Pledge of Allegence vs. Idolatry

[Upchurch]

So I was talking to a friend of mine the othe day who was recounting a conversation he had had with a friend of his. Without going into details, the friend's friend made the assertion that the American Pledge of Allegence was a statement of idolatry.
I pledge allegence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
The argument is that you are pledging your allegence, not to God, but to an object, the flag of a secular nation.

So, here's my question. Why wouldn't religious groups be working to get the entire pledge of allegence out of public schools since it breaks one of the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt have no other god before me")?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch

So, here's my question. Why wouldn't religious groups be working to get the entire pledge of allegence out of public schools since it breaks one of the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt have no other god before me")?


Because that's not how they interpret it?

[Upchurch]

Is it a valid interpretation?

[Tony]

I dunno. I guess it could be.

[SteveW]

Isnt that why the Jehovah Witnesses refuse to take the pledge and salute the flag?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by SteveW
Isnt that why the Jehovah Witnesses refuse to take the pledge and salute the flag?

Yep....:)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, here's my question. Why wouldn't religious groups be working to get the entire pledge of allegence out of public schools since it breaks one of the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt have no other god before me")?
My take on this would be as follows:

First, the historical usage of the term "allegiance", and to some extent its etymology, reveal that the word developed pretty much to refer specifically to the type of loyalty owed to an earthly ruler. For this reason, it would actually be slightly incorrect, except by analogy, to speak of "allegiance" to God.

Second, the text of the Pledge expressly situates its object (the nation) "under God", so it's clear that no cosmological hierarchy is violated and national allegiance remains subordinated to God.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


Second, the text of the Pledge expressly situates its object (the nation) "under God", so it's clear that no cosmological hierarchy is violated.

Disagree..


The object of the pledge is the ' Flag '......

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not sure, but I think I had a problem with the pledge long before I realized I was an atheist.

I suppose my biggest problem with it is that our political system is a democracy. I don't "vote" my alliegence by rote recitation of a pledge. I "vote" my alliegence by daily appreciating the freedoms and prosperity my country, it's ideals and it's governmental system give me. "Demonstrating" my alliegence is much more meaningful to me than some rote pledge.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm not sure, but I think I had a problem with the pledge long before I realized I was an atheist.

I suppose my biggest problem with it is that our political system is a democracy. I don't "vote" my alliegence by rote recitation of a pledge. I "vote" my alliegence by daily appreciating the freedoms and prosperity my country, it's ideals and it's governmental system give me. "Demonstrating" my alliegence is much more meaningful to me than some rote pledge.


I have brought this up a time or two myself..

If you think about ' pledging your allegience to a flag', it's really pretty hokey.. But then, it does go on to say ... " ... and to the republic, for which it stands.. ", which doesn't seem like a bad thing to do.

It still seems to me, that the ' Pledge ', makes sense for people in the millitary and maybe Federal employees, ..... but for kindergartners? I don't think so....

[Dancing David]

My take on it is this, the "under god" language was added at some point.

Hey if it was good enough for Lincoln and Grant to pledge allegiance to the republic without god then thats good enough for me!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Dancing David
My take on it is this, the "under god" language was added at some point.

Hey if it was good enough for Lincoln and Grant to pledge allegiance to the republic without god then thats good enough for me!
The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It underwent several changes in wording.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

http://history.vineyard.net//pledge.htm

[Upchurch]

Here's my thinking, with all the fuss that the Jack Chick-like crowd makes about the idolitry in the Catholic Church, why aren't the equally upset about the Pledge of Allegence?

I realize there is no point in trying to force rationality or logic onto someone's irrational beliefs, but given this comic (third panel) (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp) it seems there is a basic contradiction. Jack accuses Catholics of having divided loyalties, but doesn't Jack have equally divided loyalties? One to his god and one to his country, the same as "Helen"?

[whitefork]

I'm still waiting to find out who Richard Stans is and how he acquired his power of invisibility.

[Snide]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm not sure, but I think I had a problem with the pledge long before I realized I was an atheist.

