Sweeny ISD (Texas) Students May Sit During the Pledge

Well all nations are under God’s authority, whether or not they believe it. That includes the USA, the former Soviet Union, the fascist Nazi state, China, and our Canadian friends, among others.

And the statement itself is a theological assertion.

For the record, I certainly believe that our nation is “under God” and I also believe that our nation (like all of humankind) is in rebellion against God as a society. Regarding the political system described by the United States Constitution, it is irrelevant in the Kingdom of God.

I’m certainly a supporter of our political ideals and have great pride in our nation, but I don’t think that theological pronouncement crafted and authorized by Congress matter to God or serve the interests of the Kingdom of God.

Among other reasons:

1.) It’s not the business of government to craft and promote theological statements.
2.) It trivializes the concept of God and leads people to think that our nation is somehow favored over other nations when we might actually be in most need of repentance.
3.) It makes God our “national mascot” instead of the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

By the way, I’m not completely opposed to a Pledge of Allegiance, but I would prefer it if the Pledge went something like this:

“I pledge allegiance to the republic of the United States of America, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Those are fine ideals and I believe that we should aspire to those goals.

Actually, the issue of whether or not any government agency can compel anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is settled constitutional law.

In the case, MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DIST. v. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), the Supreme Court decided that Jehovah’s Witness children can be compelled to recite the Pledge before school or be expelled. The Court believed that the interests of developing good citizenship outweighed religious conviction:

“...it is said that since the Minersville School Board and others are of the opinion that the country will be better served by conformity than by the observance of religious liberty which the Constitution prescribes...”

In the aftermath of the decision, other school districts across the county began enacting requirements to compel students to recite the Pledge and salute the flag, sometimes even leading to the imprisonment of the parents because the children were expelled and the parents could not abide by compulsory attendance laws without their children pledging allegiance to the flag. (Remember, this was happening in the dark days of World War II when the the US and other Allies were fighting for survival against the Axis powers.) And remember, this was well before Congress embedded the “under God” phrase into the Pledge.

A few years of religious persecution against persons who would not pledge allegiance to the flag, the Supreme Court heard another case and quickly reversed its ruling from just three years before in the case entitled, WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

I've discovered that most people are actually not aware of the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the controversies that have surrounded it over the years. I strongly suggest that those who are taking part in this discussion click on the links to these Supreme Court cases to get a sense of the history and issues surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it will enrich our discussion.

I think it is great for individuals to do so, but get a little nervous when someone talks about communities affirming both patriotism and belief in God in the same sentence.

I think is a great thing for citizens to celebrate their collective patriotism as citizens of a nation. I think it is a great thing when people of faith gather to celebrate their collective belief in God. However, I think it is very dangerous to blend patriotism and faith in God as a closely related thing. History is chock-full of examples of how that undermines true religious devotion and creates a state that undermines true religious liberty.

 

You would affirm?
Matthew 5:37-- "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

 

Why bother? You don't owe those kids anything? It's just a job and you don't owe any allegiance to the job, your employer , or the students.

Why do you go home at night, or do you? I believe you have a wife, but you don't owe any allegiance to her either.

I know you think it's a strong statement of your faith that you owe allegience "only" to God...but it's simply not true. Looks good on paper , though. The fact is you owe , and pay, allegiance to many people and things.

If you want to fool yourself, go ahead. You're not fooling us and you most assuredly are not fooling God. So why bother? He doesn't expect , or want, your false declarations of allegiance "only" to Him. In fact, He requires your allegiance to others.

If I was you, I would stop with the self righteous, sanctimonious and totally false declarations of allegiance "only" to God.

 

Thank you for the explanation. I have no problem with those who served. Some did, some didn't.

 

So essentially you might approve, IF a group of Bible-believing Christians was standing around on the corner and just sort of spontaneously decided to recite the Pledge, that may be ok. But otherwise, not. I see that organized activities make you nervous

 

Carpro @44 - Good points.

 

Once upon a time, in our Air Force Promotion Fitness Examination guides, the inside cover bore the following list of priorities:
God
Country
Family
Self

I have since come to realize that, according to scripture, the list should be:
God
Family
Job (country?)
Self

I tried to explain this to a fellow military member one time, and was asked: How do you split up the time for that? I was befuddled; they went on to ask, "is it 20% God, 40% family, 20% job, and the rest for self?"

To which I reply, God is first, because He is 100% in all things. I juggle the rest the best I can, keeping myself last as much as possible (I'm not very good at that part, sad to say; I'm pretty selfish), but making sure that my devotion to Family and Job are guided by my devotion to God first.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, because this is where God has placed me. I relish the words "under God," because that's where this country is, and that's where it belongs. God knows my heart, and knows that if my country tries to make me choose between it and Him, which way I'll turn.

Is our nation favored over other nations? Most definitely not; Israel will always be favored by God over all other nations. Is a nation favored by God an ideal worth striving for? I personally think so.

And the greatest thing about our nation? One guy can sit back and twiddle his thumbs while another stands quietly, hand over his heart, giving respect to the flag that represents this country, because they're both part of one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Each person has to decide how they honor and respect that liberty for themselves.

But the next time you're in North Korea, or China, or any of a number of Middle East countries, give that some thought.

Maybe it's not really a matter of honor and respect; perhaps it's a matter of thankfulness that our country continues to believe that we should have such liberty.

So thank all of you for making me search this out. Next time they play retreat, next time I'm at a ball game and they play the national anthem, I won't be saluting or placing my hand over my heart because it's some nationalistic requirement; I'll be doing it because I'm thankful that I live in a country that doesn't require me to do it.

 

I think you missed my point... I don't approve of tying love of country and love of God together. History is full of examples demonstrating what happens when "communities"/governments/religions blend devotion to "God and country." Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Not "organized activities" per se, but "communities" organizing to promote a certain standard of patriotism and religious belief that everyone else is expected to measure up to or be considered something less than a good person. Churches certainly have the right to set standards for their membership. The government has some limited rights to set religious standards for good citizenship. But when when the church sets patriotic standards to determine who is a good citizen (and is given authority to enforce it) or the government decides to set religious standards to determine who is a legitimate person of faith, then you have a situation where persecution will likely follow.

Since the U.S. is a government "by the people", the term "communities" often carries the meaning of a local government, not just an arbitrary collection of people. That's why I get nervous.

And going back to the OP, the very idea that a school district would think they have the authority to decide whether or not they will allow students not to participate in the Pledge is ridiculous. This has been a matter of settled law since 1943. There is a clear Supreme Court ruling on the subject that has not been considered controversial.

 

Since the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett decision, students cannot be compelled to say the pledge. End of story.

 

Not quite, since that decision has since been overturned.

And do you really think a nation is free when children are forced to take oaths, something forbidden by the religion of some, thus trampling their rights under the First Amendment.

 

I don't see in the pledge of allegiance where we swear to anything in fact we are pledgeing allegiance to one nation under God. So that would put God first in my opinion. But, since the early sixties, liberals have been trying to tear apart anything that unites citizens of this country under God.

 

The other night I was at my nephew's high school graduation where an honor guard led the assembled crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Apparently, there were people in the crowd who were very concerned that the "under God" part would be left out.

Here's how the Pledge went that night:

(leader) "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America..."

(a voice screaming in the crowd) "UNDER GOD!"

(leader) "...and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I shook my head at the whole sorry exercise. The yahoo in the crowd who protested that they left out the "under God" part of the Pledge apparently didn't know where that part was located. And our leader in the recitation, did what probably 90% or more of Americans do, they stick a comma (a pause) between "one nation" and "under God" where there is no comma in the Pledge. It's "one nation under God" with no pause/comma, otherwise it divides the "nation" from "under God", which is the exact opposite intent of the people who thought that sticking a mandatory theological assertion into the Pledge was going to make better citizens, expose Communists and make God our nation's mascot.

Of course this error came from those reciting the Pledge from before the mid-1950s when the Pledge simply was, "...one nation, indivisible..." Congress slapping in the phrase "under God" simply muddled things up for most people.

But at least the insertion of the "under God" phrase has been a smashing success. Everybody knows where it is said and it's meaning, the United States has achieved a new moral and spiritual high, and God loves us more than ever.

 

I might have substituted the Arabic word for "God." <G> There is no official language in the US.

 

Stand or sit, I really don't care. This is a free country you are allowed to sit if you like. I'm not comfortable reciting the pledge in church say during VBS, don't see the point think it takes attention away from Jesus. Though this might be a bit deep for an 8 year old.

I stand with hand over heart, don't recite the words, but stand in honor of those who have died so I could stand in silence.

 

I am pretty certain that one can choose to "solemnly affirm"'rather than swear. Hence the oath of office can take the form of a affirmation rather than a vow.

Now whether or not you can actually affirm the content of the oath is another question.