Thread: Pledge of Allegiance Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030091
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
I speak as a Brit and no anti American sentiment is intended or should be read into this post. Just curiosity.
I have always been confused by the US Pledge of Allegiance.
First of all, how can you promise loyalty to a Flag?
It may mean that loyalty is being promised to the state (=country) represented by the flag (the USA) or to the citizens/inhabitants of that country. But the use of the word "and" immediately before "to the republic for which it stands" suggests that loyalty is being promised both to the flag AND to the country/people ("republic") represented by the flag. So we're back to promising loyalty to a flag with the symbolism absent, meaning exactly what?
What "God" is meant in "one nation under God"? Is it the God of Christianity or some other God? If it is the God of Christianity, can the pledge be made by atheists or non-Christians? Is an alternative wording available for such persons?
I get the "indivisible" bit. I just wish that we in the UK could acknowledge that we are better as a nation together than in separate bits.
The liberty and justice for all is a fine sentiment.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
What "God" is meant in "one nation under God"? Is it the God of Christianity or some other God? If it is the God of Christianity, can the pledge be made by atheists or non-Christians? Is an alternative wording available for such persons?
I don't think it is specified in the Pledge, or anywhere else, which God is being referenced there. But the movement to insert God was heavily influenced by Christians, and it's probably safe to say that they wanted the public to assume the Christian God.
quote:
can the pledge be made by atheists or non-Christians? Is an alternative wording available for such persons?
I don't know(not American). Since it's often recited in groups, it might be a little awakward to get around those words, though I suppose you could just keep your mouth shut for them.
And I just have to ask...
Is there an atheist-friendly version of God Save The Queen?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... Is there an atheist-friendly version of God Save The Queen?
No, but then, the Queen is both officially and, on the evidence of her Christmas broadcasts which have been getting steadily more overtly Christian in recent years, personally, a Christian believer.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
There is a movement to remove the "under God" phrase from the Pledge and restore it to it's original form. Don't know how much traction it has, but it gets posted on facebook occasionally.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
I'm not really for or against the word "God" being in any particular patriotic text. It's just that Tulfes concern about atheists and the Pledge seemed kind of odd, coming from a country with the same issues in its national song.
It would be like an American asking a French person "Don't pacifists find the the militaristic language in The Marseillaise offensive?"
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh no, I didn't think it was something you were bothered about.
And lots of rather gratingly and plonkingly pacifist Welsh people have AFAIK been perfectly happy to sing about our gwrol ryfelwyr ('manly warriors') who shed their blood for freedom. Tho' i do recall some comment about that, but nothing came of it.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is a movement to remove the "under God" phrase from the Pledge and restore it to it's original form. Don't know how much traction it has, but it gets posted on facebook occasionally.
If facebook posts and petitions were indications of the validity or a movement . . . (I don't know how to finish that, but you get my drift.)
Honestly, I don't know how often the Pledge is even said anymore, outside of Republican breakfast meetings. We used to say it every morning in elementary school, but I had heard so little about it recently that I assumed it had faded out of use. I haven't said it in years- I think the last time was when I was a guest at a Rotary club meeting. Maybe I would encounter it more in the suburbs or in rural areas. Am I just sheltered in my urban existence?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
From what I've seen the fuss comes from those can't abide others quietly not singing it. See, for example, the furore over a Mr J Corbyn doing just that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
Rubbish, bullshit, poppycock and harrumph. There are those of us, atheist, non-theist, theist non-Christian and even (shock, horror) Christian! who believe in disestablishment. Some of these might justifiably complain about enshrining God in government.
Personally, I could give a toss about the song, but do feel religion has no place in official state business.
ISTM, that the Pledge of Allegiance is more serious, in that it is a pledge and America is supposed to be disestablished.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
From what I've seen the fuss comes from those can't abide others quietly not singing it. See, for example, the furore over a Mr J Corbyn doing just that.
Exactly
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
"I feel surrounded by Christians who very much like the idea of an American God and a middle-class Republican Jesus, first and foremost concerned about Our National Security and Our Way of Life. “The Lord is My Shepherd” becomes “The Lord Is Our President,” elected by use for our national interest, or “The Lord Is Our Secretary of Defense,” ready to sacrifice 10,000 lives of noncitizens elsewhere for the safety of U.S. citizens here.
…
In Jesus’ day, “Caesar is Lord” was the political pledge of allegiance, required in a way not unlike “Heil Hitler” was required…in Nazi Germany. To call Jesus “Lord” meant that there is a power in Jesus more important than the power of the king of the greatest state in history. To say “Jesus is Lord” was then (and should be now!) a profoundly political statement — affirming the authority of a “powerless” Jewish rabbi with scarred feet over the power of Caesar himself with all his swords, spears, chariots, and crosses."
A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren p82
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Buddha wrote:
quote:
ISTM, that the Pledge of Allegiance is more serious, in that it is a pledge and America is supposed to be disestablished.
Valid points, but Tulfes didn't raise the disestablishment issue in his OP. His point about "One Nation Under God" was not that it violated the First Amendment, but that it might be unpalatable to atheists. That's what I was replying to with my "God Save The Queen" counterexample.
I don't know how coercive the singing of GSTQ usually gets in the UK these days. Are there any situations where it is included as part of official protocol, and people are expected to sing along, at risk of being in shameful violation of social custom? If so, then the difference between that and a pledge might not be that great.
But, like I say, I really don't know what the customs are around that song.
[ 15. April 2016, 19:14: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
As soon as someone comes up with three syllables to take the place of, 'God save our..', then I think it would not be long before the improved version would become accepted. I do hope this happens before my life runs out, but I'm not holding my breath! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If ever I had to go to court or something, I would use the non-God wording of swearing to speak the truth.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
Rubbish, bullshit, poppycock and harrumph. There are those of us, atheist, non-theist, theist non-Christian and even (shock, horror) Christian! who believe in disestablishment. Some of these might justifiably complain about enshrining God in government.
Ah yes, but I think you're American, aren't you? What applies in older polities doesn't necessarily apply there. You have different ideas about these things and a different cultural background. You're children of a particular moment of the Enlightenment.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: If ever I had to go to court or something, I would use the non-God wording of swearing to speak the truth.
FWIW I'm with you here. (I'm not even very comfortable with swearing itself.)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Susan wrote:
quote:
As soon as someone comes up with three syllables to take the place of, 'God save our..', then I think it would not be long before the improved version would become accepted. I do hope this happens before my life runs out, but I'm not holding my breath!
Maybe I'm just extrapolating a bit too much from the Canadian scene, but I'd wager that any attempt at taking "God" out of "God Save The Queen" would get considerable pushback from certain sections of the British public.
Unless, of course, things like the Fleet Street "War On Christmas" panic-mongering are all taken by their readership as clever satires on conservatives.
[ 16. April 2016, 07:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
First of all, how can you promise loyalty to a Flag?
What "God" is meant in "one nation under God"? Is it the God of Christianity or some other God? If it is the God of Christianity, can the pledge be made by atheists or non-Christians? Is an alternative wording available for such persons?
