Alonzo Fyfe

In debate, I think it is typically inefficient to repeat the same arguments over and over again to people who just don't get it. So, I constantly search for new ways of saying the same thing.

In debates concerning the Pledge, one point of frustration is from people who say, "students do not have to say the pledge." As if this matters. And, so, I have been looking for a good way to communicate that this does not matter.

I would like to ask your opinion on the following:

Imagine there were signs posted on the enterance to a public building that said, "monotheists only beyond this point." As you approach the entrance, a gatekeeper asks you, "do you believe in God?" If you say "Yes," you are permitted to pass. If you say "No" you are required to stay out.

The injustice of such a system cannot be defended by saying that "we are not requiring you to answer "yes." It is still discrimination.

Of course, anybody wanting inside the building can lie and answer "yes". And no harm will be done to them. Yet, I think we can agree in advance that lying is not a legitimate option. The citizen who does not believe in God and is willing to lie can do nothing but answer "no" and remain outside.

It does not matter that citizens who do not believe in God are not required to answer "yes". The presence of the gatekeeper still institutes discrimination against those who would answer "no."

Inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance effectively turns teachers into gatekeepers. All students are asked at the gate if they believe in God. Those that answer "yes" are permitted to continue on and say the Pledge of Allegiance. Those that answer "no" are required to stay outside. They could, of course, lie and answer "yes", but let's not pretend that lying is a legitimate option.

And a just government of a free people the government ought not discriminate on the basis of religious belief.

Rusting Car Bumper

I go along this lines but I simply ask them to explain how it is different from putting up a sign that says "colored" at the back of the bus and making blacks sit behind it? They still get to ride the bus don't they?

Its not different than "seperate but equal" and in this case its not even equal.

DC

Captn Kidd

Alonzo,

You've had some stunning and eloquent arguments on separation, but to me, this analogy seems weaker. The requirement to lie to enter seems more appropriate for a situation where the pledge is required.

In this case, it would seem that skipping the pledge is just going around the gatekeeper. Sure, all the "good" students go past the gatekeeper and say yes, and the "others" sneak around and get funny looks, but nobody is requiring them to lie.

simian

Nobody is requiring them to lie, unless, that is, they want to keep from having the living crap beat out of them (literally or figuratively). I grew up in a small town. A person who did not say the "under god" part would be under suspicion as a bare minimum, possibly beaten by other students, certainly ridiculed. And, given I was raised religious, I probably may have joined in the ridiculing, and ignored any physical violence.

I seriously doubt my home town community is the only one where this sort of thing would happen.

Simian

Alonzo Fyfe

Well, you see, this is why I ask for your fine input.

I need to make clear the fact that the "lie" is contained within the pledge of allegiance itself.

There is only one recognized pledge, and that pledge has the words "under God," so the gatekeeper says that no "under God" means no (government accepted) pledge.

The problem is, how to make this clearer without adding tons of additional words.

beejay

First I'd say, try the analogy on the next person and see how it works. It's not like it's cast in stone.

And then, the modified pledge seems more like a gatekeeper that you don't have to sneak around, but you have to be silent.

Gatekeeper: Do you belive in God?

Good American: Yes.

Atheist: (silence)


[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: beejay ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

What about changing the Pledge to read, in part: "... one Nation, under our Lord Jesus Christ,"?

Most folks will shy away from such wording, deeming it to be excessively exclusionist (or insufficiently PC). "But", it can be argued, "we are a predominantly Christian nation, and those who are not Christian are not required to say the pledge."

On the other hand, I much prefer to argue: Our country does not deserve, nor should it have, a Pledge of Allegiance artificially revised such that many, whose allegiance is certain, are forced to stand mute or lie.

Shake

Couldn't have said it better, DC. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

4th Generation Atheist

You don't even have to come from a small town. I encountered this and I grew up in Minneapolis.

I use analogies like those above, but I usually try to avoid any open comparison to racism, b/c this tends to bother those who have faced real racism. I instead tend to compare it to the treatment of gays, another group that like atheists is frequently told to "hide" its differences to get along in society. Like with gays, "hiding" as an atheist only works up to a point.

A major difference is that young children who are going to grow up to be gay often don't realize it at such a young age, whereas those children whose families are atheist usually know right off the bat. Children are often ill equipped to deal with issues related to "hiding". In a way, the Pledge issue is most similar to some of the issues faced by the children of gay people.

simian

I actually used this one in writing my Senators and Representative after the 9th Circuit Pledge Bru-ha-ha. I then pointed out that about 14% of the country labels itself non-religious, while only about 4% are non-Christian theists. If you insist 14% of the population is insignificant, I don't see how you can then claim the remaining 4% is worth considering.....

Simian