This post is Part 1 of a two-part series exploring the meaning and impact of the Pledge of Allegiance. In this first part, we look at its history, the addition of “under God,” and the question of whether pledging allegiance should be a choice rather than a requirement.

Continue to Part 2: Liberty, Justice, and the Power of Choice

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…”

The flag is more than cloth — it represents democracy, freedom, and the promise of equal rights. We salute it in victory, lower it in mourning, and pledge our loyalty to it daily.

But what happens when pledging becomes a requirement instead of a choice? Are we truly free if we cannot decide for ourselves how to engage with this national symbol?

Using the flag as a form of protest is not a new phenomenon. During the Civil War, Americans used it to make political statements. During the Vietnam War era, burning the flag became a powerful — and controversial — act of dissent. Congress passed a law to ban flag burning, but in 1984, the Supreme Court struck it down, affirming that free speech includes symbolic expression — even protest against national icons.

So, what does it mean when a pledge — a verbal oath to the flag — is compulsory, even for those whose beliefs conflict with its wording?

I remember standing with my classmates, reciting the pledge every morning. One day in fifth grade, a Jewish boy refused to stand. Our teacher walked over, grabbed his arm, and forced him to his feet as he choked back tears.

That moment stayed with me. It showed how a pledge, meant to represent freedom, could be used to take freedom away.

Mandatory pledges are not unique to the U.S. Chairman Mao required Chinese children to swear allegiance to the Communist Party through the Young Pioneers pledge:

“I am a Young Pioneer. I pledge under the Young Pioneer flag that I am determined to follow the guidance of the Chinese Communist Party, to study hard, work hard and be ready to devote all my strength to the Communist cause.”

Do we want our own children to feel they must conform without question — or should they have the liberty to decide for themselves?

The pledge has changed four times since Francis Bellamy wrote the original in 1892. The most significant change came in 1954 when “under God” was added during the Cold War.

In a country founded on the separation of church and state — and home to atheists, agnostics, and people of many faiths — does this phrase still reflect our values? Wouldn’t a truly inclusive pledge allow individuals to choose the name of the higher power they believe in — or to omit it entirely?