The Pledge Project: Foreign Affairs

I have worried that my readers with foreign citizenship might see the Pledge issue as a purely domestic issue with no relevance to them.

This is not the case. You have as much reason to be interested in how Americans handle this issue as Americans themselves.

Moral Concerns

The first is that a moral principle, by its nature, is universal. When a person says that something is permissible, this implies that it is permissible for anybody in a similar situation to do the same thing. This applies to people in other countries.

So, if it is morally permissible for Americans to post signs in its public buildings and to put on its money, “We Are Not Atheists,” this says that it would be morall permissible for the Iranian government (for example) to demand that the currency and every government building bears a model like, “We Are Not Jews.” It would be permissible for governments everywhere to post signs that say, “We Are White” or “We Are Not Hindu” or “We Are the Saudi or whatever other message that an oppressive group.

If it is morally permissible for a government to pledge allegiance to “one nation without atheists” then another would be within its right so t pledge allegiance to “one nation with Jews.”

If we are going to fight these types of injustices – if we are going to communicate the global message that these types of messages are unjust – then we need to oppose them everywhere.

This is the same argument that I have made against the Bush Administration’s policies of rendition, torture, imprisonment without charges, warrantless wiretaps, signing statements, and other injustices.

Whenever the President of the United States claims that torture is morally permissible, he gives every government on the planet permission to engage in torture.

When the American President says that a country can pick up people off the street and make them disappear, he tells nations around the world that they, too, may pick up people off the street and make them disappear.

Anybody who wants to condemn these practices when they are used in North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, or Sudan, needs to challenge America’s assertion that they are permissible.

People have the right to protest injustice wherever it occurs Otherwise, injustice becomes the new standard. Consequently, people in other countries have a right and a reason to raise their voice in condemnation of any government that is so discriminatory towards some segment o their population This is the best way – this is the only way – to prevent the practice from growing and moving into other parts of the world or expanding in parts of the world where it otherwise exists.

In addition, the moral principles that have been used against ‘under God’ and ‘In God We Trust’ can be applied to similar practices elsewhere in order to end certain abuses within one’s own country. Moral principles are universal, and I write about moral values so that others can take what I write and use them to improve the quality of life in their own homes, regardless of where those homes may be.

Importing Religion

I have written that ‘under God’ and ‘In God We Trust’ in America generates an in-group of dominant and assertive theists, and an out-group of passive and politically impotent atheists. One of the implications of this is that religion is one of America’s leading exports. That export is lowering the quality of life in other countries – particularly in Africa, where poverty and the spread of diseases such as AIDS are supported by 0th-century views on sex and procreation.

Developed countries as well, such as England, Australia, and Canada, have had to deal with religious campaigns in their countries to promote ‘intelligent design’ as science, to promote religious schools and grant the indoctrination of children into religion special protections, and even fight a war (in part on a religious pretext) as a result of America’s aggressive religious population and passive atheist population.

You will continue to feel the pressure of millions (billions) of American dollars going into the export of religion into your countries as long as America remains a culture of in-group (aggressive, dominant) theists and out-group (passive, submissive) atheists. One thing that would work to your advantage is to eliminate the practices that generate this in-group/out-group psychology by condemning the practices that support it.

I find it interesting to note that the atheist movement in America has not, for the most part, been able to generate its own leaders. It has only grown in recent years by importing leadership from other countries whose citizens are not subject to the same type of brainwashing that American children are subject to. Has anybody stopped to ask why American Atheists have so much trouble growing domestic leaders?

Conclusion

If you live in another country, and you do not want the worst of American theocratic thinking to thrive in your country, you have reason to oppose it in the country of origin. You have reason to teach people that it is wrong or governments to declare that people who do not support ‘one nation under God’ are as bad as those who support ‘liberty and justice for all’, or they might come to your country and try to get your children trapped into a similar pledge.

If you are concerned about the import of the worst of religious practices in your country, such as the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ as science or importing a culture that would be hostile to your homosexual or freethinking citizens, then it is best to challenge those enemies where they life.

You have reason, in these circumstances, to call for an end of the practices in America that generate a dominant and aggressive theist class and a politically weak and timid atheist class. Otherwise, you will find yourself fighting forces in your own countries well funded by Americans eager to export their religion.

The Pledge Project: The Guantanamo Ruling

Recently, in a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts.

This dispute in the court was not fully on whether prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have a right to habeas corpus – a right to demand that those who imprison then provide justification for doing so (or release them). Another part of the dispute was over who gets to answer this question, the judiciary or the legislature?

The four justices who dissented in this case (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) argued that the judiciary should defer to the greater wisdom of the legislature and the people who are actually fighting the war on terror. They said that the judiciary should not interfere.

This raises a couple of issues with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Issue 1: Moral Judgments

Those who oppose 'judicial activism' say that judges should merely enforce the law as written and not appeal to their own moral judgments in deciding any case.

The problem with this view is that the statement,"Judges should merely enforce the law as written and not appeal to their own moral judgments" is, itself, a moral judgment. The justice that says this is expressing an opinion on the moral limits of judicial authority, and in doing so is saying that a judge should not express moral opinions.

Even if the legislature were to pass a law demanding that judges enforce the law as written, the judge would first have to decide that he has a moral obligation to yield to the will of the legislature to accept that law. There is no non-question-begging way for the judge to decide that he should yield to the will of a legislature than to make a moral judgment and use that moral judgment to guide his actions.