The pledge as initially written and used for decades did not include "under God" or any other reference to any religion. Thst phrase was added as a political statement, anti Communist, who were often referred to as "those Godless communists" so "under God" was a self boasting "we are better than they are", not a humble statement of submission to God nor a recognition that God (not us and our bully stick) is in charge.
This was an era - mid-50s - when Jewish kids (maybe 1/3rd of my school) were required to sing Christian songs in school music programs on the grounds we aren't singing for the words just for the beautiful music. I guess no Jewish music was considered beautiful? Anyway, the idea of accomodating those of a different religious persuasion (or none) was minimally honored. And socially you had to go to church - in one job we were told we have to go to church to help uphold the employer's public image as nice people.
As to the flag, you may have noticed the war song adopted as national anthem focuses on the flag. Maybe flag focus is what you get when there's no Queen? I'd rather pledge allegiance to the Constitution but it's isn't as decorative in appearance.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
First of all, how can you promise loyalty to a Flag?
What "God" is meant in "one nation under God"? Is it the God of Christianity or some other God? If it is the God of Christianity, can the pledge be made by atheists or non-Christians? Is an alternative wording available for such persons?
The pledge as initially written and used for decades did not include "under God" or any other reference to any religion. Thst phrase was added as a political statement, anti Communist, who were often referred to as "those Godless communists" so "under God" was a self boasting "we are better than they are", not a humble statement of submission to God nor a recognition that God (not us and our bully stick) is in charge.
Along those lines, it was also thought to be a useful litmus test in the McCarthy-era "hidden commie" scare. It was believed no true communist would be able to utter the words "under God" and so they'd be able to uncover all those hidden commie spies lurking everywhere. It would be funny in it's naiveté if it didn't have so many tragic consequences (blacklisting, etc).
So something that sounds so pious turns out to be anything but.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Exactly. It is a divisive shibboleth. It impels dishonesty of people who don't believe in .God, or who do not believe that the nation should be united by religion.
I tend to not say that part when the Pledge is invoked.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
Rubbish, bullshit, poppycock and harrumph. There are those of us, atheist, non-theist, theist non-Christian and even (shock, horror) Christian! who believe in disestablishment. Some of these might justifiably complain about enshrining God in government.
Ah yes, but I think you're American, aren't you? What applies in older polities doesn't necessarily apply there. You have different ideas about these things and a different cultural background. You're children of a particular moment of the Enlightenment.
Interesting reply, but it doesn't answer anything
I said.
Let me put it more simply: God does not belong in government.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Exactly. It is a divisive shibboleth. It impels dishonesty of people who don't believe in .God, or who do not believe that the nation should be united by religion.
I tend to not say that part when the Pledge is invoked.
It also implies divine right and manifest destiny.
Both of which are ridiculous.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Maybe this is saying the same thing, but as a kid I thought of it as bribing God. We endorse you with this public pronouncement, you have to materially bless us.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Belle Ringer notes:
quote:
I'd rather pledge allegiance to the Constitution but it's isn't as decorative in appearance.
Belle Ringer may quote in her support that oaths of office in the US contain the words ...to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States suggesting that it is the structure and supporting ideals which are the goal of allegiance, rather than a symbol.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know how coercive the singing of GSTQ usually gets in the UK these days. Are there any situations where it is included as part of official protocol, and people are expected to sing along, at risk of being in shameful violation of social custom?
I can't remember the last time I sang it. If a situation arose when it was expected that I sing it, I hope someone provides the words.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As soon as someone comes up with three syllables to take the place of, 'God save our..', then I think it would not be long before the improved version would become accepted. I do hope this happens before my life runs out, but I'm not holding my breath!
If ever I had to go to court or something, I would use the non-God wording of swearing to speak the truth.
There's never any need to do other than affirm. Which I've had the honour of doing.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know how coercive the singing of GSTQ usually gets in the UK these days. Are there any situations where it is included as part of official protocol, and people are expected to sing along, at risk of being in shameful violation of social custom?
I can't remember the last time I sang it. If a situation arose when it was expected that I sing it, I hope someone provides the words.
When not avoidable I simply sing the modern verse which starts Not on this land alone, But be the mercies known From shore to shore.
Looks like I'm politely joining in, but avoids any allusion to the ridiculous House of Windsor and its members.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know how coercive the singing of GSTQ usually gets in the UK these days. Are there any situations where it is included as part of official protocol, and people are expected to sing along, at risk of being in shameful violation of social custom?
I can't remember the last time I sang it. If a situation arose when it was expected that I sing it, I hope someone provides the words.
Thanks for the input. That would be my experience with O Canada as well, but then again, I never go to sporting events.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Leaving aside the specifics related to the mention of God, how about the fact that the ritualized public recitation of a loyalty oath is just creepy? Related analysis from Fred Clark:
quote:
“Hey, honey, let’s reaffirm our wedding vows to celebrate our anniversary.” That might be nice. “Honey, I insist that every day you stand, place your hand on your heart, and reaffirm our wedding vows before breakfast” is just creepy control-freak behavior that has nothing to do with anything like love or devotion.
At least they got rid of the salute they used to do. For some reason it became controversial in 1942.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Much depends on the way your local culture understands the repetition. I'm thinking, for example, of the Boy Scout pledges and laws and what-have-you that they repeat at meetings mainly as a) a kind of aid to group cohesion and b) an aid to ethical focus. At least that's what's going on locally here.
The pledge of allegiance is basically the same wherever I've lived. Nobody is making it the subject of a witch-hunt, or getting tied up in knots about it as if it were Scripture (which it clearly comes way below, in terms of authority and value). It functions as a reminder of things to be grateful for, an aid to group cohesion, and a warm fuzzy. Certainly there are freaks for whom it functions differently (at least, I see them on Facebook, so I assume they exist IRL ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
). But it doesn't have to be that way.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At least they got rid of the salute they used to do. For some reason it became controversial in 1942.
Except, of course, at Trump rallies.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm thinking, for example, of the Boy Scout pledges and laws and what-have-you that they repeat at meetings mainly as a) a kind of aid to group cohesion and b) an aid to ethical focus.
I'm quite often present at allegiance-pledging occasions (Scouts mostly, plus the occasional sporting-type event, and school when I had a child in public school.) I don't, because I'm not American, so it would be a lie. I stand, with my hands at my sides, whilst pledging is going on around me. Nobody has ever said anything.
(I last sang GSTQ on Memorial Day weekend, in church, when "My country 'tis of thee" was listed. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I put my hand on my heart, but I usually keep silent as well.(Very rarely I sub at conservative Christina schools where the Pledge is part of the morning routine. Either I keep silent during the whole pledge, or I drop silent at "under God." But I just can't say it with any authenticity.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm a public school teacher and do not say the pledge. I put the flag on the back wall of the room so the students are facing away from me. Well, the ones who say the pledge.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Has there ever been an issue in the US as to whether, by making the pledge to an inanimate object, it infringes the Second Commandment against idolatry? I can't help thinking that over here, not just the JWs but quite a few other Christians, Jews or these days, Moslems would have an issue of conscience with it.
When there was some discussion on the Ship a year or two ago which referred to the pledge, I was surprised to learn that apparently foreigners were not excused from saying it, and that some authority figures in the US could not see why this was either odd or a problem.
