Alonzo Fyfe

This argument, and versions of it, were a part of the original decision. I have seen it used often and it seems to have played itself out.

Those who get it have heard it.

There were times, when I was teaching ethics, that a student simply could not see a relevant point (e.g., why Modus Ponens is a valid argument type) -- and I could not think of an easier way to explain it. So, I would say to the class, "does anybody else want to try this in different words?"

The same argument, in different words, and suddenly there is this look of enlightenment. So, what I am looking for here -- some new way of saying the same old thing.

ybnormal

As usual, I do have a different perspective here, altho I doubt it constitutes a new way of saying the same old thing... but I nonetheless think it important.

The teacher-as-gatekeeper analogy is perfect, because that is exactly what teachers are here... certainly when considering the lower grades where kids have a single teacher all day, and then later they probably say the pledge with the same teacher every day.

More, the timing, in that students usually say the pledge at the start of the school day, enforces Alonzo's As you approach the entrance, a gatekeeper asks you, "do you believe in God? particular. Any "No" answer, at the entrance of the day, certainly sets the tone, if not the actual schedule, for the class and maybe the whole school, for the entire day, depending on how a wrong answer is handled.

Even the best, unbiased teachers would have some interest in ALL their students participating, or conforming... if for no other reason than to get the pledge over with and get on with the prepared lessons of the day... good teachers by default must prefer conformists if they want all their students to learn... ANY type of classroom disruption can be seen as a mild form of anarchy.

As a practical matter, it is best for everyone, and especially the teacher, for everyone to say the pledge. I don't think that can be argued against very strongly.

Which brings us to, They could, of course, lie... thus, conform.

The teacher, I suggest, would prefer a student lie (conform), rather than disrupt her class.

The majority of students who believe strongly that everyone should say the pledge, I suggest, would prefer other students lie (conform), rather than blaspheme their God and country.

The defiant student's best friends I suggest, would prefer they lie (conform), rather than face peer's teasing scorn of being associated with one who is perceived to be "against God and country."

The busy administrators who have classes over several buildings, I suggest, would prefer that all students lie (conform), rather than be forced to do something every day until it is resolved.

I suggest that all these folks- a majority of students, best friends and administrators, add pressure on any potential dissenter, to answer the teacher's, or gatekeeper's question in the affirmative... they become is essence, assistant gatekeepers, who pressure all kids to lie-to-conform. The entire system pressures kids to lie-to-conform.

I don't see how these real world and practical situations can possibly be dismissed by stating, Yet, I think we can agree in advance that lying is not a legitimate option.

I do not agree... I not only see lying as a legitimate option, but it has to be the most often chosen option... certainly regarding kids, who feel forced to conform almost every minute of their lives, beginning with things so basic as the clothes they are seen wearing and the music they listen to.

I can only assume that in my realistic and practical world, I somehow misunderstand Alonzo's as-it-should-be assumption that everyone "agree in advance" that lying is not a legitimate option. Or worse, let's not pretend that lying is a legitimate option. Again, Alonzo could well be speaking from a courageous student's activist's viewpoint, and I am maybe taking him too literally in expecting most students to have his courage. It doesn't bother me in the least tho, when I take my own misunderstanding as an opportunity to get a related point across. Maybe Alonzo will clear up my misunderstanding anyway.

Too often, in order for anyone to see where I'm actually coming from, you must acknowledge a distinction between those who wholeheartedly believe in ?God without doubt, and those who conform to say they believe in ?God without doubt.

To use Alonzo's line, "I think we can agree in advance" that some unknown percentage of self-proclaimed xians, do indeed have serious doubts, and/or don't believe in ?God at all, yet constantly and blatantly lie, in order to conform. These doubters and unbelievers conform and lie every time they are confronted with their beliefs in church, when blessing dinner with the family and when interacting with friends.

The fact that so many on this forum admit that they eventually "came out" as an Atheist, implies that they were at times, peer-pressured to conform and lie in certain situations, until they found the courage to tell the truth.

So why should we doubt that this is already going on with many kids when saying "under God" in the pledge?

