The New York Review of Books has an interesting article by Ronald Dworkin entitled "3 Questions for America". The three questions are:
1. Should alternatives to evolution be taught in schools? Dworkin says yes, but only if they are actually scientific. Alternatives derived from and dictated by religious beliefs don't count. He recommends that we (that is, the USAians, but it applies in broader international contexts) need a Contemporary Politics course that discusses how these sorts of issues arise and for what political purposes.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance. Though this is not cast as a question, I gather he means "should the Pledge have 'under God'" in it? He notes that nobody should be forced to affirm what they do not believe, but that the Pledge is voluntary and not a serious harm to liberty in the US.
3. Gay Marriage. Again, the question is "Should we allow Gay Marriage?" This is, in contrast, a serious harm, and the "civil union" laws are a step to removing this harm. But marriage is a central aspect of our (i.e., his) culture, and there is a distinction between the organic evolution of a culture derived from the vector sum, as it were (my words) of the decisions of the individuals who comprise it, and the imposed law of the legislature, which aims to force conformity to some perceived social ideals. He says
Dignity does not forbid this inevitable influence.
But it does forbid subordination, which is something very different. It forbids my accepting that other people have the right to dictate what I am to think about what makes a good life or to forbid me to act as I wish because they think my personal values wrong. Dignity therefore forbids me to accept any manipulation of my culture that is both collective and deliberate--that deploys the collective power and treasure of the community as a whole and that aims to affect the personal choices and values of its members. That is subordination. I must reject manipulation even if the values it is designed to protect or instill are my own values. My dignity is as much outraged by coercion intended to freeze my values as to change them.
It's a thoughtful essay. I would disagree with him that the Pledge issue is relatively harmless. It is a tool of conformity no less than the marriage ban for gays, and offends both dignity and freedom. Those who are coerced into conforming on religion lose a vital aspect of being human - some measure of self-determination on fundamental attitudes and opinion. Perhaps it does less economic harm, but I find such utilitarian considerations hard to calculate.
- Log in to post comments
I haven't got anything clever to say, but I agree with you about the pledge being dangerous.
First of all, making it the norm to affirm religion in the Pledge is itself coercive. Refusing to say the Pledge or even just the God bit becomes a nonconformist act, and it might not even occur to some kids that they can opt out in this way. It should just be a non-issue.
(Of course that would get certain Christians all riled up about public schools imposing a religion of secular humanism or whatever.)
Second, I'm really surprised that his only issue with the Pledge is that it has "under God" in it, and not the idea of having to recite a Pledge in the first place. Are there many other countries that do this?
I'm not as sure about the pledge. I only got out of school a few years ago, and was an atheist for most of the time, and it never bothered. I thought it was more of a waste of two minutes of class time than an affirmation of anything. Honestly, I've never understood the fuss about something that most of the people saying it don't even care about.
I'm ambivalent about the pledge as a kickoff to the schoolday, so long as it is made clear to kids that they don't have to play along. Yes, there is the factor of peer pressure -- and it might, depending on circumstances, constitute undue influence. But that doesn't rise to the level of coercion.
I think many of the same people who argue that the "under God" part has no coercive effect on children would aruge against the option of euthenasia because it would have a coercive effect on the elderly.
There are far more problems with the Plege than just that. I've just never seen anyone else make that particular observation before.
There's also the case of David Habecker, a town trustee in Colorado, who refused to stand during the recitation of the pledge of allegiance with which board meetings started, because of his religious convictions. The town held a special election and recalled him.
There are a couple of other countries that do that. To the best of my knowledge, not one of them is democratic. The Pledge of Allegiance is embarrassing. I will forever associate it with the TV footage of little Yemeni schoolgirls looking high up to the flag, saluting, and proclaiming in choir words like "al-Thawra!" -- The Revolution.
If at least it were allegiance to the Big-C Constitution! But no. It is allegiance to the flag, "and to the nation for which it stands". How embarrassing. Those few Europeans who know of the phenomenon can barely suppress their nausea. The US Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.
Should have mentioned that this took place in a schoolyard, so "high up" was at least the height of the school building. Looked like a military ceremony -- of course it was.