Zorn:
I am amazed you cannot see the slippery slope issue here. I mean, people are defending "under God" in the pledge by pointing to the pharse "In God We Trust" on money, or by asserting that the founding fathers intended this nation to be Christian and only meant, by the establishment clause, that the nation's secular laws should tolerate alternative views, for which again they point to money or to prayers before legislative sessions, to having the President sworn in on a Bible, etc.
See, each place where we allow the government to take a religious position is as insignificant, standing alone, as a nail in a house. But each such nail then can be used by religoius zealouts to justify FURTHER intertwining of religion and government. So, if the phrase "under God" is allowed, you can bet your ass there will be religious people trying to have the government take an even larger role in promoting religion. And they will justify it by saying, "Look, the establishment clause does not mean the goverment can't favor Christianity. I mean, look at our money, look at our Pledge of Allegiance -- clearly we are a nation with a historical tie to God."
See, the nails do not just sit there. It is not like you can put the religion/government interrelationship in a stasis chamber so it will stay EXACTLY where it is, with a little overlap but not enough to worry you. Rather, it is necessarily an evolving relationship. Are we going to evolve to tie government and religion closer or further apart?
As I see it, the ACLU should try (and probably is trying) to remove all of the nails, no matter how small, so that the arguments of those who would bind religion and government closer together are as undercut as possible and our separation of church and state is thereby made safer.
And, as I said before, it would create real -- and possibly significant -- issues between a child who hears that God exists from the Pledge at school, but hears that God does not exist from her parents, or hears that there are many gods, or that humans are overseen by a goddess. I mean, just the fact that a handful of Americans could have to deal with a "why does the government say there is a god, when you say something different" discussion is so fucking abhorrent and contrary to the idea of the establishment clause, I cannot see how you view it as such a trivial matter. Perhaps you have no children in school? Or perhaps you are monotheist? Regardless, you should be able to imagine the scene of a non-monotheist parent with a child who goes to school and hears the Pledge.
Hell, what about the OSTRISISM of not saying the pledge if the rest of the class does? How do you think this girl is treated if she is the only one not saying the pledge? You think a bunch of 3rd graders would not pick up on this and find some way to tease her for it? So now this "trivial" issue is the source of a third grade girl being socially ostracized and teased by her classmates. Oh, maybe not all kids who stay silent would face this sort of ostracism, but some might and that is enough, for me, to be appalled that you would call this trivial or insignificant.
Or do you suggest the kids just "play along" and say the pledge to fit in? Is that the kind of people we want to raise? Who lie and pretend so that they will be liked? People who pledge monotheism out of FEAR OF OSTRACISM?!!! Jesus Christ, I don't know if you are just insensitive, incapable of imagining or empathizing with people in OTHER situations to whom this issue could have significant, immediate affects on their daily life, or whether you just have not thought it through like this.
I mean, fuck, I always pictured you as smart enough to recognize and catch and thereby avoid the flawed reasoning of, "Oh, this has no effect on me, so it must not have any effect on anyone else, either." So many times well-meaning people fuck up and oppress others because they are so caught in the grip of their OWN circumstances, that they fail to see how something insignificant to them could be significant to people in different circumstances.
Anyway, the bottom line is that if I can come up with a plausible scenario in which this "insignificant" reference to God in the Pledge could lead to a child being socially cut off from his or her peers, or perhaps even being physically picked on or hit, or might lead to some division or resentment between a child and his or her parents, that is enough. Even if that has not happened yet, the fact that it is a plausible possibility of what could happen should be enough.
Oh, and I have no children, so this Pledge in no way directly affects me, but I still find it important because I can imagine and empathize with people who may be directly affected by it AND because I can recognize the slippery slope in which each "insignificant" tie between government and the Bible that we allow to exist makes it incrementally more likely that another such tie can come into existence, and so on and so on until their are so many "insignificant" ties that, between them all, they pave the way for a significant tie. And then another and then another. Until there are enough significant ties for an overt and overwhelming tie. And soon you have a constitutional amendment to repeal the establishment clause. Unlikely? Perhaps. Certainly it is MORE likely if everyone who recognizes an inappropriate, but seemingly insignificant, tie between the government and the Bible decides it is not worth making any fuss about.
~psychoblast~
