP being forced to do this. Though I'm sure they would find a way of complying without complying.
I don’t see a problem with a broadcast channel deciding what it is they want to air on their station.
I do, however, have a serious problem with the government /potentially/ forcing nationalistic and god-fearing content (e.g., the altered Pledge) on the country’s inhabitants who choose to listen to broadcast networks. These are supposedly voluntary; and, if so, cool. But; if they later use it against a network, then it’s a big issue.
Freedom of speech and expression is an inherent right of the US under its Constitution; government-forced nationalism and religious ideology is not in the public interest, regardless of which political party is in power.