Comments on: The Pledge of Allegiance

By: brian

brian — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:10:48 +0000

D: You took the words right out of my mouth!

By: D

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:07:39 +0000

I may be the most non patriotic yet patriotic person I know. I love this country, and I truly appreciate the sacrifice of men and women to allow me to live in a “free” country. But, I have a problem with patriotism when we begin to worship a country, or probably more true, the idea of the perfect country. The truth is, I don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance simply because I have pledged my life to Jesus, and I’m not sure I feel comfortable hitching my wagon to something that I don’t agree with. It doesn’t matter what party is in office.

By: The Pledge of Allegiance, “Under God” « A Dahl Blog

The Pledge of Allegiance, “Under God” « A Dahl Blog — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:05:54 +0000

[...] great discussion going on about the phrase, “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Check it out! [...]

By: Cassie

Cassie — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:04:13 +0000

Jake, while this argument goes far beyond constitutional law, I thought you might like to know the legal arguments for keeping/getting rid of the words “under God”. As you noted, the words were added to the pledge after a minister, who knew President Eisenhower would be attending church, added into his sermon the importance of the acknowledgement of God (in the midst of the red scare). An atheist father recently brought a challenge in the 9th Circuit to get rid of the words “under God” because he felt his daughter should not have to be subjected to a religion he did not subscribe to. (The Supreme Court dismissed the case based on standing because he did not have legal custody of his daughter.) The 9th Circuit, however, agreed with him based on a coercion test of the establishment clause. Jurisprudence surrounding the establishment clause is very scattered, but the Supreme Court (at least pre-Alito and Roberts) generally feels that when, for example, the 10 Commandments are posted in an elementary school classroom, the children are “coerced,” in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Although they have not granted certiori to hear a pledge case, current precedent (again, however, there have been personnel changes on the Court), would suggest that if a parent of an elementary-age child were to bring a case challenging the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the pledge, as applied to her child, she could win. Okay, just thought you would want to know. Good luck with your argument!

By: Should ‘under God’ be in the Pledge of Allegiance? | The Daily Scroll

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:07:08 +0000

[...] ‘under God’ be in the Pledge of Allegiance? December 2, 2008 Jake Bouma thinks not, contrary to many: “Because it blatantly ignores the religious plurality that exists in the [...]

By: Ted Carnahan

Ted Carnahan — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:29:43 +0000

@Jake: Nope, this is a first comment, though I’ve subscribed for a few weeks. I was trying to remember how I ended up here, but failed. I think we probably know someone in common or something. I’m a Wartburg Seminary student.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:22:45 +0000

Brian: Thanks for your comment... I agree that at some point, pledging allegiance to a flag becomes idolatry. However, it goes back to my point about the 5-20% of Americans who aren't believers... for them, it's certainly not idolatry. That being said, I appreciate that you gave students a choice as to whether or not to recite it. Ted: Hey, thanks for stopping by... not sure if you've ever commented here before, but I appreciate your insight. How'd you come upon this blog? Scott: They're both great points. :) Oh, and thanks for the twitter love. Martin: Yes, I would indeed carry my conclusion across the board to include currency, signage, etc. Would you?

By: Martin

Martin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:05:35 +0000

Interesting post. I would assume that you would then carry this thought across the board to removing “In God We Trust” from our currency, signage and plaques from the courts, etc? Not sure how you could limit this to just the pledge.

By: Scott Lenger

Scott Lenger — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:24:12 +0000

@Jake, yeah, I guess we are making two different points (but both good points?! :). To the extent that liberty means the ‘the freedom to hold a particular belief’ then I agree that “under God” creates a logical contradiction.

re: semantics I would say both!, in that the Church as a nation is not itself a geographically bounded entity, but it nevertheless challenges such entities.

@Ted, I thing trans-national and super-natural are pretty good descriptions. I would add that while “nation” does address the relationship of Jews and Gentiles, it also, more importantly for our present context, serves to deconstruct the contemporary Christian/American concept the national affiliation.

Not to drive Jake’s post further down a tangent, but there’s a nice study of 1 Peter 2:9 at the WCC site.

By: Ted Carnahan

Ted Carnahan — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:04:08 +0000

I lean towards leaving "under God" out of the pledge, of only out of hospitality to those who are greatly offended by it. Symbolically, it changes little, and if it makes them feel that this country welcomes them more, such a change serves the nation's best interests (and might make them think that Christians are slightly more reasonable people). Scott: I too disagree with your exegesis of 1 Peter 2. 1Pet 2.4-11 is about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. If I'm not mistaken, that passage in particular is written to Gentiles who are, through Jesus Christ, included in the promises of God. Hence the following verse (10): "Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." That is to say, the Christian nation is not a nation-state, but the body of Christ. That's trans-national and super-natural. The point here is that those who believe in Christ are included in the promise of God in spite of their national affiliation (Judean, Roman, etc.)