Avedon Carol, over at the Sideshow, dings me on the Pledge issue:
Armed Liberal made a fairly disappointing statement that pretty well underscores the point that it’s at least anti-social and probably unAmerican to insist on equal respect for your religious beliefs if they don’t happen to include public displays of piety on behalf of monotheism. And forced recitations in school of the Pledge in its current form goes a long way to teaching us that message from childhood.
Im sorry she missed my point; in her defense, it was buried in the middle:
And in the other part, I think that including the under God clause was an embarrassing artifact of late 50s cultural rigidity. Id like to see it removed. But Id like to see it removed via a process which doesnt drive a further wedge between the folks in the U.S. who are clinging to the symbols of a nonexistent former consensus, and those who feel alienated from that consensus.
Were at a point in our history when we need to find the threads that bind us into a nation and a polity. Sadly, win at any cost politicians (c.f. Gray SkyBox Davis), and culture warriors of one stripe or another are happy to drive wedges, if they believe the fractures serve their short-term political interests.
Its simple; if folks dont want the under God clause in the Pledge, remove it politically. Dont get me started on the hijacking of political life in the West by the legal system
Date: 07/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
Dan-I fail to see why a political campaign to remove the clause would be such a problem. It might be a little more work (actually it would be a lot more work) but it would be the kind of work that would make your (and my point) much more effectively in the long run.The clause will be reinstated legally…I’ll make a substantial bet on it.A.L.
Date: 07/13/2002 00:00:00 AM
Oops. Didn’t mean to make the last comment anonymous.Dan Kenney
Date: 07/13/2002 00:00:00 AM
You may have a point that the Pledge ruling is divisive, but the USA otherwise seems as united (at least regarding 9/11, terrorism, etc.) as it has in quite a while. It seems to me that the elimination of something so blantantly religious (in intent, if not in practice) as the “under God” phrase in the current version of the POA should underscore, rather than diminish, the superiority of our society over the theocracies that call us the “Great Satan.” Maybe I’m confusing my grade school civics lessons here, but isn’t the enforcement of the Constitution our guarantee that our rights (even if they are only appreciated by a small minority of the citizenry in any particular circumstance) will not be trampled by the will of the majority, even in the form of the political process? Armed Liberal, would you feel that an abrogation of your Second Amendment rights would be OK as long as some other blogger felt that the action would “bind us into a nation” and was supported by 99 senators? There *is* a political process, however, that would legitimately allow for a religious pledge–it is called an Amendment to the Constitution. Is that the political process you were referring to? Until the First Amendment is legally changed, we should expect nothing less of our judicial system than to “highjack” unconstitutional political acts.
Date: 07/13/2002 00:00:00 AM
I very much appreciate the point that things like the “Under God” statement would best be removed politically rather than by court fiat.I wouldn’t mind it being removed if it were done so that why. Why are we so afraid of Democracy? Saying “Under God” in the pledge is simply not the equivalent of, say, declaring Mormonism the Established Religion of Utah…
Date: 07/12/2002 00:00:00 AM
I do, in general find that people expect the judicial system to overturn laws that they don’t believe in because those laws ‘aren’t right’. Probably the supreme court should not have, in the past, made such large extrapolations from the bill of rights like Roe v. Wade (not that I don’t support abortion rights). If the supreme court had stuck to the letter of the law we would have been forced to change things on our own, instead of falling back on judges (which has created our current, highly political judicial system. However, in this situation I think the constitution does quite clearly spell out that under god should be removed; It is coersive.