The Pledge of Allegiance

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm with Joshua and Rom on this, but I'll add another (for me) practical reason for not pledging allegiance.

I understand the flag to represent the actions of the "republic." It is raised before battles, it is over governmental installations. It is on the lapels of various governmental agents. It signifies action. It announces "in the name of the United States the following action is being performed."

I've sworn, in good conscience, to uphold the Constitution and the laws of my nation and state. I've also, from time to time, found myself in formal and vigorous opposition to agents of the government--such opposition being consistent with my oath. I cannot reconcile the notion of paying allegiance to a symbol, or a republic for that matter, that may be violating its organic charter while I try to remain true to upholding that charter.
 
but because the recitation of it declares a generic, false all-inclusive god.
You do keep saying this. Do you have a source that would show that the purpose for the inserting “under God” was somehow to include all forms of generic god, as you say? Just looking to read more on that clause is all. I have not found anything yet to indicate it was meant to be anything other than the Christian God.

P.S. Let me just say I have no issue with anyone abstaining from reciting the USA pledge. Currently, I have a cleaner conscience sayings the pledge than I do about the Oath I took to be a federal employee. Still chewing:detective:
 
Last edited:
I'm with Joshua and Rom on this, but I'll add another (for me) practical reason for not pledging allegiance.

I understand the flag to represent the actions of the "republic." It is raised before battles, it is over governmental installations. It is on the lapels of various governmental agents. It signifies action. It announces "in the name of the United States the following action is being performed."

I've sworn, in good conscience, to uphold the Constitution and the laws of my nation and state. I've also, from time to time, found myself in formal and vigorous opposition to agents of the government--such opposition being consistent with my oath. I cannot reconcile the notion of paying allegiance to a symbol, or a republic for that matter, that may be violating its organic charter while I try to remain true to upholding that charter.
Vic,

I think these a good thoughts. I want to make sure I understand your reasoning.

Because you believe our current government is being unfaithful to the constitution, you abstain from saying the USA pledge of allegiance?

You had & have a clear conscience on taking the federal Oath because it was to uphold the constitution. Is that accurate?

I took an Oath a few years back myself. These are not rhetorical questions btw. Just trying to make sure I read you right and fairly.:detective:
 
You do keep saying this. Do you have a source that would show that the purpose for the inserting “under God” was somehow to include all forms of generic god, as you say? Just looking to read more on that clause is all. I have not found anything yet to indicate it was meant to be anything other than the Christian God.

P.S. Let me just say I have no issue with anyone abstaining from reciting the USA pledge. Currently, I have a cleaner conscience sayings the pledge than I do about the Oath I took to be a federal employee. Still chewing:detective:

Well as I said, I don't believe the intent really matters because in our contemporary time it's obvious the pledge's phrase is open for anyone to say. However I will include a few things about the intent:

"During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance." - this is the Wikipedia page on the pledge, you can check out this paragraph's sources. It was apparently first introduced by an Illinois politician.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." President Dwight Eisenhower the day he signed the phrase into the pledge by law. I think the sentence "reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith"
 
Well as I said, I don't believe the intent really matters because in our contemporary time it's obvious the pledge's phrase is open for anyone to say.
Well we would certainly disagree here. Thanks for sharing further.:cheers2:
 
Get rid of your money. It has a generic "In God we Trust." It's metal, has the word "God" on it, and has a graven image of a (probably) Masonic ruler.
 
Get rid of your money. It has a generic "In God we Trust." It's metal, has the word "God" on it, and has a graven image of a (probably) Masonic ruler.

Well my reply to that would be that with money the government is the one declaring that, whereas with the pledge, I personally an expected to utte the phrase in question.
 
Well my reply to that would be that with money the government is the one declaring that, whereas with the pledge, I personally an expected to utte the phrase in questio
So do you have an issue with a Christian saying “In God we Trust”? Or should he always have to say the trinitarian formula every time he/she wishes to simply say God?

Should we revise our Psalters to a more specific name when the name “God” is used in English?

If we have to drop using lawful things like the name God because someone else abuses it, then we need to say bye bye to all oaths, lots, wine, chocolate chip cookies, and the internet.

In the USA context, when I see “In God we trust” or “One Nation Under God”, it seems to be the Christian one historically and still some today (admittedly by a smaller margin). I suspect the same is true for @Reformed Covenanter across the pond. Even more so with our current POTUS and Pence. Please don’t hear me saying that Trump is a Christian role model. I am not saying that at all. However he has shown he is willing to protect the broad label of Christianity.

The Lord brought me through public school when the pledge was allowed. As a kid, I participated heavily in Boy Scouts before the homo agenda sparked. Of course I will not bring my children up in either institutions now, but none of that changes the fact that historically when these phrases were added it was within the context of the Christian God.