Mind, also rather odd, the US at one time used to feel no compunction about conscripting foreigners into its armed forces, something that most other countries would be likely to take steps to avoid. Not only might they be disloyal, but they might picked up official secrets while they were there.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
When there was some discussion on the Ship a year or two ago which referred to the pledge, I was surprised to learn that apparently foreigners were not excused from saying it, and that some authority figures in the US could not see why this was either odd or a problem.
Yes. It's mostly ignorance-- the default assumption seems to be that everyone either is an American citizen or wants to be. My husband is an immigrant who has chosen not to relinquish his Canadian citizenship-- we often sit in meetings and roll our eyes when someone, trying to sound diverse, says something like "after all, we're all Americans!" otoh, there are American citizens with non-European heritage who experience the reverse...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Where did you get the idea that people in the US are compelled to say the Pledge? Especially since several of us have already said we don't say it?
At certain public events the Pledge is used to begin things, but the formal routine is for the leader to say, " we ask that you stand and join us in the Pledge of Alligience."
Using it in a public setting creates a social pressure to join in, but nobody is forced to do it, and even the social pressure has raised enough first amendment issues that at most public events they have switched to just playing the National Anthem , where all you have to do is stand to be socially proper.
As for idolatry-- definitely this has been raised as a reason for refusing to recite the Pledge, and again, as a reason people protest its public use. Honestly, by the time I got to junior high (1983) the schools I attended were not using the Pledge to start the day anymore. In fact, the last time I remember doing it was in about second grade, so maybe teachers were beginning to quietly opt out before I knew what was happening.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I can't help thinking that over here, not just the JWs but quite a few other Christians, Jews or these days, Moslems would have an issue of conscience with it.
I've sometimes wondered if the Pledge issue would play out differently in US public opinion if people knew that the legal cases against it had been launched by Jehovah's Witnesses, not by hippies and Communists.
I mean, I realize that JWs are somewhat off-the-beaten-path of mainstream US society, but they're still more-or-less Christian(trinitarian purists aside), and apart from shirking patriotism, pretty respectable members of the middle-class.
When GHW Bush went after Dukakis about the Pledge in '88, Dukakis mumbled a few words about just following the Supreme Court rulings, a reply which didn't seem to help him much. I wonder how it would have played out had he instead said something like "Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Vice President, I DON'T think Christians who have a problem with saluting a flag should be forced by the government to do it."
Would the meat-eating patriots Bush was targetting have thought "Damn it, he's right, the government can't make people go against their beliefs". Or would it just be "Those are the guys who wake me up in the morning and have those freaky pictures of Jesus nailed to a pole!! Damn straight they should be forced to salute the flag! And shoot 'em if they refuse!"
link
[ 17. April 2016, 18:47: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has there ever been an issue in the US as to whether, by making the pledge to an inanimate object, it infringes the Second Commandment against idolatry? I can't help thinking that over here, not just the JWs but quite a few other Christians, Jews or these days, Moslems would have an issue of conscience with it.
Wikipedia has an article on the pledge which describes the legal challenges brought by Jehovah's Witnesses and others. quote:
When there was some discussion on the Ship a year or two ago which referred to the pledge, I was surprised to learn that apparently foreigners were not excused from saying it, and that some authority figures in the US could not see why this was either odd or a problem.
As a matter of law, no one can be required to say it; from the majority opinion of a 1943 Supreme Court case mentioned in the Wikipedia article: quote:
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."
quote:
Mind, also rather odd, the US at one time used to feel no compunction about conscripting foreigners into its armed forces, something that most other countries would be likely to take steps to avoid. Not only might they be disloyal, but they might picked up official secrets while they were there.
"At one time"? I'm not at all sure that most other countries would be different; the Wiki article on the UK National National Service Act of 1939 says it "enforced full conscription on all males between 18 and 41 who were residents in the UK."
(I'd be interested in reading the text of the Act itself, if anyone knows where to find it.)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
I speak as a Brit and no anti American sentiment is intended or should be read into this post. Just curiosity.
I have always been confused by the US Pledge of Allegiance.
First of all, how can you promise loyalty to a Flag?
My theory: The flag is to the US as the crown is to the UK. It is the unifying (in theory, at least) symbol of the nation that is (in theory, at least) above politics. So where (in the movies, at least), the British might fight "for King and country," here "flag and country"—or simply "flag"—can be substituted pretty easily. The British national anthem is about the Queen, ours is about the flag. Honor and respect are, in various way, shown the Queen there and are shown the flag here.
Allegiance is not, of course, really pledged to the piece of cloth itself. But the flag is about as weighty a symbol as we have in the US. Bottom line—we rejected having a monarchy, so something had to fill the symbolism gap.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm thinking, for example, of the Boy Scout pledges and laws and what-have-you that they repeat at meetings mainly as a) a kind of aid to group cohesion and b) an aid to ethical focus.
I'm quite often present at allegiance-pledging occasions (Scouts mostly, plus the occasional sporting-type event, and school when I had a child in public school.) I don't, because I'm not American, so it would be a lie. I stand, with my hands at my sides, whilst pledging is going on around me. Nobody has ever said anything.
One of the adult leaders in my son's Scout group was English, and he did as you describe. He was careful every now and then to explain to the boys why he did so, especially when they were really young.
And at least around here, it is still said daily in public and private schools. It is also said at the beginning of things like city council meetings, and definitely political gatherings, both Republican and Democratic.
And yes, most people I know who have issues with "under God" simply stay quiet through those words.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Would the meat-eating patriots Bush was targetting have thought "Damn it, he's right, the government can't make people go against their beliefs".
No. The meat-head patriots are all for the government forcing THEIR religion on others. As witness some of the rhetoric surrounding Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
They're just opposed to the government trying to prevent them from forcing their religion on others.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Back in the '60s, comedian Red Skelton did a serious piece on the pledge and "under God". It was a big deal, at the time--even put on a vinyl record. I'm not saying he's right, but it had an impact on me, at the time: because he was so emotional about it, he was someone I respected, he was a Christian, and he did comparatively clean comedy. (Go easy on me, please--I was a little kid, and trying to figure stuff out.)
Text and video here (Red-Skelton.info).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
*snip*
Mind, also rather odd, the US at one time used to feel no compunction about conscripting foreigners into its armed forces, something that most other countries would be likely to take steps to avoid. Not only might they be disloyal, but they might picked up official secrets while they were there.
The US, through its Selective Service System, still does register resident non-citizens for a draft, should a call be made. In the 1970s, Canadian students in the US were registered and sometimes drafted (theoretically they were
exempt, but local practice was ....uneven).
I did notice that FTM transgendered persons were not required to register.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
No to defend the pledge, which I find ridiculous in general, but it does say "and to the republic for which it stands.." in other words, you are pledging allegiance to the nation, not just the flag.
Still stupid to include the flag at all, in my opinion, but there you have it.
Growing up we stood up every morning in class, one kid would have the honor of holding the flag, and the rest of us would say the pledge, and then sing some patriotic song. Knowing those songs comes in handy on certain occasions, and I think group singing in elementary school is a good thing (even if it's singing praises to "a grand old flag".) It never occurred to anyone to question this practice (well, how would I know that? I don't. I guess it's an assumption because no one complained, and because it was a fairly homogeneous community).
At Christmas time we sang Christmas carols (both religious and secular) and also Hannukah songs (because we had a large number of Jewish students). I can still remember all the words to "oh, Hanukah, oh, Hanukah, come light the menorah, let's have a party, we'll all dance the hora".
I can deal with pledging to the flag, but it really bothers me to see a flag in church, where it's essentially an icon not of God but of the State.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Some churches have an American flag to one side of the altar, and the so- called "Christian flag" to the other. That bugs me.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Ours has an American flag on the pulpit side and the state flag on the lectern side. It has been like this for ever, and I doubt if any change could ever be made. My idea is, there are bigger battles to be fought. (Also, they do process the flags up and down every now and then -- on the Fourth of July, and also for funerals of military persons, so they might as well be handy.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The more I read about this, the more I am convinced I'd refuse to say the pledge, just as i refuse to sing 'God save the queen'.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Some churches have a "Pledge to the Christian Flag", which makes me want to gag.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Some churches have a "Pledge to the Christian Flag", which makes me want to gag.
I have encountered that, and I agree whole-heartedly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
According to the incredibly named Dutch Sheets, one of the speakers at the LA Coliseum event to herald in revival on the anniversary of the Azusa street revival, it's the Pine Tree Flag, mostly because of the words "An Appeal to Heaven" on it...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know how coercive the singing of GSTQ usually gets in the UK these days. Are there any situations where it is included as part of official protocol, and people are expected to sing along, at risk of being in shameful violation of social custom?
I can't remember the last time I sang it. If a situation arose when it was expected that I sing it, I hope someone provides the words.
When not avoidable I simply sing the modern verse which starts Not on this land alone, But be the mercies known From shore to shore.
Looks like I'm politely joining in, but avoids any allusion to the ridiculous House of Windsor and its members.
Never had you down as a Jacobite, but you live and learn. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
BTW does anyone on here know whether there is a 'proper' Jacobite anthem for England/Scotland/Ireland? I haave an idea that national anthems, as we know know them, came in some time after the Revolution of 1688, but I'm not sure.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
No, it's the Christian Flag.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
Rubbish, bullshit, poppycock and harrumph. There are those of us, atheist, non-theist, theist non-Christian and even (shock, horror) Christian! who believe in disestablishment. Some of these might justifiably complain about enshrining God in government.
Ah yes, but I think you're American, aren't you? What applies in older polities doesn't necessarily apply there. You have different ideas about these things and a different cultural background. You're children of a particular moment of the Enlightenment.
Interesting reply, but it doesn't answer anything
I said.
Let me put it more simply: God does not belong in government.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm a public school teacher and do not say the pledge. I put the flag on the back wall of the room so the students are facing away from me. Well, the ones who say the pledge.
Mousethief (or anyone else here who's a public school teacher): I wonder if you've ever informed your students that they aren't required to say it. I never learned that until well after my school years (e.g., the 1943 Supreme Court decision regarding Jehovah's Witnesses). I wonder what kind of backlash there would be from parents or school administrators if a teacher did tell his/her students, "You don't have to do this."
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know how coercive the singing of GSTQ usually gets in the UK these days. Are there any situations where it is included as part of official protocol, and people are expected to sing along, at risk of being in shameful violation of social custom?
I can't remember the last time I sang it. If a situation arose when it was expected that I sing it, I hope someone provides the words.
When not avoidable I simply sing the modern verse which starts Not on this land alone, But be the mercies known From shore to shore.
Looks like I'm politely joining in, but avoids any allusion to the ridiculous House of Windsor and its members.
Never had you down as a Jacobite, but you live and learn. BTW does anyone on here know whether there is a 'proper' Jacobite anthem for England/Scotland/Ireland? I haave an idea that national anthems, as we know know them, came in some time after the Revolution of 1688, but I'm not sure.
I have been known to quote (in a sermon, no less) that wonderfully unofficial verse about General Wade and the rebellious Scots, so no, not a Jacobite, just someone who thinks that the last legitimate king of England was Harold Godwinson, and he was bit dodgy too!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Many years ago my wife taught at a missionary kids' school in Senegal. It had two sections: American (much the larger) and British.
Each morning they hoisted the US flag and everyone stated the Pledge of Allegiance. My wife and her British colleague refused, on the grounds both that they weren't American and that we didn't do that kind of thing. This response led to blind incomprehension ... but at least they and their pupils were "let off" attending.
What really galled my wife was that the Senegalese had to pledge allegiance, too. The idea that their flag might be the more appropriate to use never entered the missionaries' heads.
(I must add that the mission concerned was a pretty fundamentalist right-wing outfit. I'm certainly not seeking to tar all Americans with the same brush).
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What really galled my wife was that the Senegalese had to pledge allegiance, too. The idea that their flag might be the more appropriate to use never entered the missionaries' heads.
(I must add that the mission concerned was a pretty fundamentalist right-wing outfit. I'm certainly not seeking to tar all Americans with the same brush).
That makes me wonder if they were trying to form the kids into Christians or Americans.
Personally I've had trouble with the idea of the Pledge of Allegiance ever since I was a teenager. I just don't believe in vowing absolute loyalty to a political institution. Or to a symbol thereof such as a flag.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm a public school teacher and do not say the pledge. I put the flag on the back wall of the room so the students are facing away from me. Well, the ones who say the pledge.
Mousethief (or anyone else here who's a public school teacher): I wonder if you've ever informed your students that they aren't required to say it. I never learned that until well after my school years (e.g., the 1943 Supreme Court decision regarding Jehovah's Witnesses). I wonder what kind of backlash there would be from parents or school administrators if a teacher did tell his/her students, "You don't have to do this."
See, this capsulates what's befuddling me. I basically always knew I didn't HAVE to say it. Nor did we ever place the kind of importance upon it that leads one to start worrying about Commandment 1 conflicts.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
They have something similar in Central American countries; at least from what I know, in El Salvador it is required for school children to say their version of the pledge.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
[... no, not a Jacobite, just someone who thinks that the last legitimate king of England was Harold Godwinson, and he was bit dodgy too!
Better than I had hoped! You have put my sarkiness to flight. I sweep off my hat and bow low to you, Sir. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Me, too.
I felt some irritation on both visits to Alesund in Norway where the guides wax lyrical about Ganger Rolf, aka Duke Rollo, the usurper William's forefather having come from thereabouts, very proud about the link with our current Royal Family.
The second time I did mutter that some of us prefer the Danish connection through Harold.
On the other hand, through Henry I's marriage into Alfred's line, and all the marriages with the Danes since, into whose unbroken dynasty one of Harold's descendants married, we do have our blood line as well as the usurpers.
If that sort of thing matters.
I started not joining in at Girl Guides after my Grandad opined that the flag business was idolatry!
[ 18. April 2016, 20:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
I am not sure whether people in other countries venerate their flags as much as Yanks do. It's very much part of our culture, especially in the South and Midwest. Just listen to our national anthem; it's about a flag.
One big reason for this, I suspect, has been a reaction against a few highly-sensationalized incidents of people burning or otherwise desecrating the flag as a protest. The media, especially outlets like our friends at Fox News, are quick to show pictures of this, knowing that it will whip millions of Americans into a rage. A popular tee shirt shows the Stars and Stripes with the caption "Just try and burn this one."
