I swear: a Pledge, some Oaths, and no Cursing
I. the Pledge
Today's post comes to you in no small part because of an old post on Volokh.com by Unindicted Co-Conspirator Jacob Levy. He wrote about the Pledge on March 25, 2004, and it's been kicking around in my head ever since.
As you probably guessed the instant you read the above sentence, he means the Pledge of Allegiance (not, say, Lemon Pledge - Google search with amusing results: the trademarked use appears 7th; or "pledge week" - see this funny Linguistics Log post)
...which is to say, the ritually chanted promise or oath which begins the day at many U.S. federal and otherwise public institutions, including many public schools, with the words "I pledge allegiance to the flag...."
Wikipedia has the usual outstanding introduction, here. It includes statutory references, some undisputed history, and a summary of the salient litigation history (Jehovah's Witnesses sued to be able to not have to violate their religion; thanks for being confrontational, Jehovah's Witnesses); and it has lots of links, as well as nicely summarizing the Newdow controversy which made the Pledge such headline-grabbing news over the last few years (and probably prompted Jacob's post). The article also mentions ceremonial deism, which Jacob mentions as well. (Link is to a 1992 Frank Easterbrook opinion out of the Seventh Circuit which cites Justice Brennan in Lynch, in turn citing Dean Rastow's usage of the phrase. O'Connor liked that phrase, too....).
I went to a school system which began the day with the Pledge. As I had reason to know, nobody was monitoring my promise; nobody did a brain scan to see how much I meant it, or even whether I was bothering to mouth the words at all. After a few years, I became uncomfortable reciting the words "under God," which were necessary (it seemed to me at the time) for the scansion but which gave me an itch on my religious conscience. So I simply went silent at that point, letting the rest of the class continue without me, and picked up again with "with liberty and justice for All."
Jacob's post is quite interesting in its own right; I recommend the entire post, which both cites Locke's influence for the proposition that oaths matter, and concludes that the constitutionality of the Pledge itself is not determined by that proposition (suggesting that the Pledge itself may be mindless blather).
I also liked the Curmudgeonly Clerk's earlier post of Sept. 1, 2003 which discusses "the Almighty Pledge," and concludes that various oaths (when concluding "So help me, God") do not violate the U.S. Constitution, article VI ("but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States") (annotation at Findlaw; very informative). Clerk's post is especially recommended both for its open spirit of inquiry and for its helpful linkage to Sandefur, J. Craig Williams, and the Torcaso case.
II. Why it's Hot
The Pledge is such a touchstone of controversy that it implicates, to me, all of the following concepts or issues:
So, pledgin' ain't easy, as Ice-T might have said but didn't.
III. Other pledges
Let's now consider this and other pledges. Just for fun, see if you know these before you click to reveal them.
Pledge of Allegiance
First published in Sept. 8, 1892 Youth's Companion, a Boston weekly. Used to say "my flag" and after 30 or so years expanded to "flag of the United States of America." In 1954 Congress added the words "under God." Francis Bellamy claimed authorship in 1923, and the Library of Congress and others have upheld his claim since his death in 1931.
Note also that 1955 was the year Congress ordered the national motto, "In God We Trust," placed on all paper money and coins (it had first appeared in 1864, and been on money intermittently).
The Presidential Oath of Office
(Custom adds, "So help me God" at the end when taken by the president-elect, their left hand on the Bible for the duration of the oath, with their right hand slightly raised.)
The American's Creed
Written by William Tyler Page, clerk of the House, 1917, accepted by the House on behalf of the American People in 1918.
Here's a (transparently easy) puzzle for you: what pledge is this next one, and who is it for?
And here's one that I like but that you may not be familiar with. Its form is a bit unusual:
Finally, Buddhists have four universal vows:
(1) to save innumerable living beings,
(2) to eradicate countless earthly desires,
(3) to master immeasurable Buddhist teachings, and
(4) to attain supreme enlightenment.
That seems like a pretty high set of aspirations.
One thing to note about many of the above: they are publicly or otherwise solemnly used to dedicate the speaker or signer to commit to action: "strive" appears in two of the above, and "duty" and "faithfully execute" also appear. It's not just about having a mental image of what you wish to do or attempt to do: it's also about the speech act of verbally committing.
For more on speech acts, see the Language Miniatures post on Performatives, as well as the Wikipedia entries for Speech Acts (In saying something, we do something) and for Performatives (best identified, as my Torts prof taught us, by noting that they do the same thing whether or not you use the word hereby: I hereby nominate, I hereby declare you man and wife, I hereby promise, I hereby sentence you, I hereby accept or decline).
