7/9/2002 - Conversation with a friend
Me: Maybe tomorrow on the web page I'll write my rant about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That'll *really* piss everyone off.
Friend: ooh....are you for or against?
Me: : I am a lousy Catholic, but a good faithful Christian. I do believe in God. I'm not a missionary, so it seldom comes up in conversation, but it's there. But...
Me: It's a Pledge of Allegiance.
Me: Pledging one's allegiance to something.
Me: Verbally committing one's faithfullness and dedication to something.
Me: But to what? To a nation, or to God?
Friend: ah....well both i guess
Me: Putting "under God" in there makes me think of the Profession of Faith we say in church. I don't think that belongs in a statement of commitment to one's flag.
Me: If you want to commit yourself to faith in God, go to church and do it. Or pray. It has no business being mixed up in a commitment to a political system.
Friend: well, my issue is that this "flag" was founded as a nation under God for religious reasons....
Me: The damn thing was written by a minister, and HE didn't put "under God" in there, congress did it in the 50s hoping it'd be a way to scare off Communists.
Friend: hmm, didn't know that
Me: It wasn't added in because of deep principles, it was added in under the most heinous and reprehensible of situations.
Me: It was a Macarthy thing.
Friend: ah....hmm....that puts things in a different light
Friend: I too am a faithful (try to be) Christian
Me: I think *most* (not all, to be sure) of the founding fathers were men of great faith. All, I believe, were men of great ideals. For those who were men of faith, they naturally turned to it for help in accomplishing what they were after. Those that weren't didn't. But principles of faith weren't founding principles. Principles of concensual self-government were.
Friend: understood....makes sense
Friend: your reasoning i mean
Me: I think the guy who brought the lawsuit is probably an asshole, and I find the *situation* unpleasant, but in the deeper sense, I have to say I think the principles represented by his action are correct. It's kind of annoying.
Me: My first gut reaction was "What an asshole". That reaction generally alerts me that I need to think something through a little further.
Friend: my concern is that we are trying to be "politically correct"and eliminate God's name from everything.
Friend: due to it offending some
Me: Well, yeah, that's one of the reactions I had. I did arrive at a conclusion where that's concerned, though.
Friend: and?
Me: Political Correctness, in and of itself, is a deceptive term. It's a generalization that encompasses a lot of different things, but isn't, in fact, a legitimate principle. It's a semantic argument, not a legitimate argument of principle.
Me: I think it's a way of diverting attention from the real issue, whatever the issue du jour is.
Me: Or at least, it's abused that way at times.
Friend: i agree with you, it's abused that way
Me: A lot of non-Christians, even those who have a God, feel (and they're quite right) that the God referred to in the Pledge is the Christian God. That does make it exclusionary, even if we don't bring atheists into the discussion.
Friend: but that is where I have an issue
Friend: this country was founded by Christians
Me: So what?
Me: Christians that pointed put into the constitution that religion should never be an official government matter.
Me: pointedly
Friend: so why should folks have an issue with the Christian God?
Me: Meaning that non-Christians are slightly less American than Christians, since Christians colonized this place?
Friend: no
Friend: meaning that non-christians should not be offended at God's name or the use of it
Me: How would you feel if it had been Muslims that colonized this continent, and the Pledge today said "under Allah"?
Me: Clearly referencing a Muslim belief?
Friend: I'd move to a Christian nation
Friend: or understand that I'm going to hear Allah's name
Friend: and not take offense at it
Me: You wouldn't question why it needs to be in there in the first place, when the intention of the thing it's in is a declaration of loyalty to your country? A country founded BECAUSE of the need for religious freedom, accomplished explicitly by forbidding the government to sanction any one religion over another?
Me: That's the principle that violates the constitution. It sanctions Christianity over other religions, or lack of religion.
Friend: hmm, chewing on that one
Me: That's why I feel the need to boil it down to the principle. I don't like chipping away bit by bit at the guarantees in the constitution, even when my personal preference conflicts.
Friend: interesting
Me: I *like* saying under God. It has meaning to me that I value. I think it should be removed.
Me: I'd probably still say it, under my breath, anyway, and consider no harm done to me.
Friend: hmm, i see your point
Me: I'd fight twice as hard for someone's right to SAY it, if they chose to, btw. Just not to have it prescribed by Congress to say it.
Me: Congress has no business telling anyone to pledge their allegiance to God. Any God.
Friend: that does make sense....as much as I hate to admit that!
Me: I'm pretty rabid about the constitution. I really believe it's a remarkable piece of work, and was conceived by people far smarter than me. God bless 'em ;-)
Friend: hee, hee.....
Me: Including the hoops we're required to jump through to change it. I resist any attempt to undercut the constitution, and when all is said and done, my reaction always is that if some part of it is no longer appropriate, don't try to find ways to "redefine the meaning" or work around it or pull it's teeth, just bite the bullet and change it.
Friend: good approach
Me: I'm a pain in the ass around the Thanksgiving table with the family. I'm sure you can imagine ;-)
Friend: rabid dog?
Me: Woof.
Me: My dad is a huge proponent of gun control. He'd just as soon eliminate every firearm in the country. But using the same reasoning: reduce it to the principles being debated, and look at what the consitution says, I did get him to agree that John Ashcroft (a nutcase, btw) is right, the constitution does forbid most forms of gun control. He did ultimately agree that the right path to real gun control is to amend the consitution to clarify the second amendment.
Me: Any attempt to "redefine" the words of the second amendment, which are quite clear and unambiguous, is an attempt to subvert the constitution.
Friend: another one of my hot buttons!
Me: How do I feel about gun control? It's irrelevant. It's the idea of ignoring the consitution every time the current social climate makes it inconvenient that pisses me off.
Friend: you are right....we need to "amend" it...there is the answer
Me: I might well support a constitutional amendment along these lines. Probably would. But until that's the issue at hand, regardless of my personal views on gun control, I'll fight it. Because what I'm fighting isn't gun control, it's the deliberate attempt to make a law which violates the constituion that I'm fighting against. I think that's a larger, more important issue, in the long term.
Me: And what I support in Ashcroft's claim isn't the right to bear arms, it's the responsibility that comes with our freedom. All our rights come with equal (or greater) responsibilities, and the more we slack on those responsibilities, the larger the risk of losing the freedoms.
Me: The right to free speech comes along with the responsibility to speak the truth, and the responsibility to listen to others who speak with differing viewpoints. The right to protection under the constitution comes with the responsibility to protect and defend that same constitution in every way.
Friend: think you need to go on Larry King Live and give your views....enlighten everyone.....lot's of ignorant people...don't know our constitution they way we should. That is the root of the problem
Me: People would throw rocks at my house that night.
Friend: hahahaha, no.....
Me: Oh yeah they would.
Me: After I went off on those two issues?
Friend: we'll black out your face & scramble your voice
Me: Ha!
Back to Rant index
Back to Lippmann.com main page