Talk:Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance

404
the link in footnote [4] is dead: "Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006)". National School Boards Association. http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=487&DID=38719. Retrieved 2008-03-31.

Tsingi (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed text
I nuked the following paragraphs for POV:


 * Another objection to the Pledge of Allegiance - which everyone seems to have overlooked, arises out of the idea that to "pledge allegiance" is arguably the same thing as taking or giving an oath of allegiance - something that would be or is politically incorrect in America, that is, when one considers the following quotes from the syllabus of a certain supreme court case circa 1795 - a time when those in the position of dealing with legal matters were still highly familliar with the old world concept of allegiance or oaths of allegiance (and the relation of such to America after 1776):


 * "Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and neccesity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude."

If there's anything in there worth salvaging, someone else can find it. SFT | Talk 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The Case in Question is Talbot v. Janson, further quoting:


 * "The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140. "


 * "Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance. The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry. Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance. When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms. But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it. Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. "


 * "Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. "


 * "Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man. "


 * "In Russia, the volunteers who supply the fleet with officers, or literary institutions with professors, are naturalized. In Poland, an American citizen has been made Chancellor to the Crown. In France, Mr. Colbert, who was Minister of Marine, and Mr. Necker, who was Minister of Finances, were adopted, not native, subjects. In England, two years service in the navy, ipso facto, endows an alien with all the rights of a native. "


 * "These are tacit acknowledgments of the right of expatriation, vested in the individuals; for, though they are instances of adopting, not of discharging, subjects; yet, if Great Britain would (ex gratia) protect a Russian naturalized by service, in her fleet, it is obvious that she cannot do so without recognizing his right of expatriation to be superior to the Empress's right of allegiance. But it is not only in a negative way, that these deviations in support of the general right appear. The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign."


 * thus allegiance is incompatible with the rights of a Citizen and to put it bluntly, the Pledge of Allegiance is un-American.

Blatant POV fork
Merge this pronto. theProject 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with this merger, but all of the material on this article should be moved into the other article, and this page should be converted to a redirect. --Kalmia 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * America is POV for forcing the nation to pray to the Christian "God". Honestly, I cannot stand this nation and its double standard BS. The pledge of allegiance DESERVES to have an article about what bullshit it is.J&#39;onn J&#39;onzz 01:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No merge: there is more material available about the criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance than there is about the pledge itself. It would be intolerable for the Pledge of Allegiance article to have more about what's bad about the pledge than about the pledge itself. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The "indivisible" clause
''* The "indivisible" clause and the propriety of permanent allegiance to the republic are disputed, by those who hold secession legitimate; arguing that the American Union has as much right to break itself up as the Soviet Union did. This does not appear to have been the original intent of the people who adopted the Constitution: Although both New York and Virginia affirmed the right of revolution, by which they had attained independence, the Virginia ratifying convention determined, and its secretary James Madison informed New York, that "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other states". According to the convention, reserving the right to withdraw would be "worse than a rejection".[2] On the other hand, the right of association (freedom of association) logically infers the right to not associate with others; this fact places the political intentions of an everlasting, inescapable obligation imposed on one's descendents in a questionable moral position. ''

Specifically:

"This does not appear to have been the original intent of the people who adopted the Constitution"

This is disputed. Hamilton would likely support the idea that this was the original intent, but most would not, and secession was largely seen as legitimate up until the 1860s. See Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the Hartford Convention. Those aren't the only examples. --Kalmia 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indivisable
The United States is comprised of separate states, each state is a nation. the U.S. is not one nation, indivisable. The Union has effect only with regards to the outside world. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. Each state is not a nation, and that's the whole point of Federalism. The Union having effect with regards to the outside world is precisely what makes the union the nation. And besides, the union has plenty of internal relevance as well. At any rate, I'm not sure if this discussion even belongs here on this page.68.35.66.170 (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Under God
The U.S. is under its citizens (we are not subjects) rather than under God. Calling the US one nation under God, pushes the citizens from their rightful place, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, not given privileges by their government. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oath of Fealty
Allegiance is the same as fealty, not the same as alliance. Fealty is a subservience to another, and the Union is the servant of the people not vice versa. Free people do not pledge their servitude. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Christians and the Pledge
Christians (in the sense of followers of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth) do not make oaths, or swear. The Bible says "make no oaths" and "swear not at all". A pledge is an oath.67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Is there a specific reason why most of the "Objections on the grounds of religion" paragraph is struck out now? I'm going to assume vandalism and revert it. I'm curious as to why they left the bit about Jehovah's Witnesses, though... Hopelessshade 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The only country?
I've removed the sentence "Currently, the United States is the only nation in which the majority of school children take a pledge of allegiance daily." At least in Singapore it is a daily thing every morning after flag-raising and national anthem. I wouldn't be surprised if many other similarly-run countries did the same in their state schools. JREL (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not sourced. I dispute the factuality of the assertion that the majority of school children make the pledge daily.  67.49.8.228 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Requiring Children to Pledge Before They Understand It?
Are there sources with regards to the argument that it is wrong to require or pressure schoolchildren to pledge allegience because the schoolchildren would likely not deeply understand it, just like we don't let children sign contracts? Cornince (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not&mdash;akin to allowing parents to compel children to undergo religious indoctrination. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
Why is the Pledge being compared to the Nazis? They have nothing in common. It is offensive that somebody would even think that Pledging allegiance to America means that the person Pledging must be a white supremacist mass-murderer. This is another sign of liberal bias in Wikipedia. I say that the line in the first section that compares the Pledge to the Third Reich be removed immediately. --99.92.215.212 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have removed the bit which so offended your sensibilities in a bit of wiki-censorship. I haven't restored it, nor will I remove it if some other editor does do that. I will observe that the supporting source cited at that point does answer your question pretty clearly, saying, "Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge, [was a national socialist] from the collectivist movement of the late 19th century. ... [T]he pledge was originally cited while giving a stiff uplifted right hand salute – much like the salute of a later proponent of the national socialism also advocated by the Bellamys...". See also the Bellamy salute article. If the un-PC bit is restored, perhaps some clarification is in order. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can speak from personal experience, being 82 years old and remembering the Pledge during the 1940s. During the first part of the Pledge, we had our right hands over our left chest (our heart), and we said "I pledge allegiance," and then when we spoke the words "to the Flag," we raised our hands toward the Flag, but we had our palms upward to (as it was explained to us) symbolize that we were raising and supporting the Flag. Nazis, of course, had their palms facing downward, something like (I think) a Roman salute. If I could find a WP:Reliable source, I would add all this. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE REMOVED
I made an edit today of the 1957 section, letting remain a Supreme Court case of 1948 but indicating that it was an exception to the 1957 CASE heading. There is an intermixing of Supreme Court cases and State Supreme Court Case, which do not have the degree of precedence.

