When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, all public school students in Colorado were required to start each school day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. No one was exempt. Most of us going through public schools at the time didn’t really give it a second thought; we stood up, placed our right hand over our left breast (close enough), and said it in unison, then went about out school day.

Now, Colorado state law allows students to decline to participate in the still-mandatory recitation of the pledge. Scruples about verbal expressions of loyalty and commitment to a flag that stands for one’s country have risen to the level where reciters can take a pass and continue reclined at their desks with right hand twiddling a #2 pencil out of boredom.

I understand the idea of requiring youthful students to recite the pledge. The curators and disseminators of human knowledge and skill naturally want their charges to learn about and become grateful and appreciative for the country in which they live with the benefits bestowed by the rights enumerated in law. We want and need citizens who value the freedom they enjoy here and desire to live in communities where those rights and privileges are shared and protected.

But there is a bit of confusion and conflict here, for we are talking about what many take to be the essence of patriotism: loyalty to, participation in, and support for one’s country and the governmental, social, economic, political, and religious systems that give it reality. This dissonance over patriotism comes from the undercurrent of morality that bears it up: it is good and right to be loyal to one’s country, over all others, and to seek its preservation and progress; and, it is bad and wrong to limit, qualify or reject such allegiance. This is the rudimentary moral premise of that attitude we label patriotism as internalized by all those years of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Unfortunately, the relationship between patriotism and morality is rather complex. On the one hand, patriotism as love for one’s own country may be viewed as a moral virtue; on the other hand, impartiality and justice are also held to be ethical principles that are rational and applicable to all persons in all countries. This conundrum complicates and encumbers the notion of patriotism because it is difficult to love and serve one’s country without partiality and to seek its well-being by discriminating and imposing injustice on others.

Patriotism becomes immoral when it leads to harmful behaviors or the justification for unethical actions. A patriotism that refuses to acknowledge the faults or wrongdoings of a nation, or criticize and hold the government accountable, can foster injustice, prevent necessary social or political reform, and lead individuals to support immoral actions or policies like oppression, human rights violations, or unjust wars.

When it fosters exclusion or hostility toward those perceived as “outsiders” or “foreigners,” patriotism has become immoral. A patriotism that defines loyalty to the country in terms of national or ethnic purity can easily slip into xenophobia, racism, or nativism.

When a view of patriotism is used to suppress dissent or silence criticism, or wielded as a political tool to marginalize or demonize those who question government policies or speak out against injustices within the country, it has become immoral. This form of patriotism undermines democratic values, such as freedom of speech and the right to dissent.

Patriotism is immoral when it gives rise to national exceptionalism—the belief that one’s country is inherently better, more virtuous, or morally superior to all others. This mindset often leads to a justification of unethical actions on the basis that they serve the “greater good” of the nation.

In short, while seen as a virtue, patriotism can become immoral when it promotes blind loyalty, fosters exclusion, or leads to moral double standards. When it is used to justify violence, militarism, suppression of dissent, or national exceptionalism, it becomes a force that undermines freedom, justice, equality, and the common good.

For patriotism to remain morally defensible, it must be tempered by critical reflection, a commitment to universal ethical principles, and a willingness to acknowledge and address the faults and injustices within one’s own country.

It is possible for one’s country to be the object of love and affection, loyalty and allegiance, concern for its well-being and advancement, and willingness to sacrifice to promote its health and preservation. But it ceases to be a moral patriotism when these attitudes are manifest in ways that impede, disparage, abuse, tyrannize, and repudiate any of one’s fellow citizens–compatriots–and their right, under our Constitution and laws, to seek well-being and thrive as full participants–receivers of and contributors to–our civil society.

The principles and enactments of freedom, equality, and justice demand that our patriotism be moral, or there simply is no freedom, equality, and justice to which we may direct our patriotism.

The Pledge of Allegiance means nothing if it is not a symbolic act that both authorizes and reflects our moral patriotic attitudes and behaviors.

Douglas R. Sharp, Ph.D. is a retired Professor of Theology, Religion and Society.