Michael Bazemore posted another blog entry that just cries out for discourse. Although he and I share a love for scuba diving, we're on completely opposite ends of the faith spectrum - my Christianity and his atheism. Michael raises the topic of the pledge of allegiance in the USA, and the use of the phrase "under God". So I beg the pardon of any patriotic Americans who may read this. However, my background of apartheid South Africa maybe gives me a different take compared to Americans, whether they be of atheistic or spiritual persuasions. (The following may be presumptuous, or use too many big words. My apologies, normal service will soon resume) There's a lot in Michael's post that deserves fuller discussion, but having lived at one time for some years in the USA, I'm inclined to talk around a few points on the issue of "The Pledge of Allegiance, Atheism, and American Civil Religion". Do I have the right to comment, as a foreigner? Well, why not, at the very least the USA is very willing to comment on the internal affairs of my country. I would also note explicitly that I am speaking at a fundamental conceptual level ... of course pragmatisms come into play as well. So let me start by saying that I find the USA pledge somewhat bizarre, a bit like patriotism run amok. The pledge now days reads as: "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." The "under God" was added officially in 1954. Interestingly the original, which did not have the "under God", was written by a socialist who was a Christian minister ... its interesting because of the current backlash against socialism by the US conservatives. Now "allegiance" is "a duty of fidelity", to be faithful, to be loyal. But to what? Is it to something determined by my ancestors as they engaged in their power-play to achieve control? It may be my perverse pedanticism, or perhaps because I grew up under apartheid, but compared to most Americans I have a weakened sense of fidelity to the concept of a "nation". And as for the more extreme form of nationalism, well, while the South African apartheid regime had something similar to the philosophy of American exceptionalism, I never could find it rational in the South Africa context, nor can I in the American context. It is an old debate about what makes a nation (as an aside, Terry Pratchett has an atypical but very interesting novel of that name). However, when my "nation" is comprised of an enforced agglomeration of pre-colonial tribes, multiple languages, conflicting values, with a history of abhorrent practices conducted by those temporarily in power (and I am not restricting myself to the South African 1948-1994 window), then on what basis is my fidelity a duty? Moreover, where some form of duty can be logically argued for, then at what scale of community and with what depth of commitment do I perform my duty, and why should I? For sure, there's common sense levels of basic social responsibility, and of community security, and virtues of charity, etc. As CS Lewis noted "Virtue—even attempted virtue—brings light; indulgence brings fog" (which has interesting implications for western hedonism). But my duty is surely not dominated by fidelity to some nebulous concept of the indivisibility of a externally defined collective we call a nation? I have inherited the society which has come from the choices of my ancestors. In that reality there is nothing spiritually or morally authoritative to compel my fidelity to this thing people are pleased to call my nation. Each generation has to learn anew the wisdom to know right from wrong, and the why and the wherefore. What I do have is community. My duty is to this community, for it is community that sustains me, and community is where I find expression of my humanity. Community is ultimately borderless. On a basic level it is those who share a structure of governance ... whereby we find the concept of nationhood. But community includes those in neighbouring countries where we may share rivers, fisheries, and air. And my community extends to include those with whom I trade, debate, and exchange cultural values. Ultimately of course, my community is all humanity. So on what grounds do I pledge allegiance to one subset over another. Is it not that when I do so, I am implicitly saying this subset is more valuable than that subset? How do I morally defend that? My allegiance, the duty of fidelity, necessarily emanates from my morality. And therein lies the rub. If my duty emanates from my morality, and if my morality is self determined, then my allegiance is consequently open to self definition. Does this mean that it is paradoxical to talk of atheist patriots, because each atheist defines a relative morality? Even where an external moral definition is accepted, can you have patriotic Christian, Hindu, and pagan citizens share a common pledge of allegiance. Because moralities differ, so at a very fundamental level national allegiance is at best a pragmatic although weak compromise, at worst it becomes an indoctrination of mindless masses. A pledge allegiance is thus automatically of finite authority, and where limits are unstated, of self interpreted value. In a country such as the USA, with its deep polarization between post-modern hedonism and cultural dogmatism, my question is, how does one then define allegiance? If morality is the basis of duty, and if for many morality is relativistic, then national allegiance is no more meaningful then a statement of temporary alliance to serve my preferences. Thus we come to the phrase "under God". On a pragmatic level I actually have no problem with this, as it provides no definition of God -- which "god" it is in the pledge of allegiance my be inferred by some, but with no prescription it means everything, anything, and nothing. We all serve a "god" of some form. It may be material or spiritual, of our own making (ourselves even?), a concept externally defined, or as experientially encountered. The old adage (that I subscribe to) is "I'm a fool for Christ, whose fool are you?" So let the USA say "under God", everyone is serving a god anyway. The problem is not with the phrase "under God", it's that without clear definition the nation-pledge is really one of serving a pantheon of gods in competition, a veritable Mount Olympus of gods. For myself, my allegiance is to God first and foremost, for only there do I find my point of reference.
1 Comment
Michael Bazemore
8/9/2013 07:12:07 pm
Interesting stuff, and there's no way I'll get to everything here :)
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|