# Is the Pledge of allegiance inherently automatic invalid **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902 "2014-02-21T19:17:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Hollow\_mask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Hollow\_mask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hollow_mask)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/81 "2014-02-26T22:38:38Z")
Off subject, a bit, but as most here know the pledge was altered in, I don’t know, 1953 or so, and the words “under God” inserted. Not too hard to see why but my question is: does that insertion not weaken, or even contradict the pledge as it was originally written ? ‘…and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty…’ Doesn’t the insertion, after “nation” and before “indivisible”, itself divide ? We are a secular nation with no religious requirement. Why should non-believers pledge our loyalty to a power we don’t believe in ? Do any others feel as I do; that it divides this pledge of unity ? Are we pledging to our nation, or to some god, or both ? There seems a genuine contradiction in the altered pledge. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/82 "2014-02-27T01:11:32Z")
“One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.” --Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel (1861) This was apparently enough to spur the Congress on to approve the motto “In God We Trust” on coins. The historical context is obviously a factor here. Lincoln also included the phrase “under God” in the Gettysburg Address in 1863. The dude who added “under God” to the Pledge referred to The Address. These people are not trying to divide the country, imho. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/83 "2014-02-27T02:36:29Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Patriotism is an _emotion_? Well it sure ain’t a pondered reasoning… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/84 "2014-03-02T13:02:42Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I see your point, but I think having allegiance to a country does not mean always approving of what your country does, but it does mean having ‘skin in the game’ so to speak. My allegiance to God trumps country when the two are at odds - violence done in the name of the state is but one example. And in those cases, my allegiance to country means that I speak out about its wrongness and exercise my ability to change its course - by voting, by speaking out against the violence, etc. Sorry to come back to the discussion so late, but anyway: 1. That sounds like what one might term a ‘conditional allegiance.’ I’m not sure if that counts as an oxymoron, or not. 2. One avenue of clarifying my thought about this was in terms of military service. If I had allegiance to the U.S., and if I were still of such an age where military service were an option, I’d consider myself available for service if my country called. But no, I could not do that. I cannot make myself available to be part of the military machine that will be used to kill people whom God doesn’t want killed, in wars that I fully expect God would not want to have happen (since it’s a rare war that qualifies as a ‘just war’ by the traditional standards). The problem isn’t merely not always approving of what your country does, but recognizing that, per Isaiah, > [@](#): > > "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” > declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. The aims of nations are going to be routinely, and often disastrously, in conflict with that which God would desire. How can one give allegiance to such an entity? > [@](#): > > I would not do that if I did not have a particular allegiance to this country; after all I do not regularly bother to crusade against abuses carried out by other nations. Certainly God commands love and goodwill to all humankind, but God has put me specifically in this corner of the globe, and this is the only country over which I have any influence (as meager as it may be). I would say that _love_ is sufficient for this. This is the country where I live, that I know and love, where that love and knowledge, and legal citizenship, enables me to make some small difference. I can’t do these things even in, say, Britain, because I’m not there, and don’t know enough to know whether I’d be helping or hurting. However: the _absence_ of allegiance is important, because as Christians it is important to recognize that the life of some random person in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Uganda is just as important to God - and therefore at the very least we know it _should_ be just as important to us - as the life of a random American. That will likely never be so in this life, but knowing that it is true to God blocks us from dismissing the cost in lives of American policy and actions around the globe. The lives of 25 people in a wedding party on the other side of the world killed in a drone strike matter just as much in the eyes of the Lord as 25 American soldiers killed in the same global conflict. But allegiance to America is a thumb on the scale of the 25 soldiers mattering a hell of a lot more. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/85 "2014-03-02T16:33:00Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > There are many reasons to admire, or even love, the United States. I, also, am “okay with instilling patriotism in young children.” I object, however, to the Pledge. Tell your six year old what is good about the U.S., and to some extent, what it’s problems are and have been. I would never expect a child to have to (or be “encouraged” to) recite a stupid, mindless, and offensive pledge. I agree. In addition, I question its effectiveness. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > … then it should be said by adults, and not kids. Good point. But if the intent is to inculcate patriotism, and if it’s effective at all (which it could be despite my doubts), it would need to be done early and often. But I don’t thing it should be used that way, even if we agree on the goal and it is effective. > [@Skammer](#): > > As a cub scout leader, I say the pledge (along with the boys) at every meeting. It doesn’t bother my conscience at all. Nor should it. I endorse this. Scouting is optional. Patriotism is one of its fundamental ideals. Those who disagree needn’t join. However, I do strongly recommend that you occasionally find time to discuss the pledge and what it means – and more importantly, ask questions to help the scouts discover for themselves what it means to them. The meaning of a pledge in the mind of the pledger is the most important thing. That’s a good reason for not doing it parrot-like as we did as schoolkids. Ever notice that most schoolkids don’t even say it right? They start “I pledge of allegiance …” > [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > It should. Patriotism is a nasty, vile emotion; it’s certainly not something a responsible adult teaches to children. Well, I disagree. I understand where you’re coming from, but I think you’re placing far too much emphasis on the (admittedly significant) negative aspects. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Patriotism is an _emotion_? I’d say so. My guess, as an aficionado of sociobiology, is that it improves fitness by promoting group cohesion, closely coupled with xenophobia. I think it’s every bit as hardwired into our brains as the moral sense and sense of fairness. But as usual, we have to be very careful regarding these natural traits. For example, one gets into trouble if one confuses moral sense with morality. One is (mostly) an emotion, the other is (ideally) a carefully reasoned value system. Likewise, we should be careful to differentiate between our sense of patriotism (the emotion) and our reasons for being committed countrymen (acting patriotically). We’ve all certainly learned about patriotism gone wrong. The best example is Nazi Germany, but I’ll stop here to avoid Godwinizing the thread already! Furthermore, it’s important to understand our natural xenophobic tendencies and not confuse them with patriotism. Natural xenophobia is about as applicable to the world today as is our craving for sweet and fatty foods. Unfortunately, it often pollutes patriotism – both our sense of patriotism and even our concepts of patriotism. But patriotism can serve good purposes, especially when everyone has to dig in and pull together during a crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/86 "2014-03-02T16:37:28Z")
There may be a better, more general word for the group-cohesive emotional aspect of patriotism. If so, I’d love to learn it. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/87 "2014-03-02T17:27:15Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > There may be a better, more general word for the group-cohesive emotional aspect of patriotism. If so, I’d love to learn it. [Communitas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitas)? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902/88 "2014-03-03T13:23:16Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > [Communitas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitas)? Thanks! Looks good, at first reading, though it may have technical implications I’m not intending. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-pledge-of-allegiance-inherently-automatic-invalid/681902.md?page=4)