Pledge of Allegiance vs. Oath of Allegiance

by undercover 16 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  undercover

  As has been exposed, leaders of the WT corporation signed "Oaths of Allegiance" in order to secure a US passport for international travel.

  Another thread has a link to photocopies of these passports: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/198658/1/Lemon-Pledge if you haven't seen them. Marvin Shilmer also has a blog on this same subject.

  The purpose of this thread is to explore the question: Is signing the Oath of Allegiance the same as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?

  On the surface it seems pretty damning. But is signing a one time oath the same as reciting the pledge? It's stated that reciting the pledge is an act of worship. Is signing the oath an act of worship? On the other hand, JWs are to remain neutral in the world. Reciting the pledge is taking sides with a national emblem and government. Signing the oath is siding with a national government and taking the oath to defend it's constitution against enemies, so help you God.

  I'd like to hear objective arguments both for and against this seemingly hypocritical action of the WT leaders. Apologists are welcome to defend the actions of their leaders as are those who will definitely deride and criticize the leadership.

  I'm just the moderator of this debate. I have my personal opinion of which I will keep to myself for the time being.

  Let's keep it civil...Marquess of Queensbury rules apply...
• 

  snowbird

  Let's keep it civil...Marquess of Queensbury rules apply...

  All 12?

  Tee hee hee.

  Definition of oath: To swear solemnly to do something. Synonym: Pledge

  Definition of pledge: A solemn promise to do or refrain from doing something. Synonym: Oath

  Same window, different dressing.

  Syl
• 

  undercover

  Definition of oath: To swear solemnly to do something. Synonym: Pledge

  Definition of pledge: A solemn promise to do or refrain from doing something. Synonym: Oath

  Interesting. Thanks for that...

  A knock down in round one. Can the defender beat the count and get back up?
• 

  JWoods

  Signing the Oath is "theocratic strategy" because it can be done in private and no one can see you doing it.

  The Pledge. however, is idolatry because people can see you doing it. Nobody does this in private.

  It all depends on whether somebody can see you or not - to the WTBTS.
• 

  snowbird

  In days of yore, taking an oath meant invoking the aid of a god to carry out said oath.

  Therefore, I contend that if reciting the pledge of allegiance to a country is idolatry, even more so is signing an oath of allegiance.

  Syl
• 

  Olin Moyles Ghost

  There's a Questions From Readers article on this--from the 1970s, I think. If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I read it), the WTS "logic" goes something like this:

  (1) Signing an oath of allegiance to support and defend the constitution is different from pledging allegiance to a flag--which the WTS considers an idol.

  (2) Also, the constitution of the US and other western countries include a provision for freedom of religion.

  (a) Hence, the WTS could argue that an oath to support and defend such a constitution would necessarily be limited by its freedom of worship provisions.

  (b) Thus, any such oath made by a Witness would incorporate by reference the WTS "neutrality" doctrine. This would mean that a Witness would only be swearing to "support and defend" the constitution up to the point it conflicted with WTS doctrine.
• 

  Mary

  But is signing a one time oath the same as reciting the pledge? It's stated that reciting the pledge is an act of worship. Is signing the oath an act of worship? On the other hand, JWs are to remain neutral in the world. Reciting the pledge is taking sides with a national emblem and government. Signing the oath is siding with a national government and taking the oath to defend it's constitution against enemies, so help you God.

  I would assert that neither acts are very different from each other. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted under the Nazi Regime for refusing to pledge allegience to the Third Reich via the "Heil Hitler" salute. As any Witness will proudly tell you, they were offered freedom if they signed a piece of paper renouncing their faith. To their credit, virtually all Witnesses refused and suffered for it big time. There's no way they would have viewed signing that piece of paper as anything other than an 'act of worship' and no different than participating in the 'Heil Hitler' salute.

  Since the Organization has (foolishly) stated that reciting the Pledge of Allegience is an act of worship, there is no way that they can assert that signing the Oath of Allegience is not an act of worship, given their opposition to Hitler (whether verbally or with the pen).
• 

  JWoods

  But people - how could the Watchtower heavies get a PASSPORT so they can do WORLD TRAVEL without signing the Oath?

  (even if it does contradict everything they ever said about the flag salute - all the way up to the supreme court)

  Kind of like how they realized that vaccines or immunizations were not so bad after all when they became needed to go to certain foreign countries.
• 

  snowbird

  This just underscores their hypocrisy, craving for attention, and lack of foresight.

  Which brings up the question, did Rutherford do something similar in order to obtain a passport?

  Syl
• 

  undercover

  Thanks, OMG. I'd love to see that article, if anyone can access it (hint hint). I'd like to see their exact words in how they justified this.

  Mary - you bring up an interesting point. All the Bible Students/JWs had to in Nazi Germany was sign a piece of paper...something done in private as JWoods alluded to.

  Yet what they signed was more than committing an oath, it was a renouncing of their faith. There is a difference there. If the WTS could justify some Theocratic Strategy in agreeing to sign the Oath of Allegiance, couldn't an individual JW use Theocratic Strategy in signing the Nazi form? But OTOH, TheoStrat might not apply in comparing the two because in the Oath of Allegiance one can agree up to a point and the signee can withhold the rest of their commitment. On the Nazi form one would have to out and out lie to sign it. Speaking from the WT legalize thought that is...

  I'd say that the Malawi party card situation is more damning. JWs were coerced by the leadership to refuse to sign up for what amounted to a national ID card and they suffered greatly. Meanwhile WT leaders traveled the world without out so much thinking twice about signing an oath to defend the US. Ooops... I editorialized.... I'm supposed to be moderating...

  JWoods - you introduce another issue into WT doctrine being revised in order to abide by Caeser's law... immunization for travel. I've never considered that before.

  Sylvia - Rutherford did sign the oath for a passport. The link above takes you to a thread that has a link to a photocopy. Check it out when you can view images.