The Pledge Revisited

When I left for college, I was what you might consider the quintessential American patriot. In addition to having intense political passions, I also was a lover of all things USA. My bedspread, bath towel, and backpack all featured American flags. The fact that my alma mater was founded by a church (Brethren in Christ) that affiliates itself with a pacifist perspective was a source of great frustration to me. I viewed this position as being both cowardly and traitorous.

I have recently found myself in a situation that represents a sharp departure from my past. The school where I work purchased flags for the classrooms so that the pledge of allegiance could be said in the morning. I found myself, as a matter of principle, unable to either put up a flag or say the pledge. The reason for this has nothing to do with disliking the United States. As a teacher of United States History for 12 years, I have developed an intense admiration for the Constitution and the principles which it espouses.

As far as the flag is concerned, I have much respect for it a symbol of this. It is with the use of the flag that I take issue. When I teach, my goal is to examine truth which transcends the confines of my school as well as the geographic and political boundaries of this country. If I were to work in a public school for the government, I may be more comfortable with its display. The fact that I do not frees me I believe to hold all earthly institutions accountable to transcendent truth. To display the flag in this setting would, I believe, compromise the appearance of my willingness to do so.

The pledge is a more serious concern for me. Not only do I not feel comfortable leading my students in the pledge, I do not feel comfortable saying it at all. The pledge was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It was written for a magazine called Youth Companion as part of an advertising campaign to sell flags. It changed several times until taking on its present form in the 1950s. At one point the supreme court upheld laws requiring all students to recite it, but that has since been overturned. What follows is the text of the Pledge of Allegiance, including problems I have with it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America
Although I love this country, I love the principles it seeks to protect even more. I believe what was given as justification for our revolution was that at times governments instituted by men are prone to seek to rob men of these rights, rather than preserve them. I believe the following words from Jefferson demonstrate this. "In the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." His writing seems to be defiant of the concept of undying allegiance to any civil government. I believe the concept of allegiance asks for this. Wikipedia defines it as "a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his/her state or sovereign. " Encarta defines it similarly as "loyalty to ruler or state: a subject's or citizen's loyalty to a ruler or state, or the duty of obedience and loyalty owed by a subject or citizen."

If I were to feel this type of loyalty to the United States, I would be more comfortable pledging it to the state or the nation. I certainly do not owe allegiance to the flag itself. I realize that it is just a symbol, but the pledge is not worded accordingly.

and to the Republic for which it stands
Why not just say to the Republic for which the flag stands? To include "and" identifies a distinct allegiance to the flag. Still, I don't believe I owe allegiance according to the aforementioned definitions to either. Perhaps this is affected by my faith. I believe that allegiance as such is reserved for God. At the risk of the appearance of religious fundamentalism, I want to point out that such sentiment is by no means reserved for the faithful. This is made powerfully clear by the words of French enlightenment thinker Denis Diderot. The author the L'Encylcopedie, Diderot famously quipped " man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."


One Nation
Although the meaning of this word has recently evolved to a political identity, historically it has been defined, as by American Heritage Dictionary, as "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality."In the historical sense, we are as much many nations as we are one. We are white, black, catholic, teen, nerd, farmer, Texan, beach bum, etc...

Under God
This is probably the one that has evoked the most controversy. Although written in 1892, the pledge did not formally contain this phrase until 1954. I certainly think that this nation is under God in terms of it being subject to his authority. However, I do not believe that this is any more or less true than it is for any other nation. I believe the way that it worded also leaves too much to the imagination. It could be implying official connection with a deity, special favor from a deity, equal authority with a deity, or a combination of this and other things. Because of this ambiguous language, I would prefer it to not be included.

Indivisible
If it is under God's authority, then it, like all other governments, is quite divisible. This sounds to me like the Titanic's captain claiming his ship to be unsinkable. I find it hard to understand how the same people who so passionately defend the inclusion of "under God" do not seek the exclusion of the above. This to me gives it the pledge a nationalistic favor and I believe the inclusion of "under God" should be seen as such.

With Liberty and Justice for All
Although these are guaranteed, I don't believe they are actualized. The day they are, I will be happy to say it.

I do not pretend that this is by any means a comprehensive discourse on this subject. I hope that it does not come across as dislike of the United States. This country existed for 116 prior to the writing of the pledge. Obviously love of this country can exist without its recitation. Perhaps I will undergo yet another change of heart on such things. Until then however, I do not feel comfortable with the pledge.

I think it would be fitting to end with a comment about my thoughts on governmental loyalty. The Bible in Hebrews says to "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." At the same time, Jesus admonished the pharisees in Matthew for placing law based in the traditions of men over that of God. Matthew 15:3 says "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" I interpret this as a requirement to obey earthly authority to the extent that it does not require me to break God's commands. As a citizen of the United States, I recognize the US Constitution as the supreme law governing my earthly citizenship. I do not believe that loyalty to it compromises my faith. However, as its enforcement is in the hands of men, I believe that it is within the realm of possibility that it one day could. Given this fact, I am willing to submit to constitutional authority, but I stop short of pledging it my undying allegiance.