Quote from: J ArcaneAnd I should think that someone familiar with German history should be rather concerned about the concept of a federally mandated loyalty rally . . .

I'm not particularly fond of the subject, but almost every country already has that with their national holidays, e.g. the 4th of July.

I'd much rather have some poorly defined theme days than the state supporting religious holidays. Call the day whatever you want, for whatever reason. I will get concerned once the festivities take the wrong turn, whether from the state or not.

If I'm not mistaken, this "loyalty day" hooplah was mostly done to counter the socialist Labour Day celebrations. Dunno whether they succeeded in this.

..hhmm, after this discussion - I have decided that jacket in my avatar pic needs some lapel pins.

- Ed C.

I don't feel very loyal.  I think I'll sit this one out.

Um.. a little perspective::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day

First observed: 1921
Made official Holiday by Congress: 1958
Bush the first, or only, to proclaim the Day: No

Now, find something substantial to shit your pants about. Lord knows there's plenty.

(edit: This goes back to the whole "We're better 'n them godless Commies" craze of the mid-'50's that also gave us "Under God" in the Pledge, so again, this is old news.)

(edit edit: If you were unaware of its origins, Kitty, where'd you hear about it if you don't mind my asking?)

Well, I think there's a difference between being loyal to your country, and being loyal to your country uber alles.

But Loyalty Day, to me, is like Black History Month...what, all of black history took place in February? You're only supposed to think about being an American, and what that means, one day a year?

I know - it's supposed to remiond people and help them focus.  But when you do that, you give people an excuse to forget about it the rest of the year.

Stupidity - but what do you expect of Congress?

Quote from: James J SkachStupidity - but what do you expect of Congress?

 Yeah , well like the old Gallagher joke: If con is the opposite of pro , then the opposite of progress is.....


- Ed C.

Quote from: SosthenesWhat concept? The official reason or the true background?

Well, thanks to Werekoala / J Arcane's link, I'm aware of the history of the day, so I'd have to say the concept.

Loyalty to a government is not something that should be celebrated or enforced in a democracy. Affirming loyalty to the government implies that the voters must be loyal to those who hold office, when in fact it's the other way around -- those in office must be loyal to the people they have been entrusted to represent. No free democracy can require loyalty and still be a democracy.

Quote from: ElectroKittyLoyalty to a government is not something that should be celebrated or enforced in a democracy. Affirming loyalty to the government implies that the voters must be loyal to those who hold office, when in fact it's the other way around -- those in office must be loyal to the people they have been entrusted to represent. No free democracy can require loyalty and still be a democracy.

And here I'm going to play both sides...

I could see being loyal to the system of Government as established in the Constitution - or to the Constitution itself.

Don't make me go read it..please don't make me go read it...I just can't...

Quote from: ElectroKittyWell, thanks to Werekoala / J Arcane's link, I'm aware of the history of the day, so I'd have to say the concept.

Loyalty to a government is not something that should be celebrated or enforced in a democracy. Affirming loyalty to the government implies that the voters must be loyal to those who hold office, when in fact it's the other way around -- those in office must be loyal to the people they have been entrusted to represent. No free democracy can require loyalty and still be a democracy.

Bingo.  

A government is a tool, intended to serve it's people.

when you forget that, you forget the basic foundations of liberty.

Doesn't celebrating loyalty to the government and motherland sound just a little Moscow circa 1950?  Democracy is about the citizen as leader, not follower or, worse, mere registrar of opinion.

Do they even teach civics in the US anymore?

Sure they do, which is why we know Democracy is not defined by citizen as leader...

Quote from: James J SkachSure they do, which is why we know Democracy is not defined by citizen as leader...

So Joseph Tussman is off the reading list and it's just memorising the pledge of allegiance now?

Quote from: HalfjackDoesn't celebrating loyalty to the government and motherland sound just a little Moscow circa 1950?

Didn't the russkies use to have those big loyalty parades on the 1st of may?

Quote from: WikipediaMay Day was an important official holiday in the former Soviet Union, celebrated with elaborate popular parade in the centre of the major cities. It was first openly celebrated on May 1, 1917. The biggest celebration was traditionally organized on the Red Square, where the General Secretary of the CPSU and other party and government leaders were greeting the crowds form the Lenin's Mausoleum.

ZOMFGWTFBBQYMMVIMO!!!  Dubya's a Commie!!!!!!

Quote from: HalfjackDo they even teach civics in the US anymore?

...

So Joseph Tussman is off the reading list and it's just memorising the pledge of allegiance now?

Tussman has never been *on* the required reading list, but yes, they still teach civics in high school. Unfortunately, how good/appropriate it is varies wildly from school to school and depends, ultimately, on how big the balls of the teacher are. I had two civics teachers when I was in high school (god, nearly twenty years ago) because I moved and had transfer problems, and I had two very different experiences. My first civics teacher was a bit of a pussy. We learned, basically, directly from the text for the class and rarely had discussion about the pros and cons of anything in the gubment. It was all slurp and burp. My second civics teacher, on the other hand... damn, she had some big balls! She actually posed difficult questions and got the class discussing everything about the government and civic duty, from the pros and cons of lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to whether or not a citizen has a duty to vote. She even brought in local government candidates from no less than 5 political parties to talk to us about their political beliefs! That's right, Green, Libertarian, and even Socialists were there alongside the Republicrats.

Her course should be the required curriculum, IMO.

And to be clear, it's not the Citizen as Leader is not a valid and honorable perspective.  It's just not the definition of Democracy, per se.

People like to say that the US has a democratic government, when the US is really a representative federal republic - at least that's the way it supposed to work. Democracy refers to the way in which we determine those representatives.

So it's a little more...I think some like to flaunt the word "nuanced"...

I explained the pledge to my son last night (he's in kindergarten and it's his first exposure to the memorization of it). No where in that pledge does it talk about pledging allegiance to any person or party in government – it's "to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands."  Allegiance does not mean, as many on the Left are fond of pointing out, total and complete mindless agreement.

It's actually a nice pledge when you get down to it – "one nation [under God] indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all," is not a bad thing to which one could pledge allegiance.

And don't get me started on the Star Spangled Banner...

But I digress...