0 Comment(s)
September 10, 2008 at 5:21am
by thecodepounder I’ve been hearing and reading a good deal over the past several months about the Pledge Project (see also this and this). If you aren’t familiar with the Pledge Project, you should follow these links and acquaint yourself.
I support the Pledge Project, and the fact of the matter is that every American should support the removal of “under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” from our currency. These slogans, while accurately reflecting the position of the majority of our fellow citizens, are discriminatory, and there can really be little argument about that.
The issue with the Pledge is not about whether or not certain people have to say or refrain from saying a pair of words. It has to do with attitudes that say that the government may legitimately teach children to view people who do not believe are to be thought of the same way as those who do not support liberty and justice for all. What is at issue is a principle that, if accepted, would make it permissible for [the government] to have children pledge allegiance to ‘one white nation’ or ‘one arian nation’.
And, even if discriminating against your fellow citizens doesn’t bother you, the slogans should be abandoned from our Pledge and currency if for no other reason than that these slogans are the remnants of the “red scare” of the 1950s1, a period about which most Americans look back on with disbelief if not outright shame. Need I point out that this distasteful episode in American history was merely the result of ethnocentrism? Being scared or frightened of something (or someone) simply because it is “different” is perhaps the most universal human emotion, but that doesn’t mean it is well-founded (or even supportable).
In any event, this is America, and America often requires us support–or endure–the views of others, uncomfortable thought it may be. This too is how we defend liberty and ensure freedom to all Americans. It’s not about forcing those in the minority to agree with those in the majority–it’s about protecting the very right of the minority to disagree. And why? Because you never know when one of your views will become the minority position, duh! One of my favorite fellow nutjobs makes an excellent point on this topic:
It’s amazing how few people understand that the Constitution is there to protect us from democracy—you don’t want the majority to rule. If the majority rules then it’s illegal to be [in any way different]… What you want is a democracy that has safety measures for nuts—that’s all they were doing. The Constitution is essentially saying “we’re going to let the mob rule, but we’re going to protect these particular whack-jobs. And that’s why your whack-jobs always love the Constitution and your mob always loves democracy.
– Penn Jillette in his ‘Penn Radio’ podcast of November 6, 2006
1 Despite Sarah Palin’s well-publicized belief to the contrary…
0 Comments
There are no comments yet, be the first by filling in the form below.
Leave a Comment