The flag also became something of a rallying point after the 9/11 attacks. Even here in New York City, where many consider overt shows of patriotism to be naive, flags immediately started appearing everywhere after the attacks. And they haven't gone away.
As for the Pledge, when I went to a Catholic grammar school we said it daily, but this certainly did not happen in the RC high school I attended. Indeed, I have not been in a situation where people recited the Pledge since I was 14 years old.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Some churches have a "Pledge to the Christian Flag", which makes me want to gag.
And reaching WAY back to my Vacation Bible School days, there was also a 'Pledge to the Bible,' which was as follows IIRC
'I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God's Holy Word; a Lamp unto my feet, a Light unto my path (and I can't remember the rest).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Some churches have a "Pledge to the Christian Flag", which makes me want to gag.
And reaching WAY back to my Vacation Bible School days, there was also a 'Pledge to the Bible,' which was as follows IIRC
'I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God's Holy Word; a Lamp unto my feet, a Light unto my path (and I can't remember the rest).
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Now that is something I have never encountered.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Me neither. Dear Lord. The pledge to the Christian flag is creepy enough.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It amazes me that people will pledge allegiance to a flag, and take their hat off for it, and hold their hand to their heart ... who consider kissing an icon to be idolatry. The disconnect is deafening.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
No, it's the Christian Flag.
Yeah, the Pine Tree flag was a pre-independence flag-- one of many, including the famous " Don't Tread on Me" snake flag-- that was popularly used by the Massachusetts revolutionary militia.
The "Christian Flag" was popularized in evangelical churches. I' m sure the link above provides the origin story, but my cynical instinct is to synopsize it as, " They wanted something to make their placing of the American flag to the side of the altar look less lopsided."
My former home church used to have both flags, bookending the altar. I freely admit that to me it smacks of idolatry, bribing God, etc.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Interestingly, I have never, ever heard the original version of the Christian Flag pledge.( see Nicole's link.) I guess key people had a problem with that whole " uniting humanity in service and love" but.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, the Pine Tree flag was a pre-independence flag-- one of many, including the famous " Don't Tread on Me" snake flag-- that was popularly used by the Massachusetts revolutionary militia.
I know. But like I say, that hasn't stopped attempts to repurpose it (sample video here)...
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Some churches have a "Pledge to the Christian Flag", which makes me want to gag.
Is that not idolatry?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And what about singing "I vow to thee, my country"?
Following Galatians 3:28, shouldn't Christians be super-nationalists with a primary allegiance to God and his Kingdom?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And what about singing "I vow to thee, my country"?
Following Galatians 3:28, shouldn't Christians be super-nationalists with a primary allegiance to God and his Kingdom?
I don't like that hymn for that very reason.
I also think the line in the second verse, "and there's another country, I've heard of long ago", must be the saddest in any hymn regularly sung.
Referring to the original subject, something has occurred to me. I'd be interested to know what US shipmates think about this.
We owe our allegiance to a person, which makes sense to me. Has the practice of pledging oneself to a flag grown up to avoid requiring people to pledge themselves to a president when just under half the electorate voted for someone else? Is it a symbolic replacement of the head of state, who might be, and often is, politically controversial, by a flag, which as a thing, is incapable of having political opinions or standing for or against any package of policies? Is it there so people can require others to say 'my country right or wrong' irrespective of who is in the White House?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Referring to the original subject, something has occurred to me. I'd be interested to know what US shipmates think about this.
We owe our allegiance to a person, which makes sense to me. Has the practice of pledging oneself to a flag grown up to avoid requiring people to pledge themselves to a president when just under half the electorate voted for someone else? Is it a symbolic replacement of the head of state, who might be, and often is, politically controversial, by a flag, which as a thing, is incapable of having political opinions or standing for or against any package of policies? Is it there so people can require others to say 'my country right or wrong' irrespective of who is in the White House?
Yes, I think so. See my post above.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, the Pine Tree flag was a pre-independence flag-- one of many, including the famous " Don't Tread on Me" snake flag-- that was popularly used by the Massachusetts revolutionary militia.
I know. But like I say, that hasn't stopped attempts to repurpose it (sample video here)...
But you thought that was the flag we were talking about when we referred to the Christian Flag, and it wasn't. I am aware that gun rights advocates (among other people) have espoused the Pine Tree Flag, but I have never heard it called " The Christian Flag," nor has it been placed alongside church altars in the prolific way that the " official" Christian Flag has.
I think it's important to talk about how that flag is used, because ( as I said) it is prolific, very often children in conservative Christian schools are required to say it, and the color scheme and phrasing of the pledge are actively conflated with those of the American flag. It teaches theocracy.
[ 19. April 2016, 13:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Enoch said
We owe our allegiance to a person, which makes sense to me. Has the practice of pledging oneself to a flag grown up to avoid requiring people to pledge themselves to a president when just under half the electorate voted for someone else? Is it a symbolic replacement of the head of state, who might be, and often is, politically controversial, by a flag, which as a thing, is incapable of having political opinions or standing for or against any package of policies? Is it there so people can require others to say 'my country right or wrong' irrespective of who is in the White House?
I just think the pledge was written at a time when poetic metapors about the flag of one's country were popular, in the same way " under God" was added at a time when it was popular to tremble at the thought of Godless communists. I think in the author's mind the flag represented the gallent revolutionaries standing in a throng behind it. Since then, it has become a tribal marker, not in the least because of the way the phrasing of the pledge isolates the flag from the people it is supposed to represent.
If I ran things, I would rephrasee the pledge in a way that required us to pledge allegiance to the people of the US. Or service, would be better.mBut that just begs the question of why we need a pledge at all. Somewhere along the line ( I'm guessing the Cold War era) it turned into a mini loyalty oath.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And what about singing "I vow to thee, my country"?
Following Galatians 3:28, shouldn't Christians be super-nationalists with a primary allegiance to God and his Kingdom?
I can't sing that, especially the first verse. The second supposes that heaven is heaven because it resembles England (and I mean England, not UK or Britain - it is obviously just the SE corner). The first verse promises to England things which it has no right to expect to be put above duty to family, friends and God. To demand the sacrifice of those to a patch of sedimentary rock* is obscene. To demand the sacrifice of those to a political system which supports the rich over the lives of the poor is even more obscene.
I'm with E.M. Forster on this one. E.M. Forster
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”
If ever anyone decides to replace GSOGQ with I vow, as has been suggested, I would walk out whenever it was played.
*I am aware there are a few examples of other types, but you get the general idea.
[ 19. April 2016, 14:06: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We owe our allegiance to a person, which makes sense to me. Has the practice of pledging oneself to a flag grown up to avoid requiring people to pledge themselves to a president when just under half the electorate voted for someone else? Is it a symbolic replacement of the head of state, who might be, and often is, politically controversial, by a flag, which as a thing, is incapable of having political opinions or standing for or against any package of policies? Is it there so people can require others to say 'my country right or wrong' irrespective of who is in the White House?
It's more along the lines of the fact that a president is not a king, and the U.S. Constitution was set up largely to avoid the situation where officials bore more personal loyalty to an individual leader than they did to the state generally or the ideals and principles of the government. Situations where people are supposed to swear personal loyalty to a specific leader have a dubious history, largely dependent upon having a good or competent leader as the recipient of such oaths. As an exercise in imagination, think about what the Watergate crisis would have been like if people were expected to swear loyalty to Richard Nixon personally. Would that mean the Supreme Court was disloyal for ordering the release of the Nixon tapes? Or the House of Representatives for drafting articles of impeachment? Or for that matter would it have been disloyal to vote for McGovern in 1972?
The American flag isn't so much an inanimate "cloth king" as it is a physical representation (an icon or idol, if you prefer) of American ideals and the American constitutional system. Theoretically that's what people are pledging their allegiance to, not whoever's legs happen to be propped under the Resolute desk.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Tangent // There's an American flag in St Andrew's Cathedral in Aberdeen, Scotland. It was presented by General Eisenhower. // end tangent
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Personally I think I'd prefer pledging my allegiance to the constitution, but the visual symbolism is lacking.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Personally I think I'd prefer pledging my allegiance to the constitution, but the visual symbolism is lacking.
All elected and appointed federal officials, except the president, and members of the armed services take an oath (or make an affirmation) to " support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Most states pattern their oaths of office after this one.
The president promises to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
When I was admitted to the Bar, the first part of my legally-prescribed oath was "I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; so help me God." This is part of the oath of all elected and appointed public officials in North Carolina.
FWIW.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I suppose in this sense allegiance 'the Flag' is analogous to the allegiance that we in the Queen's realms might belive that we owe to 'the Crown'. (I believe there is a technical term for using the name of a thing to represent something bigger that is connected ith it, but I can't remember what it is at the moment. Some literary / linguistical / semiotical Shipmate may be able to help.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Pars pro toto? Metonymy? Synecdoche?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose in this sense allegiance 'the Flag' is analogous to the allegiance that we in the Queen's realms might belive that we owe to 'the Crown'.
I'm sure you're right. Trouble is, pledging to the Flag seems to be done in a far more literal way than pledging to the Crown ... We may sing "God Save the Queen" but we don't turn to face her picture while we do so (not even in the Brownies!)
[ 20. April 2016, 07:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose in this sense allegiance 'the Flag' is analogous to the allegiance that we in the Queen's realms might belive that we owe to 'the Crown'.
I'm sure you're right. Trouble is, pledging to the Flag seems to be done in a far more literal way than pledging to the Crown ... We may sing "God Save the Queen" but we don't turn to face her picture while we do so (not even in the Brownies!)
Well, the US is less than 300 years old. Give us time to catch up.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose in this sense allegiance 'the Flag' is analogous to the allegiance that we in the Queen's realms might beli[e]ve that we owe to 'the Crown'.
Or as we Scots believe, to Her Majesty's 'Throne and Person'.
Here's the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland in 1901 to the new King:
Mourning deeply as we do the removal of a Sovereign so deservedly honoured and beloved, we desire at the same time humbly to express our congratulations on the occasion of Your Majesty’s succession to the Crown of your ancestors, and to tender our loyal allegiance to Your Majesty’s Throne and Person.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I can't sing that, especially the first verse. The second supposes that heaven is heaven because it resembles England (and I mean England, not UK or Britain - it is obviously just the SE corner). The first verse promises to England things which it has no right to expect to be put above duty to family, friends and God. To demand the sacrifice of those to a patch of sedimentary rock* is obscene. To demand the sacrifice of those to a political system which supports the rich over the lives of the poor is even more obscene.
I think you're reading it wrong.
The first verse is about Christian love. And says that that love finds expression in service to one's country - people and land - above all earthly things.
No particular country is mentioned in either verse.
The second verse likens heaven to another country, that can be loved in the same sort of way that one loves one own country on earth, but whose glory is in things of the spirit not in armies and fortresses. And the love of that other country is slowly growing, and as it spreads there will be less need of armies and fortresses.
What is there to object to in that ?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Always thought the second verse of IVTTMC was rather lovely and that it was a pity that objections to the first verse meant that it wasn't sung more.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Pars pro toto? Metonymy? Synecdoche?
Metonymy, I think. Thank you.
[ 20. April 2016, 20:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
When I started school, we would recite each morning:
I honour my God
I serve my King
I salute my flag
which falls into both the person and symbol pattern. Later on, we changed King to Queen.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Always thought the second verse of IVTTMC
Unkind! What is this? Decryption required. Is it NSFW? Otherwise evil?
quote:
Sorry, there are no Web results for this search! Your family filter is on and may be blocking results.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oops, sorry: I Vow To Thee My Country
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Always thought the second verse of IVTTMC was rather lovely and that it was a pity that objections to the first verse meant that it wasn't sung more.
Seems to me that the objection to patriotism - that love of people and land can lead one into doing morally dubious things for the same of the foreign policy of one's government - applies just as much to all the other expressions of patriotism we've talked about here.
And that any particular objection to "I vow..." is based on a mis-parsing of the complex initial sentence.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Love of anyone or anything- one's friends, one's spouse, the Church- can lead one into morally dubious positions. Patriotism need be no more objectionable than any other form of love. FWIW I find that first verse a little too unconditional- 'all earthly things above- for me to be entirely comfortable with it.
But surely no Christian could object to an expression of patriotism towards the Kingdom of Heaven (and actually I'm not even sure that the second verse is an expression of patriotism even to that, as such)?
[ 21. April 2016, 13:55: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Love of anyone or anything- one's friends, one's spouse, the Church- can lead one into morally dubious positions. Patriotism need be no more objectionable than any other form of love. FWIW I find that first verse a little too unconditional- 'all earthly things above- for me to be entirely comfortable with it.
But surely no Christian could object to an expression of patriotism towards the Kingdom of Heaven (and actually I'm not even sure that the second verse is an expression of patriotism even to that, as such)?
'The love that asks no questions' - vile, surely.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well, that may be putting it slightly strongly, but fundamentally, yes, it's more than I think we should commit ourselves to, and a great big invitation to go down the road that ends up with you trying to explain your actions while standing in a dock with headphones on. It's the second verse that I am rather fond of.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
"That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best" I have always understood as people, not things - and one has already given to the country one's entire, whole and perfect love.
Whereas, in several places, we are asked to love God like that, and then our neighbours as ourselves.
I do like the second verse.
[ 21. April 2016, 23:38: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, and thinking more about the first verse, it's about an unquestioning willingness to sacrifice oneself, isn't it? Which I still feel rather uncomfortable with, mind- a bit unhealthy and could lead to other things.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Although it does seem rather odd that in the twenty first century the most technologically sophisticated society on earth should worship a flag, i don't think an anthropologist would find it at all strange. It is simply a manifestation of what has always been the case that human societies, tribal, national, or whatever, have worshipped the "imagined communities" to which they have belonged. There are not too may who regard themselves as strangers in the land and search for a city whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11: 8-10).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Although it does seem rather odd that in the twenty first century the most technologically sophisticated society on earth should worship a flag, i don't think an anthropologist would find it at all strange. It is simply a manifestation of what has always been the case that human societies, tribal, national, or whatever, have worshipped the "imagined communities" to which they have belonged. There are not too may who regard themselves as strangers in the land and search for a city whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11: 8-10).
People have always used symbols as metaphors of the state. Recently, Ottawavians were treated to the Hat not having effectively challenged Senator Duffy's testimony, Turks were historically governed by a Lovely Door or the Sofa, while Argentines were directed by the Pink House.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
People have always used symbols as metaphors of the state. Recently, Ottawavians were treated to the Hat not having effectively challenged Senator Duffy's testimony, Turks were historically governed by a Lovely Door or the Sofa, while Argentines were directed by the Pink House.
The Speech from the Throne deserves honourable mention here.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And, despite disestablishment in Wales and NI, the state is still culturally Christian. Anyway, I suspect that the kind of atheist who'd make a fuss about singing 'God' is probably likely to be the kind of contumacious person who'd make a fuss about singing 'Queen'. So tough cheese and sucks to them.
From what I've seen the fuss comes from those can't abide others quietly not singing it. See, for example, the furore over a Mr J Corbyn doing just that.
Indeed. I don't make a "fuss". I just refuse to sing it, point blank.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add, contumacious is a new word for me. Having looked it up, it's a badge I wear proudly. Although I can't imagine what legitimate authority can make me indicate allegiance to our unelected head of state and entire "royal" family anyway. Bollocks to them.
[ 22. April 2016, 15:05: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Just you wait till I'm running the White Terror...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It's the suggestion of sacrificing one's closest others that most worries me.
Especially when the powers that be show no sign of doing the same, and never have.
[ 22. April 2016, 17:01: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Depends what you mean by the powers that be. I think that if you look at the British casualty lists for both world wars, you'll find that the upper and upper-middle classes (insofar as they can be identified, and insofar as they could be called the powers that be) had proportionally higher casualties than others. Junior officers tended to have a comparatively very high death rate.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I wasn't thinking of then so much as now. I know about the junior officers' mortality. I was thinking of the PTB sacrificing the poor to the idol of austerity, to save the country.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Depends what you mean by the powers that be. I think that if you look at the British casualty lists for both world wars, you'll find that the upper and upper-middle classes (insofar as they can be identified, and insofar as they could be called the powers that be) had proportionally higher casualties than others. Junior officers tended to have a comparatively very high death rate.
It's been a long time since the World Wars and the 1% have changed a lot in the interim.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Indeed. But I was I suppose thinking about the time that the hymn was written.
This lot are an utter shower. The country means nothing to them.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Although it does seem rather odd that in the twenty first century the most technologically sophisticated society on earth should worship a flag, i don't think an anthropologist would find it at all strange. It is simply a manifestation of what has always been the case that human societies, tribal, national, or whatever, have worshipped the "imagined communities" to which they have belonged. There are not too may who regard themselves as strangers in the land and search for a city whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11: 8-10).
People have always used symbols as metaphors of the state. Recently, Ottawavians were treated to the Hat not having effectively challenged Senator Duffy's testimony, Turks were historically governed by a Lovely Door or the Sofa, while Argentines were directed by the Pink House.
While Britain has the Crown...
But I'd argue that the flag is a symbol of the nation rather than the state.
Some of those most hostile to their own government - those who think that the state has over-reached, exceeds it's proper role, interferes too much in the lives of its citizens - are nonetheless positive towards their nation and its flag.
Conversely, maybe being governed - being subject to state power - is made tolerable by the identification of the state with the nation ? And the unpopularity of the EU is because that identification is lacking ?
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Although it does seem rather odd that in the twenty first century the most technologically sophisticated society on earth should worship a flag . . . .
There is nothing in the Pledge of Allegiance either stating or implying that one should worship the flag (which would clearly be idolatry). The Pledge asks that one pledge, i.e., promise, one’s allegiance, i.e., loyalty, to the United States of America. It also does not say that one must pledge exclusive loyalty or loyalty above all others, which is what others here appear to be mistakenly inferring. Why should the idea that a citizen of a country should be willing (though not required) to declare that they will not be disloyal to their own country be controversial?
[ 28. April 2016, 18:39: Message edited by: GCabot ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Because the major world religions' figures put loyalty to God above loyalty to any country. Think Muhammad, pbuh, Guru Nanak, Christ, ML King.
Here, we have no abiding city.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Although it does seem rather odd that in the twenty first century the most technologically sophisticated society on earth should worship a flag . . . .
There is nothing in the Pledge of Allegiance either stating or implying that one should worship the flag (which would clearly be idolatry). The Pledge asks that one pledge, i.e., promise, one’s allegiance, i.e., loyalty, to the United States of America. It also does not say that one must pledge exclusive loyalty or loyalty above all others, which is what others here appear to be mistakenly inferring. Why should the idea that a citizen of a country should be willing (though not required) to declare that they will not be disloyal to their own country be controversial?
Because there is MUCH to be disloyal to ones country about. MUCH not to be loyal about.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Because there is MUCH to be disloyal to ones country about. MUCH not to be loyal about.
Are you just complaining about the growing pains of a democracy? Countries are not perfect, and saying you're going to be loyal to one doesn't mean you're worshipping the country like it's Jesus and perfect and all. I think it is supposed to be that you're going to contribute to the growing pains of the country. Some of those aren't very pretty growing pains. Like that it seems quite okay to have a lot of violence.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because the major world religions’ figures put loyalty to God above loyalty to any country. Think Muhammad, pbuh, Guru Nanak, Christ, ML King.
Here, we have no abiding city.
Again, the Pledge of Allegiance says nothing about demanding one’s exclusive loyalty or that one’s loyalty to one’s country must come before one’s loyalty to anything else, including religion. I am not well versed in the strictures of other religions, but I am not aware of anything in Christianity that would render its tenets mutually exclusive with the Pledge.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Because there is MUCH to be disloyal to ones country about. MUCH not to be loyal about.
I must assume that you are mistakenly equating disagreement with disloyalty. Especially in a democratic society, there will always be actions with which one disagrees. One can strongly oppose the actions of one’s country on a number of different issues while remaining loyal to it. In fact, some might say that it is the patriotic duty of a loyal citizen to voice such sincere objections.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because the major world religions’ figures put loyalty to God above loyalty to any country. Think Muhammad, pbuh, Guru Nanak, Christ, ML King.
Here, we have no abiding city.
Again, the Pledge of Allegiance says nothing about demanding one’s exclusive loyalty or that one’s loyalty to one’s country must come before one’s loyalty to anything else, including religion. I am not well versed in the strictures of other religions, but I am not aware of anything in Christianity that would render its tenets mutually exclusive with the Pledge.
So when 'our country' goes to war or turns away child refugees that's OK?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't know what the wording of the US Pledge is, but 'allegiance' to your country doesn't imply that you support every action of its government, any more than being part of a family means that you support every action of all its members or even of whoever might be in some sense 'head' of the family, if there be such a thing.
Oh, and why do you put 'pbuh' after Muhammmed's name, leo? You're not a Muslim.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Leo, GCabot said:
quote:
I must assume that you are mistakenly equating disagreement with disloyalty. Especially in a democratic society, there will always be actions with which one disagrees. One can strongly oppose the actions of one’s country on a number of different issues while remaining loyal to it. In fact, some might say that it is the patriotic duty of a loyal citizen to voice such sincere objections.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because the major world religions’ figures put loyalty to God above loyalty to any country. Think Muhammad, pbuh, Guru Nanak, Christ, ML King.