I'm not a lawyer, but this article requires someone with such training. Right now this is a discussion board with references, which does not make a reference article.

This is a complicated and contradictory area of jurisprudence, and as much as I love Wikipedia this shows the limits of open editing. I suggest that if an article of this topic is to be meaningful, and follow the pillars of this site, it must be of secondary scholarly work, or opinion in respected publications. Legal decisions in the hands of non jurists are a parody of the tightly organized briefs in court cases, and are reduced to random elements to advance strong opinions. Arodb (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

2: Objections that the pledge promotes a Socialist state
Though my only article here is about a Freemason, I do not know much about Masonry, but heard on French TV from Freemasons that the French Republic motto "Liberty Equality Fraternity" is Masonic (La Fayette's lodge motto) though they said it was rather Napoleon's empire than the Republic that was Masonic. Then right wing extremists pretend the French Revolution was a Masonic conspiracy. Several American leaders like Washington were Freemasons, so I do not understand why  that motto is called Socialist. Actually in France, only right wing extremists like Royalists and Fascists (who replaced it with "Work, Family, Fatherland" during Nazi Occupation) are against it, but even hardcore Conservatives who think of Socialism just as their American Christian Conservative friends never criticize the motto, as long as they are Republican and it is rather National Socialists who dislike it. I understand if the person who wrote this does not like Freemasons, but am not sure they are all Socialist according to Wikipedia. Regarding "under god" I do not know if Pope John Paul the IId was Socialist, though I am not sure he was Communist, and he said the motto was Christian. Here is the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9

Those who understand French can check the motto is also La Fayette's lodge's:

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

--JFCochin (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The entire section "Objections that the pledge promotes a Socialist state" is a half-ungrammatical, unsourced garbage fire with a cartoonish conception of socialists' thought, and should be removed completely. 123.24.85.137 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Origins
In 1928, Greenwood Mennonite School was formed to educate students who were expelled from the local public school for refusing to recite the pledge. (Source: http://www.gms-flames.org/#!history/c70b). Obviously, long before the Jehovah's Witnesses took a stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.123 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/topic.aspx?topic=pledge_of_allegiance2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331064104/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html
 * Added tag to http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/911/2003/012003/01132003/846367/printer_friendly
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721203700/http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/scalia_recusal.htm to http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/scalia_recusal.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=487&DID=38719%29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020020714/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/94810.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/94810.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Columbus?
Why is this in the lede? "The pledge was written to honor Christopher Columbus and to sell flags.[2] Columbus was responsible for many rapes, murders, and enslavements of Native Peoples, even though he never actually set foot in what is currently the United States.[3]" The fact that it was first recited on Columbus Day does not mean that it honors Columbus (who is not mentioned in the pledge), nor does it warrant information about atrocities committed by Columbus. This should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C202:150:E1CA:5128:1B18:B50E (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The history regarding the pledge's introduction for Columbus Day is properly sourced, so it should remain in the article. The critique of Columbus is not only overwrought, it's irrelevant to the subject here, so I've removed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to reopen discussion on this subject. It doesn't matter whether it's source, it matters whether the source is reliable and, perhaps more importantly, whether or not it is relevant enough to be in the lead. Nothing in the body of the article mentions criticism for the pledge being written to honor Columbus or sell flags. The sentence should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As no one has objected I'm going ahead and doing this.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Beyond My Ken, can you explain why mentioning Columbus in the lead is relevant to the article, given that the article does not discuss Columbus or commercialism at all?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested relocation of a section to different article
Here, I adjusted the indent level of a section. It seems to me, however, that it is a stretch to consider the section at issue to be on topic for this article. I suggest that it be relocated to the Engel v. Vitale article.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ordered list?
In reference to this edit, can someone have a look at the entire edit? There are some lines that I do not think deserve to be marked as part of an ordered list and I do not believe a full revert is necessary here. Jalen Folf  (talk)  02:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)