The USA culture now militating against Yahweh doesn’t change the past.
 
Last edited:
Did Nehemiah or did he not have to swear allegiance to his pagan king?

What was the custom in his time to be the king’s Cupbearer? Did he have to bow, kiss his hand, take an oath, salute?

Maybe a biblical historian can weigh in on King Artaxerxes.:popcorn:

P.S. Any RPCNA papers on the addition of “Under God” to the USA pledge or "In God we trust" on the currency?
 
Last edited:
Because you believe our current government is being unfaithful to the constitution, you abstain from saying the USA pledge of allegiance?

Not just the current government. Historically our government has often acted contrary to the Constitution. From Jefferson to the present, state action has often exceeded lawful authority. Our system allows--demands--people to step up and challenge those abuses.

The word "allegiance" derives from the "liege" promising loyalty to his master or overlord. I believe the flag is the most obvious symbol for state action. Pledging allegiance to a flag, as opposed to my country and its constituted laws, is pledging allegiance to an unknown course of action. I can't pledge loyalty to any one or thing that is so fickle.

You had & have a clear conscience on taking the federal Oath because it was to uphold the constitution. Is that accurate?

Yes, although I had to think it through fairly vigorously. Federal and State oaths of attorney and of judge.

To be clear, I am not a radical anti government zealot. If I am defending my country from enemies foreign or domestic, I will follow my leader's orders and (symbolically) the banner he carries to show the way. But if I see that banner is heading off a cliff, I'm going to pause and reassess, and maybe shout "wrong way!" Same goes for life in general.
 
Last edited:
Something happened this morning in DC that I think sheds light on what god is meant in the pledge of allegiance.

The House convened to vote on the articles of impeachment. They opened with two acts:
- Prayer
- The Pledge of Allegiance

This is both Republicans and Democrats partaking in this act. Republicans joined in prayer with the Democratic party which is openly at enmity with the God of Scripture.

Which God was prayed to this morning? And what God is referred to in the Pledge?

In this scenario, it is impossible to say that all our leaders had reference to the Triune God, or the God of Scripture, even for the fact that the Democrats could participate.

Adding to this, about half of those in the House are Protestant (which likely includes liberals), 30 percent Catholic (a different god because of a false Christ), and a smaller number (about 8%) are mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, universalists, or unaffiliated. Perhaps only half--give or take--are likely in the realm of orthodoxy (ie. Not heretics).
 
This is both Republicans and Democrats partaking in this act. Republicans joined in prayer with the Democratic party which is openly at enmity with the God of Scripture.
I don't think the party line clears up who is at enmity with our Lord. Both sides likely have goats and sheep.
In this scenario, it is impossible to say that all our leaders had reference to the Triune God, or the God of Scripture, even for the fact that the Democrats could participate.
No one here is arguing against this btw (or least I am not).
 
**We want the USA government to bow the knee to Christ, but we want to forbid Christians from seeking a civil office/position who might very well serve as the catalyst to spark good change? So we should only allow pagans to serve in our current government and pray that they pass God-honoring laws?**

This line of thought has caused me to reject some of the stances expressed in this thread. Sure our current government has vile laws (so did pagan rulers of old), but I think we have some freedom to do more than pray to hopefully affect the change I think we all long for. If the position does not require you to do anything directly immoral then surely one can serve this country. Of course seeking office is not a requirement either. I have enjoyed this thread.

Are there any reformed denominations who would hold a person in church discipline for serving as a Senator, Military Personnel, Mail Carrier, or other Civil servant?
 
Last edited:
P.S. Any RPCNA papers on the addition of “Under God” to the USA pledge or "In God we trust" on the currency?

I have not got around to looking at the sources yet, Grant. One thing that does spring to mind regarding the RPCNA, is that during the Civil War there was talk of RPs who wanted to fight as soldiers in the Union Army getting to swear an alternative oath that omitted reference to the Constitution and just swore allegiance to the nation of the United States. From what I remember, the plan was dropped as soldiers were just asked to take something like a pledge of allegiance to the country in opposition to its enemies.[1]

I also do not think that the RPs scrupled the Declaration of Independence's mention of God (even though it was primarily written by a Unitarian),[2] and, indeed, Alexander McLeod was the foremost clerical supporter of the War of 1812. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson once mused that about the "piety and patriotism" of the Revd McLeod.

[1] I am speaking from memory here; I need to recheck the sources to be completely sure if what I have said is correct.

[2] Correct me if I am wrong on this one. It is a long time since I checked the literature, but it seems to ring true.
 
I do not pledge allegiance to anything/anyone other than Christ. I don't even pledge allegiance to the OPC, because there is a chance that one day this denomination will go liberal. How can pledging allegiance be okay, if swearing or taking an oath is not?
Are you not familiar w/ chapter 22 of your confession?
 
