Pledging Allegiance?

"I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually," Thoreau says in "Civil Disobedience." While the subject of whether or not the "One nation, under God" segment of the United States pledge of allegiance is often broached, few have questioned the idea of students being forced to pledge allegiance to the state. I found an article that discusses the "Under God" issue, and in doing so describes the Pledge as a symbol of nationalism; "In the burst of patriotism that followed the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks, bills to make the oath mandatory have been introduced in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi and Missouri." (The article was written in 2002, but I found another article that stated that as of 2006, the law in Illinois was that "The Pledge of Allegiance shall be recited each school day by pupils in elementary and secondary educational institutions supported or maintained in whole or in part by public funds.")
And so, the Pledge of Allegiance is meant to be a symbol of our patriotism, but it seems as if the pledge itself and the laws enforcing it are almost brainwashing kids to accept whatever the United States government does. By pledging this sort of oath, we are subconciously being persuaded not to think for ourselves, but instead to agree to the government's decisions and obey them, rather than our own instincts. Honestly, I have never thought to question where our taxes (or my parents') go, or if we are doing more harm than good when we go to war. After hearing Kathy Kelly's perspective, mine has turned around completely, and I feel like I have heard the deep dark secrets of our government. Maybe I'm just influenced by the pledge and Ms. Kelly so much because I'm a very impressionable person, but either way, the pledge of allegiance, I believe, convinced me at an early age that the U.S. government was flawless. Hopefully, more people will start to question the integrity of the entire oath, rather than just the "under God" section.

Simplicity and Zen

The other day, I happened to notice a book in my house called The Zen Commandments: Ten Suggestions for a Life of Inner Freedom. Apparently it was on Oprah's Book List, which made me wonder if the idea of living simply and "in the moment" was becoming more popular as people start to realize how unnecessarily hectic their lives are. Zen, a form of Buddhism that emphasizes living a life of meditation and simplicity, very much reminded me of Emerson and Thoreau's ideas. Because I was not all that familiar with the guidelines of Zen, I looked them up online and found two "essential rules to living like a Zen monk" which bore a striking resemblance to Emerson and Thoreau's opinions. The first rule was to "think about what is necessary", because a Zen monk "doesn’t have a closet full of shoes, or the latest in trendy clothes." Thoreau would agree with these ideas, as in "Economy," when questioning the necessity of clothes, he says "Each generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new" (19). The other rule was to live simply, "And so to live simply is to rid your life of as many of the unnecessary and unessential things as you can, to make room for the essential. Now, what is essential will be different to each person. There is no law saying what should be essential for you — but you should consider what is most important to your life, and make room for that by eliminating the other less essential things in your life." Thoreau, who wishes learn what "the gross necessaries of life" are, aspires to live as simple a life as possible, and Emerson would not only agree with living simply, but also with the idea of spending time doing what is essential to you. In "Self Reliance," he says, "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think" (23). If Oprah chose this book about Zen to be on her list, then simplicity must be gaining popularity in our chaotic world!