Notably, speech acts (by way of linguistics) provide an excellent rationale for one of the many ways to avoid the Hearsay Rule (covered by Rules 801 to 807) in the Rules of Evidence: Verbal Objects are not declarations, they are Acts. When I open a window or an umbrella, shoot a gun or a photo, that's not a declaration, unless it is also a declaration (example of that convoluted situation: Someone says to me, "open that umbrella if Bob is guilty," and I open the umbrella). Acts have no hearsay problem; I can cross-examine the witness to the Act much more effectively than I can the witness to the Declaration - or so the theory goes.
Here's one final pledge, which I want to highlight.
Adapted from the Benchbook, Fourth edition (links to both PDF and rich text format).
Eh Nonymous' Note to the note: the judge read "solemnly swear or affirm" as if this truly were disjunctive, pausing and using tone of voice to indicate that it's one or the other, not both, but oddly enough, most of the sheeplike applicants repeat "solemnly swear or affirm" without affect. I don't feel an oath is an appropriate time to leave in a "disjunctive or" and so I do what seems right: I stay silent after "swear," either for a beat or, if the break in repetitions for breathing falls there, then for the intake.
As a believer in the (extra-textual, but firmly grounded in history) separation of Church and State, I usually do not append "so help me God" when making everyday declarations. In this case, however, I felt it was a highly personal and meaningful oath, and did not even consider dropping the line until after I had repeated it.
I also want to point out the fascinating (and rare) use of the word "demean" in the oath (I will demean myself as attorney
IV. Conclusions
At the distance of some years, I think I can conclude a few things about the Pledge of Allegiance:
You may notice I brought up Scalia again, near the end there. Well, he's my bete noire, and simultaneously my touchstone of What's Right; if Scalia agrees with it, I feel a pressing need to think long and hard about why he might be right, and a reasoned explanation for why he might be wrong. He's not always wrong; far from it. Only on some of the big questions.
I promise, I promise, I'll get to the Scalia mega-post shortly. I pledge it'll be done soon.
Today's post comes to you in no small part because of an old post on Volokh.com by Unindicted Co-Conspirator Jacob Levy. He wrote about the Pledge on March 25, 2004, and it's been kicking around in my head ever since.
(show)
As you probably guessed the instant you read the above sentence, he means the Pledge of Allegiance (not, say, Lemon Pledge - Google search with amusing results: the trademarked use appears 7th; or "pledge week" - see this funny Linguistics Log post)
...which is to say, the ritually chanted promise or oath which begins the day at many U.S. federal and otherwise public institutions, including many public schools, with the words "I pledge allegiance to the flag...."
Wikipedia has the usual outstanding introduction, here. It includes statutory references, some undisputed history, and a summary of the salient litigation history (Jehovah's Witnesses sued to be able to not have to violate their religion; thanks for being confrontational, Jehovah's Witnesses); and it has lots of links, as well as nicely summarizing the Newdow controversy which made the Pledge such headline-grabbing news over the last few years (and probably prompted Jacob's post). The article also mentions ceremonial deism, which Jacob mentions as well. (Link is to a 1992 Frank Easterbrook opinion out of the Seventh Circuit which cites Justice Brennan in Lynch, in turn citing Dean Rastow's usage of the phrase. O'Connor liked that phrase, too....).
I went to a school system which began the day with the Pledge. As I had reason to know, nobody was monitoring my promise; nobody did a brain scan to see how much I meant it, or even whether I was bothering to mouth the words at all. After a few years, I became uncomfortable reciting the words "under God," which were necessary (it seemed to me at the time) for the scansion but which gave me an itch on my religious conscience. So I simply went silent at that point, letting the rest of the class continue without me, and picked up again with "with liberty and justice for All."
Jacob's post is quite interesting in its own right; I recommend the entire post, which both cites Locke's influence for the proposition that oaths matter, and concludes that the constitutionality of the Pledge itself is not determined by that proposition (suggesting that the Pledge itself may be mindless blather).
I also liked the Curmudgeonly Clerk's earlier post of Sept. 1, 2003 which discusses "the Almighty Pledge," and concludes that various oaths (when concluding "So help me, God") do not violate the U.S. Constitution, article VI ("but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States") (annotation at Findlaw; very informative). Clerk's post is especially recommended both for its open spirit of inquiry and for its helpful linkage to Sandefur, J. Craig Williams, and the Torcaso case.
II. Why it's Hot
The Pledge is such a touchstone of controversy that it implicates, to me, all of the following concepts or issues:
- Religious oaths, declarations of faith, creeds, and therefore both Free Exercise of and Establishment of Religion under the First Amendment
- Loyalty oaths (Wikipedia again)
- Swearing-in, in court, and therefore perjury
- Contracts (which are nothing more than court-enforceable promises)
- Compelled speech (another First Amendment no-no, and not in the same way as the religious clauses problem, above)
So, pledgin' ain't easy, as Ice-T might have said but didn't.