**We want the USA government to bow the knee to Christ, but we want to forbid Christians from seeking a civil office/position who might very well serve as the catalyst to spark good change? So we should only allow pagans to serve in our current government and pray that they pass God-honoring laws?**

This line of thought has caused me to reject some of the stances expressed in this thread. Sure our current government has vile laws (so did pagan rulers of old), but I think we have some freedom to do more than pray to hopefully affect the change I think we all long for. If the position does not require you to do anything directly immoral then surely one can serve this country. Of course seeking office is not a requirement either. I have enjoyed this thread.

Are there any reformed denominations who would hold a person in church discipline for serving as a Senator, Military Personnel, Mail Carrier, or other Civil servant?

No question at all, not in the least, that a Christian may serve as a governmental officer. That in itself is not outlawed. May God put many in office, we need them! We have had our fill of brambles and thistly bushes.

The question is whether you can swear to uphold a Constitution that essentially says that the nation will remain neutral in concerns to God (when Christ says he wjo doesnt gather, scatters). Under the First Amendment the government may not in any way countenance or aid one religion over the other, and no tax money may go to one religion or the other, and the govt may not publicly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religion. - Justice Hugo Black, in Emerson v Board of Education.

I cannot possibly promise to uphold that. I consider it a forbiddance of being a rewarder of good, and a perfect example of violating the title Minister of God given in Rom 13. Of course, I believe the government must base its laws on all ten commandments, so my presuppositions are different than those of others.

Now with that in mind, lets say I want to reverse Obergfell, and let's say I had some power to do it... how would I do that, legally? How would you ever get the definition of marriage back to one man and one woman without Scripture? I cant appeal to natural law--homosexuals disagree. I can't refer to God generically: the mormon God allows polygamy, so does the Muslim god. The God of Scripture? If that's my basis, it will be taken as an establishment of religion so long as the Bible is the authority.

Can we just let that slip? By no means. Judgment will come because of our sexual perversion. Can a magistrate really be unconcerned about condoning a practice that will cause God to destroy the citizenry--and the guilty magistrates?

Besides, I believe the government ought to countenance the true religion to the fullest. Pay for godly pastors and missionaries. Declare days of repentance and fasting. There is nothing better for a society in a wreck than sound, godly preachers. There's nothing so helpful as an open godly tone at the top. That'll go a long ways in solving issues of abortion, sodomy, prison reform, police abuse, murder rates, etc.

But as the First Amendment stands, or as is interpreted, the nation is not free to do things in its best interest--and I think, magistrates are not free to do what God commands them to do.

And so you know, your loving spirit in this discussion is appreciated. Want to make sure I take my cues from you here, despite feeling strongly on these things.
 
I believe the government must base its laws on all ten commandments, so my presuppositions are different than those of others.
I hold the same.

However your personal position, in the current USA context, would forbid any Christian from taking office. Right? You cannot take office without the Oath (unless I am mistaken).
Can we just let that slip? By no means. Judgment will come because of our sexual perversion. Can a magistrate really be unconcerned about condoning a practice that will cause God to destroy the citizenry--and the guilty magistrates?

Besides, I believe the government ought to countenance the true religion to the fullest. Pay for godly pastors and missionaries. Declare days of repentance and fasting. There is nothing better for a society in a wreck than sound, godly preachers. There's nothing so helpful as an open godly tone at the top. That'll go a long ways in solving issues of abortion, sodomy, prison reform, police abuse, murder rates, etc.

But as the First Amendment stands, or as is interpreted, the nation is not free to do things in its best interest--and I think, magistrates are not free to do what God commands them to do.

And so you know, your loving spirit in this discussion is appreciated. Want to make sure I take my cues from you here, despite feeling strongly on these things.

I too can say AMEN to this my brother.:cheers2:
 
I hold the same.

However your personal position, in the current USA context, would forbid any Christian from taking office. Right? You cannot take office without the Oath (unless I am mistaken).


I too can say AMEN to this my brother.:cheers2:

.

I see. Agreed, I cannot. I would be swearing deceitfully. Will address your other thoughts when possible.:detective:
 
Last edited:
However your personal position, in the current USA context, would forbid any Christian from taking office. Right? You cannot take office without the Oath (unless I am mistaken).

Historically, yes that would be correct. However, this does not mean they were not active in politics, quite the opposite.

@RPEphesian I recall that there are now special circumstances that would allow a member to participate in government? The same would also apply to serving in the military.
 
Historically, yes that would be correct. However, this does not mean they were not active in politics, quite the opposite.

@RPEphesian I recall that there are now special circumstances that would allow a member to participate in government? The same would also apply to serving in the military.

I have to look it up, though RPCNA has the provision of an explanatory declaration. They may not even require that members abstain from oaths. Need to look. I believe Testimony encourages all active involvement in politics in lawful ways.

Here is an example of righteous political involvement. A local street preacher in Grand Rapids was threatened with arrest for preaching outside the abortion clinic because he used amplification (GR allowed "mild amplification" at the time). This man and a pro bono lawyer spent three years suing the city to get the ordinance changed.

Last month he and a brother spoke at the hearing for the noise ordinance. This brother spoke, and read from I believe Acts 19. Paul preaching in Athens. People snickered, but he spoke directly to the city council.

After he spoke, a brother from our congregation who essentually runs our weekly winter evangelism also addressed the city council. He explicitly told them that they were to submit to Christ as king and to make His laws to be their laws.

The result? The law got changed. The ordinance clarifies that you may now use amplification in public so long as hearing range is limited to 100 feet, and without it you may speak as loud as your voice may carry.

And this happened in a city which just passed an ordinance that adds sodomites to the list of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.

The Lord reigns!
 
I have to look it up, though RPCNA has the provision of an explanatory declaration. They may not even require that members abstain from oaths. Need to look. I believe Testimony encourages all active involvement in politics in lawful ways.

Here is an example of righteous political involvement. A local street preacher in Grand Rapids was threatened with arrest for preaching outside the abortion clinic because he used amplification (GR allowed "mild amplification" at the time). This man and a pro bono lawyer spent three years suing the city to get the ordinance changed.

Last month he and a brother spoke at the hearing for the noise ordinance. This brother spoke, and read from I believe Acts 19. Paul preaching in Athens. People snickered, but he spoke directly to the city council.

After he spoke, a brother from our congregation who essentually runs our weekly winter evangelism also addressed the city council. He explicitly told them that they were to submit to Christ as king and to make His laws to be their laws.

The result? The law got changed. The ordinance clarifies that you may now use amplification in public so long as hearing range is limited to 100 feet, and without it you may speak as loud as your voice may carry.

And this happened in a city which just passed an ordinance that adds sodomites to the list of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.

The Lord reigns!
All glory to God! That is exactly how the RP engages the civil leaders.

For a while I would read these journals, full of great examples of our denominations historical political activity.
http://rparchives.org/
 
Matthew Henry Commentary Nehemiah Chapter 1:

3. That God has his remnant in all places; we read of Obadiah in the house of Ahab, saints in Caesar's household, and a devout Nehemiah in Shushan the palace.
 
Praise be to God. So long as no sin is required to get into such places. Though we need to pray God puts some there.
How can you pray for God to put them there but condemn those that do at the same time (strictly speaking for US context)?
 
I have to look it up, though RPCNA has the provision of an explanatory declaration. They may not even require that members abstain from oaths. Need to look. I believe Testimony encourages all active involvement in politics in lawful ways.

Here is an example of righteous political involvement. A local street preacher in Grand Rapids was threatened with arrest for preaching outside the abortion clinic because he used amplification (GR allowed "mild amplification" at the time). This man and a pro bono lawyer spent three years suing the city to get the ordinance changed.

Last month he and a brother spoke at the hearing for the noise ordinance. This brother spoke, and read from I believe Acts 19. Paul preaching in Athens. People snickered, but he spoke directly to the city council.

After he spoke, a brother from our congregation who essentually runs our weekly winter evangelism also addressed the city council. He explicitly told them that they were to submit to Christ as king and to make His laws to be their laws.

The result? The law got changed. The ordinance clarifies that you may now use amplification in public so long as hearing range is limited to 100 feet, and without it you may speak as loud as your voice may carry.

And this happened in a city which just passed an ordinance that adds sodomites to the list of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.

The Lord reigns!

So I still do have genuine questions on the above. If the mods feel it is too off topic then feel free to delete.

1. Were there any Christians on the City Council?

2. Are you saying that Christians in the USA can break local neutral ordinance laws (noise control) to promote their cause? I assume he could have preached the gospel near the clinic without a microphone.

He explicitly told them that they were to submit to Christ as king and to make His laws to be their laws.

3. The amplification Law? Is that the law that was changed or was it the legalizing of abortion law that changed?
 
Last edited:
So you are against taking oaths even though WCF has a chapter on taking oaths?
I do not think Jake is saying that at all. He would likely take the Oath if he did not believe that the USA Oath was sinful.

From his view, taking an oath (in USA) to uphold, defend, and protect a document that contradicts some of the 10 Commandments is sinful. I totally understand that thought and wrestle with it myself given my line of work.

I further suspect that Jake would have no issue serving as a federal accountant so long as he was not required to take the USA's Oath for civil jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top