I suppose my biggest problem with it is that our political system is a democracy. I don't "vote" my alliegence by rote recitation of a pledge. I "vote" my alliegence by daily appreciating the freedoms and prosperity my country, it's ideals and it's governmental system give me. "Demonstrating" my alliegence is much more meaningful to me than some rote pledge. Ditto for me on everything you said.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
. . .It still seems to me, that the ' Pledge ', makes sense for people in the millitary and maybe Federal employees, ..... but for kindergartners? I don't think so....

The problem with that is your pledging allegiance to the nation without any reference to the values the government espouces. Basically its a loyalty no matter what type of oath - even if the US turns into a fascist country with a mad dictator. Currently we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution,the values it represents, and to obey orders as long as they fall within those guidelines (and we are duty bound to not follow orders which do not). For me this is much more palatable since in the, most unlikely, event the above happens I can still revolt without necessarly breaking an oath.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I realize there is no point in trying to force rationality or logic onto someone's irrational beliefs, but given this comic (third panel) (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp) it seems there is a basic contradiction. Jack accuses Catholics of having divided loyalties, but doesn't Jack have equally divided loyalties? One to his god and one to his country, the same as "Helen"? Not really. Chick's thread implies that "Helen" is a full-fledged member of the Holy See, and that is simply not true. She does not pay taxes to them (granted, she might donate money to the church, but I digress...) Nor does she have any benefits from being a citizen of Holy See the state. Point being, the church headquarters and the actual geopolitical area are two different things. She is a member of the church, she is not a citizen of the state.

Furthermore, pledging allegiance to a state does not preclude one having a "higher power" that they are ultimately loyal to. It would be the same as saying my JREF membership means I answer strictly to Mr. Randi. Sure, if I were on some kind of JREF committee (like the forum staff, for example), I would ultimately answer to him as the head of JREF for JREF-related issues.

Such is the case with pledging allegiance to a country. I will defer to the country's leadership to take care of things they need to take care of, and I agree to abide by the laws of the land. However, for spiritual issues, I can have a completely different "chain of command".

Also, adding "under God" to the pledge does seem to imply that man is not the ultimate authority, and although I might hold allegiance to a human-run state, the said state exists only under the grace and oversight of God.

All of this implies a belief in God, specifically the Judeo-Christian "capital 'G' God", which is why I think the pledge violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment. It's a government-endorsed pledge that states allegiance to the U.S. implies faith in a God.

[Trish]

Originally posted by Agammamon


The problem with that is your pledging allegiance to the nation without any reference to the values the government espouces. Basically its a loyalty no matter what type of oath - even if the US turns into a fascist country with a mad dictator. Currently we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution,the values it represents, and to obey orders as long as they fall within those guidelines (and we are duty bound to not follow orders which do not). For me this is much more palatable since in the, most unlikely, event the above happens I can still revolt without necessarly breaking an oath.

Don't forget 'and to defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic'. This actually says you'd be breaking your oath if you blindly followed the governments orders if they were a violation of the constitution. Esentially, you would be duty bound by that oath to revolt. The constitution also allows for the overthrow of the government if it becomes oppressive. Let's just hope it never goes that far.

As for the pledge. It's nice if folks want to say it, but forcing the saying of the pledge as a means of patriotism, I have to ask, 'Who's partriotism are we discussing?' Patriotism isn't about the wrote memorization of some words, but rather about our actions in support of the concept of equality, justice, etc....

[justsaygnosis]

In my first eight years of catholic schools the 'pledge' was a daily occurrence.
In catholic high school we NEVER used it.
We obviously had the standard catholic prayers and a specific school prayer, which was used at the beginning of every class including phys-ed as well as the beginning and ending of the school day.I graduated in 1973 so it may very well have been one of many baclashes over viet nam,watergate etc. etc.!
I never gave it any thought until it struck me reading this thread.

