Opinion: Overthinking the Pledge of Allegiance

A recent article by Kenneth Craycraft, here at Catholic World Report, asked the question: “Should Catholics say the Pledge of Allegiance?” It suggested that Catholics need to think about what they are saying when they recite the pledge. I think, however, the author is overthinking the words of the pledge.

Craycraft writes: “When we say the Pledge to the flag, we are voluntarily expressing an oath to support and submit to the regime for which the flag is a proxy.” But while allegiance is support, it is not submission. And we are not pledging support for a regime but, rather, support for our republic. And we are certainly not taking an oath.

He also writes, “The words mean what the words say. And the words do not contain a qualification.” I have to disagree with this statement. No law that our representatives make can trump our free exercise of our religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution of our republic clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” This is a qualification par excellence.

I think he is also mistaken when he writes:

The words mean that allegiance to the flag and its republic are our highest commitment, and that all other commitments are subordinated to it. Regardless of any mental reservations, when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, we perpetuate the myth (whether we embrace it or not) that American citizenship subordinates all other commitments. By the language of the pledge, the flag and the republic trump everything, including religious faith.

We are not pledging “unreserved allegiance” when we say the Pledge of Allegiance. We are only pledging loyalty to “the republic” for which the flag is a symbol. And as citizens of a country that is not “contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons” (CCC, 1901), such loyalty is perfectly acceptable.

There is also a considerable difference between a pledge and an oath. A pledge is a serious promise of loyalty, but it is not morally or legally binding. I might, for instance, pledge support for a candidate for some office, but that pledge can be revoked if I find out the candidate has been hiding some nefarious past deeds. Similarly, a pledge of allegiance to our republic can be revoked if the government abandons our Constitution and suddenly turns fascist.

An oath, on the other hand, is both morally and legally binding. In a court of law, witnesses swear (i.e., take an oath) to tell the truth. If they lie, they commit perjury and can be punished. But the Pledge of Allegiance is not an Oath of Allegiance. It is a simple pledge of loyalty to the republic.

What’s more, every person who wants to become a U.S. citizen has to do more than just pledge loyalty to the republic. They are expected to recite the Citizenship Oath that goes far beyond the words of the Pledge of Allegiance. Fortunately, in taking this oath, the prospective citizen swears that he or she will “support and defend the Constitution,” which is the very heart of our republic. Should some regime discard the Constitution, that oath would no longer be binding.

Why, then, should any U.S. citizen have a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance?

And, just as an aside, compare the U.S. Oath of Citizenship to the UK Oath of Citizenship. In the UK, new citizens swear fealty to the king and his successors “according to law.”

Since the UK does not have a codified Constitution, the UK Constitution “can be altered relatively easily by the government of the day, meaning it changes more frequently than many other constitutions.” So, citizens of the UK are, to some degree, swearing loyalty to a set of laws that can change with the wind. (To some extent, this explains how “250,000 young British women have been exposed to repeated sexual exploitation” by “predominantly . . . Pakistani Muslim men” over the last two decades. But I digress.)

The Pledge of Allegiance also does not subordinate our religious faith. It’s actually the other way around. Our religious beliefs trump the pledge. Our laws and our Constitution guarantee this. Citizens of the United States even have the right to refuse to fight for their country if their religion forbids taking human lives. Approximately 25,000 men, for example, served in non-combat roles within various branches of the armed forces during World War II because their religion forbade taking lives.

So when we say the pledge, we are not “pledging unreserved allegiance to another sovereign [a sovereign other than Jesus Christ].” We are merely pledging to be good citizens of the republic. And this is required of us by our Catholic Faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: “The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will” (#1900)

The author also wrote, “If we give unqualified allegiance to the flag, even if we reserve mental qualifications, we are publicly suggesting that all things are subordinated to that fundamental commitment.” He then queried, “And how can we consistently proclaim that Christ is King over all things from one side of our mouth, while pledging unreserved allegiance to another sovereign from the other?”

But, again, the pledge is not an oath requiring our “unreserved allegiance to another sovereign.” And I would argue that the words “one Nation under God” make it pretty clear that our allegiance to God is paramount.

In short, the Pledge of Allegiance is a simple pledge of loyalty to what is, so far, the best system of government devised by man. Ours is a republic that recognizes “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Personally, I have no compunctions in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Neither should any good citizen of the United States of America.

Read original article