My main point here, is that there is a huge difference between the xian desire to have everyone believe in their ?God, and the xian desire to have everyone say that they believe in their ?God. What does Christianity want, if not conformity?

I am suggesting that most xians just as soon you say that you believe in their ?God, thus, say that you conform to their beliefs, than have you actually believe what they say they believe.

Does anyone not recognize the difference?

As related evidence of this distinction, I offer an analogy to my lie-to-conform comments on Alonzo's analogy. (I see that 4th Generation Atheist has made this "hiding" comparison since I began writing this, so I'll expand on that.)

In the same sense that a teacher, and more so, a xian teacher, wants conformity more than she actually wants belief, these same xians give themselves away with their open and public stand on Gays.

Of course we have many xians, pushed by their leaders, who rail against the disgusting and sinful Gay "lifestyle", but I see more if not most xians and their public spokesmen, who say, "We don't care what Gays do behind closed doors, but they should not be allowed to flaunt it in our faces in public, where our children can see their disgusting behavior, like holding hands and kissing."

In other words, they should lie-to-conform when in public, by pretending to be straight, or to be "just like us."

This claim and mindset, IMO, admits that they are just as concerned, if not more so, with public displays of non-conformity, of dissent, of anarchy, than they are actually concerned with the actual practice of others, or even the true beliefs of others.

The message is the same, to kids pledging "under God" in school, as it is to Gays flaunting their lifestyle in public.

That, "These people should not be allowed to flaunt it in public and in our faces."

That, "We prefer that they lie."

That, "We prefer that everyone appear to be "just like us."

To me, they are simply saying, " Conform or else! We don't care what you believe."

simian

There is another challenge I put in my letter (works better during summer, so the non-conformity is during the first day of school:

For those who have children (or grandchildren or neices/nephews), send them to school the first day and have them refuse to take part in the pledge. When asked why, have them respond "The government should not be making people say a pledge with a god they do not believe in." Please note: this is not having the kid say he/she is an atheist, merely that they see the injustice. Also please note: I take no responsibility for the violence this kid will face.

If refusing to say the pledge is no big deal, there should be no difficulty in sending YOUR kid to do it.

Simian

Buffman

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.

If students do not have to say the PoA, what is the purpose of the Pledge? I think that is where I would take the discussion with the individual making such a claim. Put the burden on the claimant to justify the Pledge. How was America able to exist for all those decades before there was a Pledge? How was America able to survive all those Wars before "under God" was placed in the Pledge? How has placing "under God" in the Pledge supported and advanced our Constitutional goals as enumerated in the Preamble? Has America become a more principled and moral society since placing "under God" in the Pledge? Was America a less principled and moral society before it was placed there? (Hang these claimants on their own petard/propaganda.)

The flag is merely a cloth symbol for our Republic. Our Republic is founded on our Constitution. When entering public office, one swears to support and defend the Constitution...not the flag...or any supernatural God.

Is there an easy way to communicate this understanding to the claimant? Probably not! Their concern is not with the Pledge, or the Constitution, or the government. Their concern is with their own immortality. An immortality promised to them by their faith in a supernatural God. For them, anything that might threaten or weaken that faith is evil and destructive. When they pledge allegiance, it is not to the Flag, the Republic, the Constitution or the Government. It is to their supernatural God. Remove "under God" from the Pledge, and you threaten their faith and immortality. Reason is an anathema to blind faith religious beliefs.

Jayhawker Soule

This has not been my experience, except for those belonging to the religious right. In fact, many of the Christians I've talked to agree that the reference to God should be excised. At the same time, my born-again kin in Memphis would much rather that I convert than conform. I simply don't believe that "most xians" are as insidious as portrayed.

Alonzo Fyfe

Several posts:

ybnormal: I have this bad habit of writing in a detached observer mode when I write non-fiction -- which generates some of the issues you wrote about. I am well aware (for much the same reasons as 4GA) of how this feels in a first-person point of view.

Perhaps one useful tactic would be to collect stories from people who can describe the situation in the first person point of view.


simian: I have not seen this argument used "out there". I will introduce it into some of these discussions and let you know what happens.


ReasonableDoubt: Evidence suggests that the vast majority of the Christians "out there", unfortunately, do not share the view of the majority of your Christian friends. I do not take ybnormal's comments as referring to some insidious or even conscious decision -- just to the simple psychological fact that life is easier if everybody plays along, and that they communicate this desire for a less stressful day through a large variety of non-verbal (and innocent-sounding verbal) communication methods. This is actually a rather simple description of common "peer pressure" -- which is not insidious. It is just a fact of human nature. Of course, insidious Christiands do exist who like to take advantage of these tendancies, but the tendencies themselves exist independent of the insidiousness.

4th Generation Atheist

Most Xns will not take a leadership role in actually bullying the atheist kid. However, most Xns, like most people, lack the courage to stand up for the atheist either, or even to be too conspicuous about not tking part in the violence. When I was a child I regularly faced most of the class. This wasn't because most Xns hated me; it was because a few did, and a large number of others took part because they were afraid to face the ringleaders. No one stood up for me and risked getting tarnished themselves.

This seems to be the case in a more figurative sense among the adults. In most cases there isn't violence. But look at the fundie political phenomenon: a small group of loudmouths are the ringleaders, and many others, whether among the public or in Congress, lack the courage or the resources to stand up to them. This is especially so among liberal theists, who fear being called unXn as well as unPatriotic.

(I don't particularly want to get sidetracked into another discussion of the logistics of the Godless March. Please, there are active discussions on that in other threads. But it is worthwhile to point out the similarities between the behavior of the adults and the children on these sorts of issues. It's repeated time and time again, and the Pledge is sadly only one of them.)

Jayhawker Soule

Actually, I'm not aware of specifying "the view [singular - RD] of the majority of [my] Christian friends." Nevertheless, your evidence pertaining to "the vast majority of the Christians" would be useful input, and I look forward to reading it.

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

ybnormal

ybnormal:
I am suggesting that most xians just as soon you say that you believe in their ?God, thus, say that you conform to their beliefs, than have you actually believe what they say they believe.


ReasonableDoubt:
This has not been my experience, except for those belonging to the religious right.

I'm not talking about your personal experience... I read what they write and hear what they say... did my comparison with Gay conformity in public make sense?

And if I consider "the religious right" to comprise over half the US population, then that would be "most xians" would it not?

Just who belongs to this "religious right" you speak of, and what percentage of the US do you think they comprise?

I happened to run across this today and thought it demonstrated what I was getting at...

That little old lady, who I think is representative of non-radical xians in general, didn't ask and didn't care what this guy actually believed... she just wanted confirmation that he was "just like her", that he knew the secret handshake, that he conformed to her perception of "a nice young boy." She judged him solely on whether he self-identified with her as a xian. Had he lied and simply said "Yes", she would have totally accepted him as a nice young boy.


In fact, many of the Christians I've talked to agree that the reference to God should be excised.

Many? Well, then these are some of the folks who obviously pose no threat here, so I wonder why you mention them. But then again, do these folks contribute their fair share to their church? Do they know where their money goes? Are they sure that none of it is funding the ACLJ?


At the same time, my born-again kin in Memphis would much rather that I convert than conform.

I didn't say that xians wouldn't rather convert you... I'm sure they would... I'm ever more sure that they would say that they would... I was trying to say that short of conversion, that conforming would suffice. Conformity would silence you, and I believe that this is their main collective objective.

There are many different ways to observe xians... one is to exclusively pay attention to their repeated attempts at silencing others. One could make a good case that pretty much everything a xian stands for is nothing but the silencing of others.


I simply don't believe that "most xians" are as insidious as portrayed.

Yes, I know... and I believe that most are, when you combine the really dangerous xians with the majority who stand by silently and allow them to harm innocent people, and worse, fund the operations of their more dangerous members.

What other group of Americans are allowed to call themselves a "member" of an organization, then be allowed to deny any and all responsibility for the misdeeds of that very organization, while they continue to fully support it financially?

Stephen Maturin

Perhaps we can get the job done with some relatively minor tinkering with the eighth paragraph in your OP. Maybe something like: