Alonzo Fyfe

This is an item that did, in fact, come up during testing. There is an answer, but I could not find a way to easily put it into the analogy.

Choice is only relevant under a presumption of wrong. If something bad happens (e.g., a person drives a car through a pack of pedestrians), one of the things we look at is whether the person could have prevented it if he wanted to -- or whether there was some unavoidable mechanical failure.

There is no legitimate presumption of wrong associated with being black.

Therefore, choice is irrelevant.

To illustrate this, imagine that some scientist invents a gene-resequencer that allowed individuals to choose their race. Would "In Caucasians We Trust" and "one nation, under white rule" become acceptable?

No. Because there still would be nothing wrong with CHOOSING to be black. And it would still be just as wrong for society to treat harshly, to single out, those who made such a perfectly legitimate choice.

[Note: I would love to have a way to write this into the analogy.]

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

For the record, you did encounter 1 instance - me. I wrote: "My concern is that your audience will not, and should not, see 'one nation under God' as disenfranchising nontheists in the same way, or to the same extent, as 'one nation under whites' disenfranchises black Americans." I should have been more clear.

Wyz_sub10

I think your "altered genes" analogy does quite well.

Let me play devil's advocate (god's advocate?) here for a moment in comparing choosing Christianity or choosing "blackness" or "whiteness."

Choosing to be black is not wrong, but that may be in part because being black does not inherently imply something else. Choosing to be black will not necessarily lead to other choices. What's more, what does it *mean* to be black beyond looking darker?

Chritianity, by comparison, does imply other beliefs. It should lead to other choices and has a deep definition of what it *means* to be Christian.

What this has to do with your original point, I'm not sure. Other than perhaps illustrating that Christians feel they can make people better by bringing them into the Christian fold, whereas it'd be more difficult to argue how you could make someone better by bringing them into the white fold.

(Keep in mind I'm not advocating this as true - I'm just saying that, by definition, this is a rational argument from a Christian perspective)

Alonzo Fyfe

Yeah. Unfortunately, it sounds like a bit too much "star trek" in an analogy that I worried would not stand the strain.

I guess I should have tested that version somewhere, though.

My bad.


Nobody mentioned this point in testing, but I saw it hiding out there. The idea that while, saying that whites are morally superior to blacks is to be rejected, while saying that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians (for example) is perfectly acceptable and (in the minds of some) true.

The argument would have no impact on somebody not willing to accept the moral equality of theists and atheists (or, at least, the presumption on the part of the state of moral equality).

But, then again, I do not write my arguments for extremists. As I have pointed out in the past: the purpose of communication is to get those on the fence to climb down on our side, to get those near the fence on the other side to climb on, and to get those just beyond them to come nearer.

Nothing written or said is going to have an impact on the extremists, and I think that the vast majority of those who would presume the moral superiority of Christians are extremists.

So, the fact that my argument would not reach them does not concern me a great deal.

Alonzo Fyfe

Just for the sake of context....

I have stated that I think it is useful to make the same point in a number of different ways so that somebody who does not understand one presentation may understand another.

The argument under discussion here is not my primary argument -- it is definitely secondary.

My primary argument continues to be:

The Pledge of Allegiance constitutes ritualized, institutionalized, state-sponsored slander -- saying say that those who are unwilling to promote a monotheistic religion (one nation, under God) are just as anti-American and morally bankrupt as those unwilling to promote liberty and justice for all.

4th Generation Atheist

You could always hold the gene-sequencer analogy in abeyance for use when someone makes a point about any "choice" (I'm still undecided as to how much we "choose" our beliefs; are we "choosing" them, or simply "choosing" to be open about them?). Most people would agree that if there were such a device, some people would undoubtably choose to be black for personal, cultural or health reasons, and there would be nothing morally culpable about this choice. It doesn't, for this case, address the possibility that some will see this as "victim one-upmanship", and you're right it does seem a little "gee whiz" to appear in an initial analogy; but it does hit the choice issue should that come up.

joedad

Because you say I think that somewhere you need to introduce the phrase "In Equality We Trust" as the obvious choice, and just to nail the point. Otherwise a person who's initial reaction is emotional might come away from this approach unsatisfied, and perhaps even uneducated.

"Equality" cuts across intraracial as well as interracial stereotypes, serves one and all, and also might tend to disarm the victimization argument.

joe