Hunting The Muse

The Pledge Of Allegiance

I've been thinking about this whole pledge of allegiance brouhaha... isn't the supreme court still deciding this?

A lot of time when I try to nail down my point of view on something, I really feel like I'm being a politician (in a good way), because I'm trying to understand as many points of view as possible, while also trying to come to a firm decision of what my stance is.

So let's be clear: The Pledge Of Allegiance is a celebration of God and Country. For as tiny the "under God" phrase of the pledge is, those that advocate it are advocating for a reason - it is an expression of recognition of God. The pledge is an expression of national patriotism and also a recognition of God.

So am I in support of that? Sure. It's a popular way to express a very common feeling. That's what free speech is all about. We have a huge amount of people in this country that link God and country together. There's nothing wrong with having a voluntary pledge that recognizes that.

However, requiring the pledge to be uttered goes entirely against free speech.

A much less relevant argument is the whole church-and-state argument, because it cedes the free speech argument. Nevertheless, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. And so, if we are to allow the government to require a pledge of national allegiance, we can't also allow the government to require our citizens to recognize God.

So am I in support of The Pledge Of Allegiance containing "under God"? Sure. It represents those who believe this country was created in honor and service of God, and frankly, it also represents many more other people who don't want to think about it that hard and only want to express an ambiguous rote feeling of patriotism without caring a whole hell of a lot about the "under God" part.

I'm not in favor of the Pledge being required under any public or government circumstances, however, because there are plenty of other American citizens that don't fit those categories.

And just a talking point for those who want to wrestle with this issue in front of others. If the religious comparison comes up, compare it to communion. For those practicing religions where communion is important, communion is taught and strongly encouraged. However, the whole point of it is for it to come down to a personal decision, reflecting one's personal relationship with God. Most reasonable church leaders would tell you that someone who is forced to practice communion isn't really practicing communion.

In summary... honestly, only the crazies are in favor of an authoritarian hard requirement for all citizens to say the pledge. And folks that want to obliterate the pledge from all of our government historical records are pretty crazy too. The most interesting question is whether you support an "opt-in" or "opt-out" policy with the pledge. The more militant folks are in the "opt-in" camp - "it should not be said unless the group in question all actively wants to." I'm in the "opt-out" camp, because if you're in a group that wants to say it and it offends you... really, they're probably not trying to offend you, so get over it. Respect their desire to say it, demand respect for your desire not to.

For some reason it reminds me of how I used to say no to drugs in college, while not objecting if they did them around me... but I'll leave the catty patriotism == drug-induced-haze comments to others. :-)

Posted by Curt at January 31, 2004 05:33 PM