www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pledge of Allegiance

Dear Forum:

Recently, we were discussing about the K of C.

It was observed then that one of the "more" visible contributions of the Knights was the inclusion of "under God" in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions become binding on 9 Western states including California, sitting en banc (full Court), ruled it unscontitutional, affirming the prior decision of its 3-man panel.

It is uplifting, though, that the U.S. Congress and the Office of the President, through the Department of Justice, ARE in support of the current phraseology of the Pledge, which includes the "under God" amendment worked for by the K of C.

The details at:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/878913.asp?0na=x210G5-0-

We now await what the U.S. Supreme Court will say!

AmdG

Dear Amado,

I certainly don't have a problem swearing allegiance to The Queen of Canada.

But I've read articles by Orthodox Christians who have Orthodoxy would rather its members NOT swear allegiance etc. as this is unscriptural.

What say you, O all ye Orthodox Christians?

Alex

Alex,

Just to be specific, the Pledge of Alliegence is a Pledge, not an Oath. Scripture does allow for a pledge to be given.

Citizenship, as you mentioned, is an Oath. ( I'm married to a Canadian, I read the Canadian Citizenship Oath and just about gagged, my wife had the same reaction with the US Citizenship oath )

Brendan, sinner

Dear Scotus,

You mean, you almost really "swore?"

One CAN affirm one's loyalty to our Royal Head of State OR one may swear allegiance.

Do not the Swiss Guards at the Vatican swear allegiance et al.?

What do you mean you almost "gagged?"

Alex

Alex-

The thought of swearing allegiance to a king/queen of England makes be gag as well

26+6=1

Columcille

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Does the pledge of allegiance to a FLAG complicate the issue?

See Jeremiah 10:1-4, 14-15: Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the LORD: "Learn not the customs of the nations, and have no fear of the signs of the heavens, though the nations fear them. For the cult of idols of the nations are nothing, wood cut from the forest, Wrought by craftsmen with the adze, adorned with silver and gold, With nails and hammers they are fastened, that they may not totter... Every man is stupid, ignorant; every artisan is put to shame by his idol: He has molded a fraud without breath of life. Nothingness are they, a ridiculous work; they will perish in their time of punishment."

In Christ,
Theophilos, (usually) proud to be an American

Dear Columcille,

Actually, it's the "United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories."

There hasn't been an "England" truly since 1707.

In fact, since you are such a Latin Traditionalist , you should know that the act of allegiance was first developed within quite the Western Catholic medieval context, Big Guy!

One knelt on the left knee to a person, but on the right knee in Church - that's where the genuflection rite comes from.

Roman Catholics have been swearing allegiance to Emperors, Kings and Princes for centuries.

In fact, the idea of swearing or affirming allegiance to a "flag" is quite the American thing.

While I respect your tradition, the act makes no sense in that you are pledging allegiance to an inanimate object, i.e. fluttering cloth.

Allegiance, whether sworn or pledged, was ALWAYS something done by one human being to another.

It was a promise of allegiance to the person of one's Sovereign - and the Sovereign then responded by way of acknowledging and receiving the pledge.

I've seen some U.S. companies who have created the "talking flag-pole" where the flag pole responds by way of a voice recording to receive the pledge of allegiance.

Although that does sound silly, it is at least something that corresponds to the original way a pledge was made - to a living human being.

Alex

>>>In fact, since you are such a Latin Traditionalist , you should know that the act of allegiance was first developed within quite the Western Catholic medieval context, Big Guy!<<<

Ah yes, but that is before England went Protestant and started persecuting Catholics in Ireland. Perhaps I would have sworn allegiance to the King of England back in, say, 1150

Sorry. My Irish Nationalist tendencies shown through in my previous post.

Columcille(Anglo-Celt)

I really think the 9th Circuit was out of wack....
the anti-establishment clause was not intended to drive religion out of public life, rather it was to prevent the government from establishing a state religion or requiring adherence to a particular religion. We've gotten a little silly about it, so I hope the Supremes will put things back into perspective.

Of course, I happily say the Pledge of Allegiance, including the "under God" phrase. I have taken the Federal oath of office a couple of times and I have absolutlely no problem with that. I think it is perfectly fine to affirm that one will carry out one's office faithfully and honorably.

Folks,

Can we be more serious? The issue isn't about swearing allegence...it's more about the "Under God" clause.

The issue is about the fact there are folks who want to REMOVE God out of our country. Removing Him from our pledge. Remove Him from schools. Etc. We are becoming more and more of a socialistic country.

And here you guys are arguing about the Pledge or about the swearing.

That's not what's it's about. It's about God. That's what people in the courts are fighting about. Let's get serious. If we spend too much time talking about swearing, then our attention would be away from the fight we should be having in preserving God in our Country and our culture.

Let's keep God in our country, in our courts, schools, streets, etc. Why do people spend so much energy WORRYING about offending others, being so politically correct? This is what America is all about...SPEAKING FREELY ABOUT GOD. If people don't like it, then they can just walk away. But no government should have the right to ban us from talking about God or should even ban us from PRAYING!

Our country was founded based on that principle...of...having the freedom of religion...NOT *FROM* Religion! We are based on our rights to pray. Remember the folks in England are persecuted for praying in Catholic faith there?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
A Proud American Citizen in a nation UNDER GOD.

I think the Court was wrong in this decision- Certainly America is not an atheistic nation and so "under God" is perfectly acceptable as this motto is on the coinage etc What would trouble me if there were specifically Christian or any other religious exercises in public schools as students of all religions and none attend them.
I am thankful for the Seperation of Church and State- it protects the Church from state interference and the State from becoming a theocracy. This would pervert (and has perverted) all religions.

Peace,
Brian

However, our Constitution does protect the Right to Dissent in the protections of minority opinions.

While I support seperation of Church and State, I think the 9th circut's decision was flawed and I hope the Supremes overturn it.

However, to the question , I think it has something to do with the fact that we are Christians.

Axios

Actually, the United States Constitution does not mandate the separation of church and state. All the First Amendment really states about this relationship is that �Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof�.� It is eminently clear from the writings of the authors and the way the First Amendment was understood by the founding fathers and earlier generations of Americans that what they were prohibiting was simply the establishment of a national religion (i.e., Episcopalianism, Methodism, etc.) and, less severely, the official preference of one faith group over another. Several of the thirteen original states had official religious denominations and this was not considered to be in violation with the United States Constitution. Eventually, of course, they all dropped the official state religions in favor of religious pluralism. The idea of a hard and fast impenetrable wall separating church and state is fairly recent, dating pretty much to the 1950s and 1960s.

It is rather ironic that here in America people of religious faith find public references to God to be under attack while in the former Soviet Union the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow is working with the government to develop a curriculum for teaching Christian values in the public schools.

Yes, and we would do well to remember that there were also anti-Catholic laws on the books in several of those states and the religious intolerance that resulted from them. Also that one of the reasons for the establishment of the Catholic school system was the enforced reading of the Protestant King James Version of the Bible and Protestant devotions in Public School which excluded Catholic children. So let us remember this history before we bemoan "persecution" today.
That seperation protects our Faith.