Alonzo Fyfe

[Preface: I find terminology issues useful in helping to find the most efficient way to communicate important ideas.]

In discussing the pledge issue elsewhere, I have noticed that any talk about "forcing" children to say the Pledge is immediately answered with, "But they are not required to say it."

Which is true enough, which is why "forced" is not an efficient term to use.

I have experienced better luck with the following two alternatives:

(1) "Intimidating children into saying the pledge of allegiance." It is a perfectly accurate description, and blocks off all standard attempts at a red herring rebuttal.

(2) "We all know that a child, when asked to perform some action by a person in a position of authority, such as a teacher, is likely to go along with it. In no way is it reasonable for anybody to argue that the teacher, in asking children to say the Pledge, is gaining the child's fully informed consent to participate in this ritual."

The former is quicker and technically accurate. If you think that the reader will sit still long enough to read it, the latter seems to have the stronger emotional impact.

d'naturalist

[Egad! What did I start, i.e. the "Terminology" threads? Just kidding. It's good to make sure we're expressing ourselves properly.]

My personal take on the Pledge is to say that I'm being denied the right to freely pledge my love and allegiance to my country. The McCarthy Pledge is a conditional Pledge. I can pledge allegiance to my country if and only if I'm willing to give up my first amendment right to the free exercise my personal beliefs.

In other words, I am told that, by law, if I want to pledge my love & allegiance to my country, I must acknowledge, pay homage to, and surrender my individual liberty to, an alleged deity who represents a religion that I do not practice.

Irony of ironies: Since "under God" (as we're constantly told) is ceremonial Deism, the God being acknowledged is the Deist God, not the Christian God. It's ironic that all those good Christians are so willing to violate the First Commandment and pay homage to the God of another religion.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

capsaicin67

I agree about the use of the term "intimidation".

I also think that referring to the revisionist Pledge as the "McCarthy Pledge" is a very, very shrewd use of language as well. Changes the whole meaning of any reference to the mutilated Pledge, and it forces the whole concept of it not being the same as the Authentic/Original Pledge into awareness.

Rusting Car Bumper

I prefer the term "coercion".

Also state the situation in terms of choices:

The child can stand and say the "official" pledge (which implies he believe in god) and thus show good patriotism and citizenship.

or

The child can sit and thus not show good patiortism and citizenship.

The message to children: Those who dont believe in god aren't good citizens and nor are they patriotic.

I tell people its no different than placing a sign in the back of the bus that says "colored" and making certain people sit behind it. It doesnt physically harm the African American. It "does not pick his pocket nor break his leg" to borrow liberally from Jefferson. However, it does relegate him to a second class citizenship. This is not an analogy. The situations are no different.

DC

4th Generation Atheist

d'N has an important point, and one that I think explains the degree of emotion many of us feel over this point.

In my case, the truth is, without the "underGod" part I like the Pledge. After September 11 the various patriotic thingies, like flags everywhere and those patriotic slogans that didn't basically boil-out to prayers, cheered me. (When the flags started appearing in roadside ditches it was a different story, but that's a different discussion.) For me, having to make a big fuss and walk out of the room to avoid joining in a God-pledge would not have been a workable solution. When I was asked to say it as a child, I proudly said it without the "underGod"---and got my ass kicked. And this was the best solution, for a patriotic, Goddless American. I wouldn't want to wish this choice on tomorrow's (or today's) non-Xn American children, which is why I'd advocate the unrevised Pledge, if that were an option.

ansarthemystic

actually we are all being hoodwinked! The founding fathers were mostly Deists, but the current words "under God" specifically refers to the Christian god after the decline in popularity of intellectual Deism. Christians SHOULD fall on their knees and repent as soon as the they realize that the founding fathers did not believe in their god and founded this country on THAT principle. Preachers like Jerry Falwell and John Hagee should retract their statements that this country was founded on Christian principles. This country was founded on "Judeo-Deist" principles.

Haha!

peace and blessings

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: ansarthemystic ]</p>