Pledges of Allegiance

[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?

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 .......

I completely understand your concern about making pledges, since it's something that's quite routine in your country. You need to grapple with it in ways that I don't. For me on the other hand these are more theoretical questions. I was thinking along the lines of needing to take a pledge in order to become a citizen of another country. For example, if you desired to become a citizen of Canada you would need to make the following pledge:


I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

If I wanted to become an U.S. citizen I would need to make the following pledge:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance
and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform :noncombatant service in the Armed Forces
of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of
national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Could, say, a Christian Lebanese man, in good conscience, become a citizen of either of our countries?

[darinhouston]

I also object to the pledge on purely patriotic grounds, but that's a different story -- our nation was founded on the very act of separation -- to swear allegiance to the notion of indivisibility is to adhere to the "nationalism" of Lincoln which caused and derived further from the "civil" war instead of the notions of liberty and secession which informed the lost blood of our forebears.

[thrombomodulin]

I think there is a need in this discussion to address the issue of to who or what one pledges allegiance to. Is it to the "people", a particular government ("the republic"), or to neither the people nor the government but just an "ideal of freedom and liberty"?

Even though I am not a Canadian, I feel I would defend my fellow neighbors in Canada, because they are also for freedom

I trust then that you should find nothing objectionable about also affirming the statement: "Even though I am not a North Korean, I would defend the people of North Korea, because they also are for freedom". For surely the impoverished citizens in slave labor camps over there are for freedom - although they do not possess it. If indeed you affirm the statement, what specific actions are you willing to take to "defend the freedom of the North Korean people"? They are in need of your assistance. But, if you are not willing to support the North Koreans, why do you give preference to individuals who so happen to reside in Canada over those who so happen to have had the bad fortune of being born in North Korea?

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...

.

Granted, the pledge is a short statement which leaves much undefined. One thing that is defined is the notion that the United States are indivisible. When you recite the pledge do say or skip the word "indivisible"? If you say it, and you are taking your pledge seriously, what does that word to mean to you? You had said that you are not willing to kill to prevent division, so I would like to ask what actions, if anything, are you committing yourself to do in order to keep the USA indivisible? On the other hand, if you are not committed to take any action at all to keep the nations indivisible, isn't it lying to say that you are via the pledge?

[Singalphile]

Hi, thrombomodulin.

thromb. wrote:
Granted, the pledge is a short statement which leaves much undefined. One thing that is defined is the notion that the United States are indivisible. When you recite the pledge do say or skip the word "indivisible"? If you say it, and you are taking your pledge seriously, what does that word to mean to you? You had said that you are not willing to kill to prevent division, so I would like to ask what actions, if anything, are you committing yourself to do in order to keep the USA indivisible? On the other hand, if you are not committed to take any action at all to keep the nations indivisible, isn't it lying to say that you are via the pledge?

I explained my interpretation back in the first post (see quoted text, too).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are interpreting it something like this:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, [and I pledge to work to ensure that it is] one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I'm not sure who's not reading enough into it and who's reading too much into it. I guess I might fall more in the first category, if either.

The dictionary.com definition of "indivisible" is fine with me. I regard that whole last bit as a condition of the pledge (and I would be sure to explain that to anyone who might someday require me to say it). Most people probably take it as just a sort of patriotic description expressed in somewhat poetic (i.e., hyperbolic) words. I don't remember the last time I recited it, many years ago, I guess, so God only knows if I skipped any words. I wouldn't need to now. I suppose I would consider it a bad/sad thing if the United States were dissolved.

[jriccitelli]

Thomb, I think the issue of succession from the Union is another thing, related and interesting, yet I think that was a circumstance of its own (and yet I think the reasons are more justifiable now. The irony being I may at least have to move to Texas in order to be ‘free’, if taxes go up).

Succession aside, I think each person’s definition of the pledge’s meaning of allegiance may vary. I have to think most everyone I know would hold the allegiance as an abstract principle as opposed to a blood oath. It is hard to determine everyone’s thoughts, but if the evidence shows that many Americans seem to be very unpatriotic and committed, and the other half seems highly patriotic and sworn to a strong allegiance then I think it would demonstrate that many take it abstractly (not so serious) and the other half not determined to inflict injury or prosecution of the other half. This seems to describe the country now, so I do not see murders taking place anywhere over the pledge of allegiance (If that were the definition). Political rivalry and disputes will never end but I think we have observed ‘relative’ peace and harmony among political camps in this nation, especially regarding the 'pledge' (yet the current situation is questionable).

Anyways I do not think anyone takes the pledge as a blood oath, and most do so with no more seriousness than a New Years pledge. I think the principle of peace and freedom overrides and defines the pledge itself, so that people take the definition of sense of freedom and equality ‘very’ seriously.

I think most understand the Govt. was set up for “We the people” and interpret the allegiance being to a constitution of principles that insure freedom – despite the Govt.

That is the idea of the Constitution: ‘the people’ rule over the Govt. and are not the Govt’s subjects. So allegiance to the Govt. is not American, rather allegiance to freedom of the people is Americanism; this is how I interpret Patriotism. Nowadays many have changed/forgotten all this, and have forgotten that taxes make us slaves to the Govt. but at one time most people understood this.

(Military is a completely different mission than civilian codes, the unity of men with guns in battle or in ‘any’ endeavor is nessesary for success (and safety) in accomplishing any mission)

(I was responding to others here, so I agree with your post Singal. I would add that people, and school kids, I would hope have the understanding of the Constitution when saying the pledge, and hopefully conceive their definition of ‘United States’ from the Constitution and other documents of the Republic)

[thrombomodulin]

Singalphile, Your description correctly describes my understanding of the pledge. Would this accurately summarize your reading of the pledge?

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, [on the condition that it remains] one Nation under God, [for only so long as it remains an undivided nation], [and only if it doesn't violate] liberty and justice for all.

I share the view with Darrin that the present government of the United States is not "under God", and it does not provide for "liberty and justice for all". So another factor, for me, against the pledge is that it promotes the idea that the present government of the US has good attributes which it does not actually possess.

[Paidion]

Steve F, if that is the oath required to become a U.S. citizen, how can the fact be explained that many Canadians have become dual citizens of both countries? Apparently the United States accepts them, though they continue to be citizens of Canada and "bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors..."

Are these pledges meaningless?

[Singalphile]

thrombomodulin,

Yes. That's the gist (two posts up) of what I'd mean if I were to recite it now. I'm sure that when I was a kid, I didn't really think about it at all, which is too bad.

I also agree that the country/gov't often does not act like it's under God and there isn't liberty and justice for all. I actually doubt that anyone thinks otherwise. Perhaps many people see that part of the pledge as simply describing an ideal.

That citizenship oath is pretty strong. I don't know if I could do that one. There is a government site which explains more detail about it, unlike the regular pledge.

[darinhouston]

For clarity, here's the immigration oath (on oath means subject to perjury, legally speaking)...

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[SteveF]

Steve F, if that is the oath required to become a U.S. citizen, how can the fact be explained that many Canadians have become dual citizens of both countries? Apparently the United States accepts them, though they continue to be citizens of Canada and "bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors..."

Are these pledges meaningless?

I wondered something similar earlier in this thread

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?