[TexasBEAST]

The 2nd commandment prohibits the making of any image of anything in the sky above, on the ground below, or in the waters under the ground. Last time I checked, the US Flag had stars in in, which are like--duh--things in the sky above. The Flag is inconsistent with the JYehudi Torah.

I would be much more content if we all swore oaths to support the Constitution, much like what is required for the President during Inauguration.

(Only without that dumb un-Constitutional "so help me God" crap they try to squeeze in at the end...)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
The 2nd commandment prohibits the making of any image of anything in the sky above, on the ground below, or in the waters under the ground. Last time I checked, the US Flag had stars in in, which are like--duh--things in the sky above. The Flag is inconsistent with the JYehudi Torah.

I would be much more content if we all swore oaths to support the Constitution, much like what is required for the President during Inauguration.

(Only without that dumb un-Constitutional "so help me God" crap they try to squeeze in at the end...)
America is (supposedly) a secular nation. To refuse to want to change the flag, refuse to salute it, complain about it, etc. because it conflicts with the second commandment would suggest that we are moved by religious faith rather than by secular logic.

The flag is a universal symbol of our country. The constitution is a reflection of the rights of the American people and foundations our government is built upon. I think its more proper to salute the Flag rather than the constitution.

[Yahweh]

So, here's my question. Why wouldn't religious groups be working to get the entire pledge of allegence out of public schools since it breaks one of the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt have no other god before me")?
Interesting question, but I dont think its very easy to interpret the face value of the Pledge of Allegence as referring to another god.

[Trish]

Originally posted by TexasBEAST
I would be much more content if we all swore oaths to support the Constitution, much like what is required for the President during Inauguration.

(Only without that dumb un-Constitutional "so help me God" crap they try to squeeze in at the end...) [/B]

You can affirm your oath when joining the military, it drops the god crap at the end.

I, _________, affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

as opposed to:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

[scribble]

Upchurch, I was always bothered by this myself. Even as a kid - when I didn't have any probelmw ith saying God, it always seemed a little weird to me to pledge my allegience to a FLAG. A piece of CLOTH.

WTF?

Oh, sure, they added 'and to the republic' as an afterthought, but c'mon. To a FLAG? Sheesh.

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
[B]
My take on this would be as follows:

First, the historical usage of the term "allegiance", and to some extent its etymology, reveal that the word developed pretty much to refer specifically to the type of loyalty owed to an earthly ruler. For this reason, it would actually be slightly incorrect, except by analogy, to speak of "allegiance" to God.


See Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 for an illustration of why your semantic argument is totally irrelevant.

No man may serve two masters. Specifically, Luke and Matthew bring this up int he context of earthly rulers.

-Chris

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by scribble
See Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 for an illustration of why your semantic argument is totally irrelevant.

No man may serve two masters. Specifically, Luke and Matthew bring this up int he context of earthly rulers.

-Chris

No, in the cited verses Matthew and Luke are bringing it up in relation to mammon - wealth personified as an idolatrous object of worship.

I'm glad you mention those passages, however, because they highlight why (from what I presume to be the Christian viewpoint) national allegiance is not incompatible with divine worship. To borrow another Lucan image, allegiance is rendered unto Caesar whereas worship is properly rendered solely to God. And as one is by definition subordinate to the other, it is possible for them to coexist.

Love of country could (like love of wealth) conceivably develop into a "false idol", but in so doing it would necessarily exceed the proper nature and scope of allegiance.

[INRM]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So I was talking to a friend of mine the othe day who was recounting a conversation he had had with a friend of his. Without going into details, the friend's friend made the assertion that the American Pledge of Allegence was a statement of idolatry.

The argument is that you are pledging your allegence, not to God, but to an object, the flag of a secular nation.

So, here's my question. Why wouldn't religious groups be working to get the entire pledge of allegence out of public schools since it breaks one of the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt have no other god before me")?

There's an easy reason for that. Most people aren't intelligent enough to figure it out.

Plus, you are right. I don't even know why we have to pledge allegiance to our flag. I'm an american by birth and that should be good enough.

-INRM