Readers rightly push back on this post:
Putting aside the question of the specific language of the Pledge and whether or not it’s kind of silly to even have one, it seems that the real question raised by Korey and Cupp is whether a Christian can have an allegiance to the U.S. To suggest that they shouldn’t is absurd. Obviously, this country is far from perfect, and the torture activities of the CIA are only the latest in a series of appalling acts by the government over the course of the history of the country. Nevertheless, this country remains one of the most, if not the most, open, tolerant, free and, yes, democratic, of nations, and it remains probably the most protective of what we consider to be civil liberties. (Whether that will still be true in 20 years remains to be seen.)
I don’t mean to sound like one of those “America, love it or leave it” types from the ’60s, but if one can’t bring oneself to acknowledge a proprietary interest in the U.S., then one should think about finding another country to set up camp in.
Another also seeks a more perfect union:
When I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to “the republic for which it stands,” I am not saying America is good, or morally sound, or guiltless. I am saluting the parts of the Constitution that allow for change and revision – of itself, and of the country. The premise of the pledge is not that the U.S. is good, or morally sound. The premise is that we can change what’s wrong, and make it less so. The pledge is not acceptance of the ills and evils of our past and present. It is a promise to exercise our power to change that. It is a promise to keep trying.
Another ties in church loyalty:
We should say the pledge, for the same reason I did not quit the Catholic Church. It’s my church, and my country, regardless of what someone else has done in its name. You don’t quit it; you restore it.