III. Other pledges
Let's now consider this and other pledges. Just for fun, see if you know these before you click to reveal them.
Pledge of Allegiance
(show)
First published in Sept. 8, 1892 Youth's Companion, a Boston weekly. Used to say "my flag" and after 30 or so years expanded to "flag of the United States of America." In 1954 Congress added the words "under God." Francis Bellamy claimed authorship in 1923, and the Library of Congress and others have upheld his claim since his death in 1931.
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.
Note also that 1955 was the year Congress ordered the national motto, "In God We Trust," placed on all paper money and coins (it had first appeared in 1864, and been on money intermittently).
(hide)
The Presidential Oath of Office
(show)
I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
(Custom adds, "So help me God" at the end when taken by the president-elect, their left hand on the Bible for the duration of the oath, with their right hand slightly raised.)
(hide)
The American's Creed
(show)
Written by William Tyler Page, clerk of the House, 1917, accepted by the House on behalf of the American People in 1918.
I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
(hide)
Here's a (transparently easy) puzzle for you: what pledge is this next one, and who is it for?
(show)
- I promise to do my best to…
- Report for duty on time.
- Perform my duties faithfully.
- Strive to prevent accidents, always setting a good example myself.
- Obey my teachers and officers of the patrol.
- Report dangerous practices of students.
- Strive to earn the respect of fellow-students.
- To the above I hereby sign my name.
(hide)
And here's one that I like but that you may not be familiar with. Its form is a bit unusual:
- From now on,
- I will value the gifts I've been given
- I will shun rage
- I will embrace humility
- I will strive to give full and fair measure
- I will give to all their due honor and respect
Finally, Buddhists have four universal vows:
(1) to save innumerable living beings,
(2) to eradicate countless earthly desires,
(3) to master immeasurable Buddhist teachings, and
(4) to attain supreme enlightenment.
That seems like a pretty high set of aspirations.
One thing to note about many of the above: they are publicly or otherwise solemnly used to dedicate the speaker or signer to commit to action: "strive" appears in two of the above, and "duty" and "faithfully execute" also appear. It's not just about having a mental image of what you wish to do or attempt to do: it's also about the speech act of verbally committing.
For more on speech acts, see the Language Miniatures post on Performatives, as well as the Wikipedia entries for Speech Acts (In saying something, we do something) and for Performatives (best identified, as my Torts prof taught us, by noting that they do the same thing whether or not you use the word hereby: I hereby nominate, I hereby declare you man and wife, I hereby promise, I hereby sentence you, I hereby accept or decline).
Notably, speech acts (by way of linguistics) provide an excellent rationale for one of the many ways to avoid the Hearsay Rule (covered by Rules 801 to 807) in the Rules of Evidence: Verbal Objects are not declarations, they are Acts. When I open a window or an umbrella, shoot a gun or a photo, that's not a declaration, unless it is also a declaration (example of that convoluted situation: Someone says to me, "open that umbrella if Bob is guilty," and I open the umbrella). Acts have no hearsay problem; I can cross-examine the witness to the Act much more effectively than I can the witness to the Declaration - or so the theory goes.
Here's one final pledge, which I want to highlight.
I, Eh Nonymous, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that to the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will demean myself as an attorney and counselor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania uprightly and according to law, so help me God.
Note: any person who has conscientious scruples about taking an oath may be allowed to make affirmation, see e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d); Fed. R. Crim. P. 54(c). Substitute the word "affirm" for the words "solemnly swear" at the beginning of the oath and delete the words "so help me God" at the end. (If appropriate, courts may wish to substitute "this I do affirm under the pain and penalty of perjury" for "so help me God" at the end.)
Adapted from the Benchbook, Fourth edition (links to both PDF and rich text format).
Eh Nonymous' Note to the note: the judge read "solemnly swear or affirm" as if this truly were disjunctive, pausing and using tone of voice to indicate that it's one or the other, not both, but oddly enough, most of the sheeplike applicants repeat "solemnly swear or affirm" without affect. I don't feel an oath is an appropriate time to leave in a "disjunctive or" and so I do what seems right: I stay silent after "swear," either for a beat or, if the break in repetitions for breathing falls there, then for the intake.
As a believer in the (extra-textual, but firmly grounded in history) separation of Church and State, I usually do not append "so help me God" when making everyday declarations. In this case, however, I felt it was a highly personal and meaningful oath, and did not even consider dropping the line until after I had repeated it.
I also want to point out the fascinating (and rare) use of the word "demean" in the oath (I will demean myself as attorney
IV. Conclusions
At the distance of some years, I think I can conclude a few things about the Pledge of Allegiance:
- It was compelled symbolic speech, which is sometimes permissible in the educational context.