Here, we have no abiding city.
Again, the Pledge of Allegiance says nothing about demanding one’s exclusive loyalty or that one’s loyalty to one’s country must come before one’s loyalty to anything else, including religion. I am not well versed in the strictures of other religions, but I am not aware of anything in Christianity that would render its tenets mutually exclusive with the Pledge.
So when 'our country' goes to war or turns away child refugees that's OK?
I am sorry—you will have to explain to me how my previous statement logically leads to condoning (unjust) war and the spurning of child refugees.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I would go further than that. I would say that just as if you do not vote, you forfeit the moral right to grumble about the government, so, if you are not loyal to your country, if you do not want what is best for it, you forfeit the moral right to engage in trying to change it.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't know what the wording of the US Pledge is . . . .
Sorry that one of us didn't provide the words earlier:
quote:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
And yes, one can certainly bear allegiance to the republic while vehemently disagreeing with and opposing specific actions of the government. Indeed, many would say that the pledge specifically contemplates that allegiance to the republic involves working for "liberty and justice for all." In that sense, the pledge could be described as aspirational.
[ 28. April 2016, 21:09: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Certainly when the UK Govt decided to trot into Iraq alongside Dubya in '03, one of the reasons that i was very cross about it was because I thought it was dragging my country's good name through the mud. If I hadn't been loyal to my country I wouldn't have minded so much.
Oh, and what Enoch said.
[ 28. April 2016, 21:11: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because the major world religions’ figures put loyalty to God above loyalty to any country. Think Muhammad, pbuh, Guru Nanak, Christ, ML King.
Here, we have no abiding city.
Again, the Pledge of Allegiance says nothing about demanding one’s exclusive loyalty or that one’s loyalty to one’s country must come before one’s loyalty to anything else, including religion. I am not well versed in the strictures of other religions, but I am not aware of anything in Christianity that would render its tenets mutually exclusive with the Pledge.
So when 'our country' goes to war or turns away child refugees that's OK?
I am sorry—you will have to explain to me how my previous statement logically leads to condoning (unjust) war and the spurning of child refugees.
In the UK, our government has just turned away child refugees. A previous government took us into an unjust war.
Christians are more likely to be called to civil disobedience than to loyalty.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the UK, our government has just turned away child refugees. A previous government took us into an unjust war.
Christians are more likely to be called to civil disobedience than to loyalty.
This. And it goes double for the subject of this thread-- US Christians.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christians are more likely to be called to civil disobedience than to loyalty.
This is false dichotomy. Civil disobedience to an unjust system or a government making unjust decisions is not necessarily inconsistent with loyalty to the nation itself. As others have said, true loyalty to the nation may require civil disobedience to systems that distort or ignore what the nation stands for.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Precisely. To take a fairly extreme example, look at those - however many or few- conservative, patriotic and even in some cases nationalist Germans who opposed the Nazis, in defence of what they understood Germany to be.
[ 29. April 2016, 20:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
quote:
This is false dichotomy. Civil disobedience to an unjust system or a government making unjust decisions is not necessarily inconsistent with loyalty to the nation itself. As others have said, true loyalty to the nation may require civil disobedience to systems that distort or ignore what the nation stands for.
Yes. Exactly.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
But I don't feel loylaty to any one nation - indeed, I am deeply suspicious of the whole notion of nation states.
1 Peter 2: 11 talks about Christians being aliens and strangers in the world, So we live in the world as resident aliens whose citizenship is above.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes. Or, to be slightly more nuanced, doesn't our loyalty to God's Kingdom always trump our allegiance to our country?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because the major world religions’ figures put loyalty to God above loyalty to any country. Think Muhammad, pbuh, Guru Nanak, Christ, ML King.
Here, we have no abiding city.
Again, the Pledge of Allegiance says nothing about demanding one’s exclusive loyalty or that one’s loyalty to one’s country must come before one’s loyalty to anything else, including religion. I am not well versed in the strictures of other religions, but I am not aware of anything in Christianity that would render its tenets mutually exclusive with the Pledge.
So when 'our country' goes to war or turns away child refugees that's OK?
I am sorry—you will have to explain to me how my previous statement logically leads to condoning (unjust) war and the spurning of child refugees.
In the UK, our government has just turned away child refugees. A previous government took us into an unjust war.
Christians are more likely to be called to civil disobedience than to loyalty.
As opposed to all the just ones?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But I don't feel loylaty to any one nation - indeed, I am deeply suspicious of the whole notion of nation states.
1 Peter 2: 11 talks about Christians being aliens and strangers in the world, So we live in the world as resident aliens whose citizenship is above.
Fair enough. (And Peter was, of course, speaking in the context of the Roman Empire.)
But your lack of a sense of loyalty to any one nation, as well as your suspicions and the resident alien concept, do not in any way demonstrate that civil disobedience and loyalty to one's nation are necessarily incompatible. They might be (such as in the context of the Roman Empire), but in other contexts they might be quite compatible.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. Or, to be slightly more nuanced, doesn't our loyalty to God's Kingdom always trump our allegiance to our country?
Indeed, it does. But the distinction that seems to be getting lost is that loyalty to one's country does not necessarily require loyalty to all decisions of the country's present government.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
No, indeed. And one might well think that "loyally opposing" a Government's policies serve both the national good and the Kingdom of God - e.g. the Confessing Church in 1930s Germany.
I don't like nationalism and hyper-patriotism (don't even get me started on the topic of Remembrance Sunday!) But I do feel that Christians, as citizens of both earthly and heavenly kingdoms, should fully participate in civic life and should thoughtfully bring their faith to bear on it.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
No, indeed. And one might well think that "loyally opposing" a Government's policies serve both the national good and the Kingdom of God - e.g. the Confessing Church in 1930s Germany.
Or the American Civil Rights movement.
And I, too, am very uncomfortable with nationalism or hyper-patriotism.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
No, indeed. And one might well think that "loyally opposing" a Government's policies serve both the national good and the Kingdom of God - e.g. the Confessing Church in 1930s Germany.
Or the American Civil Rights movement.
And I, too, am very uncomfortable with nationalism or hyper-patriotism.
With good reason, I think. In the US, anyway, hyper-patriotism tends to be linked with the exact opposite of what Baptist Trainfan is describing-- a "love it or leave it" stance toward government policies. And when done in church, it really sends very very mixed messages about who we are as Christians-- as well as inadvertently send very mixed messages to foreigners who might be present.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But I don't feel loylaty to any one nation - indeed, I am deeply suspicious of the whole notion of nation states.
What alternative do you favour ?
quote:
1 Peter 2: 11 talks about Christians being aliens and strangers in the world, So we live in the world as resident aliens whose citizenship is above.
But there is a strand of Christian thought with a different emphasis. You know the hymn "O the love of my lord is the essence of all that I love here on earth" ? Not a patch on "I vow to thee my country" as a hymn, IMHO. But expressing the idea that what we will find in heaven is nothing strange or foreign to us, but rather the beauties and the joys of this life, all we have loved on earth, somehow purified and transfigured.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0