Pledges of Allegiance

[john6809]

Paidion wrote,

O Canada, our home and native land,
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts, we see thee rise,
The true North strong and free,
And stand on guard, O Canada;
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land
Glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

I am a fellow Canadian, and have never thought much about it. However, I am compelled to at least correct the lyrics. Instead of "And stand on guard, O Canada; We stand on guard for thee." It should say, "From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." It is an interesting question though, and one which I need to consider. Thanks Paidion.

[darinhouston]

Canada doesn’t have displays of nationalism to the extent of the United States.

Perhaps not. But I was wondering whether you folks who object to pledging allegiance, could conscientiously sing Canada's national anthem if you were a Canadian citizen.

O Canada, our home and native land,
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts, we see thee rise,
The true North strong and free,
And stand on guard, O Canada;
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land
Glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

I probably could do

[SteveF]

Another question that's raised in my mind is what about those desiring to change citizenship? If one is unwilling to make an oath or pledge then would changing citizenship to another country be out of the question?

Here's a list of oaths intended for naturalized citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship

[darinhouston]

Another question that's raised in my mind is what about those desiring to change citizenship? If one is unwilling to make an oath or pledge then would changing citizenship to another country be out of the question?

Here's a list of oaths intended for naturalized citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship

I don't see the problem unless they require the oath like we do, but it does raise the opposite question -- if you're an American who proclaims the oath (even with the "as long as under God" qualification), how can you change citizenship without violating the oath?

[SteveF]

I don't see the problem unless they require the oath like we do

The countries I'm aware of do require it.

if you're an American who proclaims the oath (even with the "as long as under God" qualification), how can you change citizenship without violating the oath?

Good question, I've never taken an oath so I'd be exempt from the question but it made me think of something else. Some countries, like Canada, allow for dual citizenship. It makes me wonder what the intent of pledging an allegiance would mean if you could literally, and legally, have two allegiances? Do some counties have a different concept of allegiance than we have in mind in this thread?

[Singalphile]

darinhouston wrote:
... if you're an American who proclaims the oath (even with the "as long as under God" qualification), how can you change citizenship without violating the oath?

Yeah, good question. As I stated back in the first post, my pledge of allegiance means that I am stating my intent "to obey the spirit and letter of the law". That is what I am committed and obligated to do by my pledge of allegiance. I would not necessarily be breaking that pledge if I were to lawfully change citizenship, if that's possible. Obviously, this allegiance pledge can be defined narrowly or quite broadly.

[darinhouston]

darinhouston wrote:
... if you're an American who proclaims the oath (even with the "as long as under God" qualification), how can you change citizenship without violating the oath?

Yeah, good question. As I stated back in the first post, my pledge of allegiance means that I am stating my intent "to obey the spirit and letter of the law". That is what I am committed and obligated to do by my pledge of allegiance. I would not necessarily be breaking that pledge if I were to lawfully change citizenship, if that's possible. Obviously, this allegiance pledge can be defined narrowly or quite broadly.

This sort of response is exceedingly frustrating to me. I hear this response from people close to me, too. But, how can you ignore the plain words and be content with your "internal qualification" of what you mean when you say them? That seems very disingenuous to me.

[jriccitelli]

I think the point is that the Spirit ‘proceeds’ the law of man. I also see the principle of Americanism in the word ‘freedom’. I do not hold someone to remain a resident or citizen forever, that would not be American, as 'we' are neither citizens here forever either. But as long as you ‘tell us’ ahead of time, everyone should be free to change their mind, that is what liberty means also. And I defend that right.
Even though I am not a Canadian, I feel I would defend my fellow neighbors in Canada, because they are also for freedom.

[thrombomodulin]

Another question that's raised in my mind is what about those desiring to change citizenship? If one is unwilling to make an oath or pledge then would changing citizenship to another country be out of the question?

This is an excellent question! The pledge used in the United States seems fairly explicit that it requires (1) one supports the Federal government of the united states ("...and to the republic..."), and (2) to support the indivisibility of the republic. The words are not only a pledge to obey the laws issued by such men as run the government, but it is also a pledge to act at least in so far as to prevent a breaking up of the union. Now if someone says that any individual person is free to renounce his citizenship, then why objection can there be to the departure of millions of citizens at the same time? I would like to ask those here who affirm the pledge a question: If a situation such as occurred in the 1860's were to arise again, would you honor your vow by killing those who resisted participation in the union?

If, on the other hand, our goal is merely to support the notions of freedom and liberty, then what does our present government have to do with it? I would like to propose that a recitation of at least a few of the ten commands ("do not murder", "do not steal", ...) would serve the purpose better than Bellamy's pledge

[Singalphile]

This sort of response is exceedingly frustrating to me. I hear this response from people close to me, too. But, how can you ignore the plain words and be content with your "internal qualification" of what you mean when you say them? That seems very disingenuous to me.

I don't know what you think the plain meaning is. I expect that if you ask 20 different people what the pledge means, you'll get a variety of answers. I don't know what you define as "loyalty to our country" (i.e., allegiance to the flag/republic). Again, I see it as obeying the laws and just being a decent citizen. That's probably about the most common kind of answer you'll get, like from those friends of yours.

It's very possible that I haven't said the pledge in 10-15 years, and I don't care about it. It's just that it wouldn't bother me to say it and it doesn't necessarily bother me if others say it. (I sincerely hope this indifference isn't adding to your frustration even now.)

thrombomodulin wrote:
I would like to ask those here who affirm the pledge a question: If a situation such as occurred in the 1860's were to arise again, would you honor your vow by killing those who resisted participation in the union?

Your idea of what the pledge means differs from mine, and I guess that my view is closer to the common interpretation. So as you might guess, I don't think the pledge would require me to either kill someone or break pledge.

There is apparently a U.S. military oath, which goes in part like so:
" ... and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

That is, I guess, closer to what you think the regular pledge of allegiance means (which is apparently not enough to satisfy the U.S. military).