I have to say that Nat's post comparing the pledge controversy to the confederate flag controversy is quite insightful. If we were that brilliant all the time we'd be popular in the blogosphere.
I for one agree with the pledge decision (making me just about the only person in the world who is anti-pledge and pro-voucher this week). The insertion of that phrase into the pledge had the sole purpose of the government's imposing an (albeit vague) religious viewpoint. Had the words "under God" been in the pledge since the beginning, then I would understand how the "ceremonial deism" argument (when we want solemn things we say vaguely deistic things whose point is not at all to endorse religion but just to provide some sort of solemnizing) or the "de minimis" argument (latin for "your missing the point") might apply... However, as things stand I see no other way of looking at the law other than to find this addition unconstitutional.
The best comment other than Nat's which I've heard on the pledge controversy is this post to the fray. It was written by someone called the "history guy." The important part of the quote is:
Now is the perfect historical moment to get out from "under God" in our daily affirmation of nationhood. During the Cold War, when the enemy was godless atheistic communism, claiming allegiance under God differentiated us from our eneomies [sic]... The Bin Ladenites unquestionably would pledge to God, but they do not accept "liberty and justice for all." Removing "under God" from our pledge will emphasize that our nation is different from, and better than, the one they seek to create.
Dave, I'll try to get your email address on their soon. I need to refind the clever way of doing it so that one does not get spammed... Unfortunately its in our old archives that have disappeared, I think. I need to change them all to post addresses anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment