It seems we mostly agree, then, except on the question of whether this is an issue worth fighting over. I do think, all else being equal, that it ought to be changed; my objection to the lawsuit is purely a political, utilitarian one.
Newdow is certainly entitled to sue whoever he wants. That's how the system works, and how it should work. And if I were a judge ruling on the issue, I'd strike the phrase as being an unconsitutional endorsement of religion.
But frankly, having "under God" in the pledge is basically innocuous. It's just not a very big deal unless you're spoiling for a fight. And given the immense amount of opposition and anger that fighting it generates, and the ensuing harm to liberal principles on issues that really matter -- this one just isn't worth picking a fight over. That's what I'm saying here; I'd say it to Newdow too if I knew him.
Sure, we shouldn't have to compromise on issues where we're right. It shouldn't matter whether the Pledge issue pisses off misguided or stupid people. But it does matter, unfortunately. Analogy: I don't think the Palestinians should have to give up the Right of Return; I don't think they should have had to accept the inequities in Barak's peace plan. But I still think they should have accepted it; I think Arafat was very, very wrong to reject it. This is a bit similar in kind, tho not degree.
MA, I'm not sure whether you disagree that 1) having "under God" in the pledge, though wrong, is relatively innocuous; 2) fighting to have the words removed is going to hurt liberal principles, and/or 3) decisions on which issues to fight on should take into account such utilitarian concerns.
Maybe you can clarify that for me, so we can focus on the points where we genuinely disagree?
---
My second major point was that a lot of the negative reaction is due to the degree of invective and apparent outrage shown by some people when these issues come up. IMO some of that stems from an irrational hatred of religion. A lot more is just like carrying a chip on one's shoulder; many people seem to be just aching to get into a fight to show they can change the pledge if they want, and the religious people just have to take it.
Obviously that's all just my personal impression; I can't argue for it, but I think it's something worth considering.
Mahan Atma said:
I don't find your reasoning at all persuasive. Spell it out. Please tell me why the word-substitution is irrelevant here. I read the link you posted, and I found the argument nonsensical. Perhaps you could outline it in a couple sentences if you disagree.
Thought I did. First, though, I want to emphasize my main argument is that
having "under God" as part of the Pledge is largely harmless. This is the important thing IMO; whether or not it is "unreasonable" for anyone to find it offensive is a side detour I maybe should have avoided. I think it's more true than not, but I'm skeptical as to whether statements like "belief X is unreasonable" actually mean anything. That being said:
All such "arguments by word substitution" require us to believe that the subsituted statement is analagous to the original. ie, that the relevant characteristics of the situation are unchanged by the subsitution. In this particular case, there is the implicit argument "if it is unreasonable to be offended by a pledge containing 'under God,' then it is also unreasonable to be offended by a pledge containing 'under Satan.'" With me so far?
Now, I don't buy this here. I think the relevant conditions are as I mentioned: long standing, roots in historical tradition -- think Declaration of Independence, national anthem, etc -- and so on.
I submit that a much closer analogy would be if there were an established a Pledge containing "under the spirits of our ancestors" stemming from different traditional beliefs. That clearly is from a different religious paradigm; yet seems no more offensive to me, nor, I would think, to most people. This then implies that it's not my religious paradigm per se -- which in any case includes a lot of the Moslem "paradigm" -- but some other difference.
That word subsitution is quite often cover for a bad analogy is an empirical judgment; it's something I've personally noticed. The link was just for amusement value.
Frankly, I don't see how the country's cultural traditions are relevant. We used to have a decades-old cultural tradition of racial intolerance, does that make it OK?
Well, no. The tradition of racial intolerance is actively harmful in a way that the tradition of 'ceremonial deism' is not.
