Gwen Berry’s “protest” of America on an international stage while being a representative of America has properly received overt criticism. Apart from the lack of patriotism that many cry out against, there are a few words to be said about competing on behalf of a nation – as a representative of a nation – and trying to use that platform as an individual protesting that which you represent. That’d be like the cinnamon crumbs rising up out of your bowl of cereal and condemning Cinnamon Toast Crunch on behalf of Cinnamon Toast Crunch. But you are cinnamon. Get back on the spoon. With the room full of that fume, as well as all of the BLM narrative about America being more barbaric than the Mayan Kingdom, it’s possible that my words below might spark connotations I am not intending. And so, I must first defuse the situation a bit.
Living with gratitude for wherever God has us is what we’re called to do. And that’s not hard to do when the object of gratitude is full of explicit and clear blessing. We have more than plenty to be thankful for regarding the United States of America. I love our nation. I love our history. Personally, I am thankful to have been grafted into this country as a first generation American, with my parents immigrating here. Unlike my fathers before me, the first ground my Russian flesh touched was American. What a blessing it is to have been gifted my American citizenship at birth. American exceptionalism is true to the extent that America is the downstream flow of Christian ideals imbued into civilization, and our Christian founders doing their best to submit to God’s will in the governance of their fellow man.
Our country includes the land we cultivate with all of its abundance, the street our neighbors live on, and those actual neighbors themselves. And our country, at its core, is composed of the founding documents which establish it as a country. God working through our founding documents gives us the blessing and privilege of cultivating this land, building streets and neighborhoods, and filling them with people. It’s our Constitutional Republic and the liberty for which it stands that our military fights to defend (at least in principle, at least for now). Idealists protesting America are demonstrating a sinful lack of gratitude and an entitlement that is beyond ugly.
I hope the above sentences butter up my backside enough so that any unreasoned accusations of a lack of patriotism on my part will slide off of me quicker than they slid off the accuser’s tongue. I believe a certain level of patriotism and allegiance to a collective state is an important and proper expression of a Christian’s call to love his neighbor, a sign of honor and respect to the governing authorities, and an expression of thankfulness to God for where he has placed us. And I also believe that the American Pledge of Allegiance fails to meet that call.
With this being our nation’s birth month, I thought to devote the entirety of this month’s posts (a mere 2) to this sensitive topic. Like everything else on this website, I’m sure this is going to be great!
What exactly are we pledging our allegiance to when we put our hand over our heart, look at the flag, and recite the well-known phrase?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Or in its original 1892 version as printed in The Youth’s Companion:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
What we are saying, at least in part, is that we ally ourselves to the federal government over against our state government and we pledge to defend an indivisible nation over against a union of sovereign states. More on this in a bit. Now, to my Russian cousins, pinning national interests above local ones doesn’t come across as problematic. They are met with some confusion as to what the problem may be. The USSR advertised sovereignty among their Republics, but that was a banner call. And today, the composition of the Russian Federation is like the next top-down authoritarian governance but worse. The system of state sovereignty and separation of powers is unique to American polity. That’s why a conversation about state sovereignty and local magistrates is in some way more relevant to Americans than to citizens of other nations, even if those Americans have been reciting the Pledge throughout all of their living memory.
Within our nation, our governing authorities are vast and a bit complex, because authoritative power has been split between different heads. Apart from horizontal separation of powers with the three branches of government, the original U.S. Constitution saturates the states with quite a bit of sovereignty and tells the national government to back off. Nonetheless, the Bible calls us to honor all of our governing authorities and obey them in their respective spheres. So, can honoring one dishonor the other? Sure. Does it have to be mutually exclusive? Of course not. We can consistently and faithfully honor our American governing authorities at different levels, as long as they stay within their spheres. But what if one governing authority demands that we honor it in such a way that makes it mutually exclusive, in a way in which by honoring them we dishonor the other? The plot thickens.
When we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, what are we pledging allegiance to? Our Federal Republic. And for what reason exactly? To make sure we stand with our nation in opposition to foreign enemies? No, that kind of allegiance has always been assumed and owed by a citizenry to its nation. That’s why treason is a capital offense, defined as such in our nation far before the pledge existed. Treason is a capital offense not because we pledged our allegiance, but because we owe our allegiance to our nation as long as it defends us and protects our liberties.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115 states, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death.” (emphasis mine)
In opposition to a foreign or domestic enemy, as a citizenry we already owe our allegiance to our nation. That’s assumed in the identity of a citizen. So, why then do we have a Pledge of Allegiance? Its reason is specified in the pledge itself.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible
Masquerading as showing honor to our government and fighting terrorism, the Pledge of Allegiance actually pits the citizenry of the United States against its local government in support of the federal nation. The burden that the Pledge effectually binds on us is that if any state or local government tries to divide the nation or disregard Federal dictates, it’s citizenry must first and foremost demonstrate its allegiance to the Federal Government over Local Government.
The question does come to mind, why? Why was the pledge introduced, veering off from the original course laid by our Founders of honoring our state government to that of pledging our allegiance to the federal government?
The battle for state sovereignty in America begins as soon as there were talks of a Federal Government. Alexander Hamilton’s arguments and initiatives for a strong, central government controlling a national bank and handling national credit were met with many real concerns and fears about federal overreach which would negate the intentional design of our confederated constitutional republic – fears which were materialized, and over which a war was eventually fought. Money and power. Always.
I think a fair name to summarize the political climate of the western world in the 19th and 20th century can be Modernistic Totalitarian Regimes. America is not exempt from that summation. Apart from all the slavery baggage, the American Civil War was fought over that principle – defending State Sovereignty against Federal usurpation of power. After the conclusion of the war, with secession as a political tool being practically and legally outlawed during the Reconstruction, the fight against Federal overreach was still far from over. Southern states continued their resistance. But those vying for a larger and stronger centralized federal government pushed multiple initiatives. A few of the main federal tactics to disarm local government, I believe, was the federal control of land, money, and the minds of the future.
But just preceding Woodrow Wilson’s enslavement efforts through the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax, John Dewey’s indoctrinated statism through the government school system, and Theodore Roosevelts federal land grab through the national parks (all good things come in threes, right?), laying a bedrock for the above was the introduction of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.
The American Pledge of Allegiance fits right in with the Imperialistic narrative of the time, using it as an indoctrinating effort to uphold centralized federal allegiance over against the citizenry’s allegiance to the local government – bringing down any resistance to the dictates of a few at the top. Its efforts have been successful, especially since every child in the American school system has been starting their day for generations declaring their allegiance to such a concept. The majority of Americans are more concerned with national interests than state or local interests and feel a deeper obligation to the federal government than they do to their own state. Why wouldn’t we give more power to the top?
It seems that those who participate in the Pledge of Allegiance are, perhaps unintentionally but effectually, confirming their allegiance to one indivisible, centralized government over the interests of their local government, in turn dishonoring the polity of our nation, because that’s not how it was designed. Through the Pledge of Allegiance, the Federal Government demands honor in such a way that requires us to dishonor our State and Local Government, and in so doing, disobey the commands of Scripture to honor all our governing authorities.
Ah, what’s the big deal, Philip? Always making an elephant out of a fly. There’s more to be said about the Pledge in connection to loving our neighbors and specifically about what may be coming next, but I put words on this page for the purpose of reading. And if I put any more, it’s possible that none will be read. And so, the anticipation for Part Duex may begin.
Leave a Reply