Alonzo Fyfe

I believe that the terminology that "I want this removed because I find it offensive" has lost its usefulness. Increasingly, the reaction is to say, "Ooohhh, poor baby." in a condescending tone.

I believe, instead, it would be more effective not to talk about being offended, but to talk about the reason for the offense, and not even use the word "offended" (or its cognates).

The reason for opposing "In God We Trust" is not because "I find it offensive" but because "It is the same as hanging a sign that says "Atheists Not Welcome Here."

No mention of being offended. Instead, get to the heart of the matter.

Toto

The reason for opposing IGWT is that it tends to establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment.

I think the issue became confused because Newdow had to allege an "injury" to have legal standing to challenge the Pledge, and "offended feelings" passed that hurdle.

But the issue is not a social one, or involving hurt feelings or lack of invitation. It is the government imposing its view of theology on you.

Jamie_L

Like I just posted in the other terminology thread:

The reason you don't want the government to have the power to post "In God We Trust" is that you don't know what religion will be in power 20, 30, or 50 years from now.

Don't give the government any power you wouldn't trust in the hands of the opposition. One day, they may be in power.

Jamie

Alonzo Fyfe

Perhaps it did, but it was the wrong strategy to use.

The harm in this case is that of turning the daughter against her own father -- by turning her against his beleifs -- in a government sponsored ritual that says to the daughter nothing less than that the father, because of his beliefs, is just as bad as any rebel, as any tyrant, as anybody who perpetrates injustice. Or, in a six-year-old's language, he's a bad American because he does not believe in God.

This claim of injury would not only have survived the discovery that the daughter proudly said the pledge, such a discovery would have strengthened his case against the government for turning his daughter against him and his beliefs.

In all cases where the word "offense" is used, I think a great disservice is done. One should focus instead on the facts that are responsible for the offense.

"I am offended by this because...."

Take out the first part, and concentrate on everything that follows after the word "because".

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

mac_philo

I can't even use the word 'offended' without being sarcastic anymore. I'm a grad student/TA and one of the biggest problems at american universities is this obsession we've cultivated in our students about being 'offended.'

I just had to go through a summer session of 'teacher training,' which was really nothing more than sensitivity training. The main lesson was that college is a holistic summer camp experience for students, they have the right never to be challenged or offended, and if they do "feel" offended (college students are here to "feel" now, not think) someone _besides them_ must be to blame. So if one of my students is offended by a class discussion or lecture, I have to figure out who needs to apologize to them.

It's a useless complaint now that many people can't take seriously, because they've heard too many self righteous idiots blabbing on about what is 'offensive.'

Best to stick to other tactics.

capsaicin67

I agree. I find many things offensive, daily. There needs to be a more substantive and less whiney point than that alone. And the public hears "offended" and it now = "frivolous/whiney".

The thing that doubly kills the Newdow case is that not only does the daughter not agree, but even more importantly the mother does not either. It totally neutralizes the strength of his position that the govt is interfering with allowing parents to decide what to teach their children regarding religion. Broken home. Bitter, crank, selfish ATHEIST ex uses daughter for frivolous lawsuit. Etc. This case was born for xian spin. Even before 9-11 compounded the effect.

southernhybrid

Personally, I think the only hope for progress regarding separation of church and state is for atheists to join with those theists who also see wisdom in the principle of separation of C/S. We are a minority and those of us who even give a shit are an even smaller minority. When other minorities made gains, the did it with the help of sympathetic people from the majority. For example, the civil rights movement happened because Blacks were willing to elicit the help of Whites who were also willing to work toward the same goals.

Also, it would be wise to center around issues that are much more oppressive than a few words in a pledge. For example, faith based charities or school vouchers for religious schools are areas where there is some meat. A few generic words in a pledge are just that.

4th Generation Atheist

I agree with southernhybrid. In many if not most cases our best tactic is to appeal to the centrist notions of neutrality, aligning ourselves with everyone who doesn't want the government influencing people's philosophical/religious beliefs (though we do, obviously, accept some promotion of ideals such as justice and liberty). In the case of the Pledge, that gives us some rather "odd bedfellows", as the saying goes, assuming we're willing to accept them: conservative Xns who feel that "god" in the Pledge amounts to blasphemy, members of other religious faiths who want to be able to pledge patriotism without accepting something that looks suspiciously like Xnity (most often Jews and Muslims) and numerous "silent center" members who would just like to have a simple civil ceremony without reference to religion.

Often our spokespeople for these issues end up being the "crotchety atheists" because those are the people who care to make a fuss. But we have to be careful not to let this make the message so divisive that our natural allies, and even some of our less natural ones, turn away from us in reaction. In the other "civil rights type" cases, the divisive strategy didn't work, but the alliance-forming one did.