- I was certainly pressured to participate, no matter what Scalia thinks, and it affected me for years to be virtually compelled to stand and recite words which it made me feel excluded and oppressed to speak. (See Lee v. Weisman and Scalia's dissenting comment, "In Barnette, we held that a public school student could not be compelled to recite the Pledge; we did not even hint that she could not be compelled to observe respectful silence. . . . Logically, that ought to be the next target for the Court's bulldozer." Thanks for nothing, Scalia.
- It actually scans better and retains its simple majesty without the words Under God.
- I think that this "message from the department of homeland security" (it isn't) is really really funny. (Link found at wickedsunshine. The rest of the page it came from, not so much with the funny. Hilarity at the expense of Bush wears thin; pacifism is a lovely philosophy if one is willing to unblinkingly face its consequences, but my opposition to the Iraq War "as implemented" has and had nothing to do with pacifism per se.)
(hide)
You may notice I brought up Scalia again, near the end there. Well, he's my bete noire, and simultaneously my touchstone of What's Right; if Scalia agrees with it, I feel a pressing need to think long and hard about why he might be right, and a reasoned explanation for why he might be wrong. He's not always wrong; far from it. Only on some of the big questions.
I promise, I promise, I'll get to the Scalia mega-post shortly. I pledge it'll be done soon.
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Tuesday August 16, 2005 at 9:13am
There's a lot to be said for having an extraordinarily nuanced handle on the english language, but it seems to me that (a) point of any pledge is to make one's intent to do something (perhaps soemthing vague) clear. Purposely esoteric (one definition: "requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group") use of a word that has a well-established colloquial meaning seems counterproductive. (Not that any of this matters b/c you are only communicating with a "small group.")
Extraordinary nuance is traditionally available only from words with fine gradations of meaning, used with care. But words are slippery, words are unfamiliar, and an advocate risks losing their audience if said audience is forever looking up abstruse and grandiloquent verbiage, or even the odd hippopotomonstrosquipedalian run-on. I recommend Bruce Selya's opinions, out of the First Circuit (Maine, etc.) if you like long, long, long words (accurately used). See for example his 20 questions interview.
Bruce said,
In contrast, your humble host is a lexophile and is unashamed, as opposed to a lexiphant, someone whose speech or writing "us[es], or [is] interlarded with, pretentious words; bombastic."
I don't know why he used that word; it seems like kind of an insult.
Also, I like casual speech: Hopefully, I ain't gonna grow out of it. I really dig the line "Ain't no cat can't get in no coop" - see this Language Log post and also Language Miniatures 15: African-American vernacular.
Someone may have accidentally suggested he was violating his oath. Oops. :)
I took the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Oath (I think): "I pledge to serve faithfully in the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program and that I will attend meetings regularly, participate actively in unit activities, obey my officers, wear my uniform properly, and advance my education and training rapidly to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state, and nation." Scroll down or search for the phrase "cadet oath."
I took the oath of enlistment in the Air Force. It has evolved over the centuries.
That was pretty similar to the oath administered when new foreign service officers are sworn into the service of the United States.
I never had to take it, but presumably I had ancestors who did - and most of those who are reading this, too, probably -- the oath of naturalization. It's pretty heavy.
It sounds like you've spent half your life uttering oaths. Sorry, that came out snarky. Let's try that again:
It sounds as if you have served in a number of organizations and with various services that have high dramatic and lofty statements of individual and joint purpose. Thanks again for contributing.
The people who decide to have children recite the Pledge of Allegiance do not do so to "trap" the children into binding oaths. As you pointed out, no penalty for a child violating such an oath could be enforced, because they lack capacity.
Instead, I would argue that the main reason we recite the oath at school is, not surprisingly given the context, educational. In early grades, it is likely the only official instruction many kids will receive on civics--a sadly neglected topic that commonly gets absorbed into the amorpheous social studies curriculum.
In fact, the Pledge is strangely deep. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance does not commit me to the government of the day, nor to a particular aspect of a just government.
First we pledge allegiance to an ideal embodied by the Flag. What is that ideal? That out of many, we may become one people. That if there is a God, the state must be under it (that state and God are separate, not merged.) And that the purposes of that state include Liberty and Justice for all. (As an aside, the ABA Motto: "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice".)
And then we pledge allegiance to the Republic, for which the Flag is a symbol. The Republic is an imperfect manifestation of the ideal.
America is a weird and wonderful place. Instead of indoctrinating our kids to be loyal and obey the United States of America (My Country, Right or Wrong!), we indoctrinate them to owe their first fealty to an ideal, and then secondarily to the Republic as an approximation of the ideal.
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.