This means that the call that judges not use moral judgments is simply impossible to obey. Instead, the call must be for judges to apply the right moral judgments to how she does her job. This, in turn, raises the question, "Which moral judgments (if any) are the right ones, and how do we know?"

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the claim that judges have a moral obligation to enforce the law as written. At least in the United States, this does not imply that judges must yield to the legislature. Judges are still free to rule that the Constitution makes illegal certain government actions. The "law as written" includes the Constitution and any violation of that law should be stopped.

The argument for saying that the judiciary should yield to the will of the legislature is because the legislature is answerable to the people. Pledge Implications. Ultimately, the people get to decide whether prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are to have a right to habeas corpus by electing legislatures that support such a right (or not, as the case may be).

This leads to a second question, and this second question has implications for the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto “In God We Trust.”

Issue 2: Answerable to the People

What if the legislature is not answerable to the people? What I the legislature uses its power to establish a system that effectively blocks a group of citizens from public office or from getting people elected who would represent their interests. The legislature then is only answerable to a subsection of the population who actively pursue policies against the interests of those not represented. What implications would this have for the alleged obligation of the judiciary to yield to the legislature?

Inserting 'under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance and changing the national motto to 'In God We Trust' fit this description.

The Pledge of Allegiance, with the words 'under God', communicates to the American people that citizens who do not support ‘one nation under God’ are to be regarded the same way as citizens who do not support ‘liberty and justice for all’. It says that patriots support 'one nation under God' and that those who do not support 'one nation under God' are not to be considered patriots.

Furthermore, it focuses this message on very young children who are incapable of recognizing this type of propaganda for what it is. Most children learn to accept the messages they are given without question. In this case, what they learn to accept without question is that atheists (or any who do not support ‘one nation under God’) are not to be thought of as real Americans.

The national motto, 'In God We Trust', communicates this same message. Through this motto, the government tells the people, "You are not to think of any person who lacks a trust in God as being one of us. Its message of "We Are Not Atheists" exists for the same reason that people of another day or time might have posted a sign that says, "We Are A White Community" or "We Are Not Jewish."

The effect of these laws has not only been to impose a nearly insurmountable barrier between atheists and public office, it has created a barrier between atheists and those who would consider the claims of atheists. In short, they have helped to create a situation where legislatures are not answerable to atheists. Instead, these measure have given power to those who believe in ‘one nation under God’ and who 'trust in God', while denying power or representation to those who do not share these views.

What does this say about the moral claim that the judiciary should yield to the legislature, because the legislature is answerable to the people?

Let us assume that an anti-Jewish political faction has some political success. Among their first acts when they gain political power is to fill government buildings with anti-Jewish slogans and to teach anti-Jewish chants and rituals in civic ceremonies – particularly focusing these messages on young children who tend to accept what they are told without question. Over time they generate enough anti-Jewish sentiment that those who attack the Jews are the only ones capable of getting enough votes to get elected into government.

As I wrote above, 'one nation under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance gives Americans who do not support 'one nation under God' the same status in terms of patriotism and government respect as those who reject 'liberty and justice for all'. "In God We Trust" means, "Do not think of those Americans who lack trust in God as being one of us." These are certainly anti-atheist messages in the same way that "one Christian nation," and "In Jesus we trust" would imply that Jews are anti-American.

Would this have an effect on the thesis that the Judiciary should yield to the legislature because the legislature is answerable to the people? Or would this argue that the Judiciary should step in – that it should block the legislature from launching a campaign to promote hostility against a subgroup so that some fraction of ‘the people’ can establish a lock on political power for themselves – answerable only to their fraction of the people?

This is not a legal argument. This is not an argument about what the law prohibits and requires. This is what morality prohibits and requires. If the moral obligation that judges should yield to the legislature is grounded on the fact that the legislature is answerable to the people, then whatever makes the premise (the legislature is answerable to the people) false, makes the inference (to ‘the judiciary should yield to the legislature’) unsound.

Is there, then, some other moral argument or saying that judges should yield to the legislature in these circumstances?

The Pledge Project: Legitimate Response

I want to apply the scenario that I presented a couple of days ago against the idea that a 'voluntary' Pledge of Allegiance is defensible to the hypothesis that the ‘under God’ in the Pledge is not an issue worth caring about.

That scenario went as follows:

Assume that a community that is 85% white, where 100% of its elected officials are white, adopts a community pledge to our white community. However, they do not require non-whites to say this pledge. In fact, non-whites are free to leave the room whenever white people pledge allegiance to our white community. Would you support the argument that, since the pledge is voluntary, that it cannot be considered racist?

Now, imagine that you logged onto your computer one morning, browsed to your favorite news site, and saw a headline, "Community adopts pledge of allegiance to 'our white community'?"

You read a story that fits the description that I gave above. It is a story about a community that is 85% white and where whites hold 100% of the elected seats (because most people in that community refuse to vote for a candidate that is not white). This community adopts a community pledge to 'our white community'.

Now, I have some questions that I would like to ask you.

(1) What do you think your reaction would be as you read that story?

(2) What do you think your reaction should be as you read that story?

(3) How do you think the rest of the nation and even the rest of the world would react to that news?

(4) How do you think the rest of the nation and even the rest of the world should react to that news?

Next, imagine next that some news commentator, newspaper editorial board, politician, or opinion leader were to declare, "This issue is not important. The fact that some community has adopted a pledge of allegiance to 'our white community' simply is not important. We should be devoting our attention to more serious matters."

(5) How would you react to the news report about what that commentator or politician said?

(6) How do you think you and others should react to a public figure who said that a community's pledge of allegiance to 'our white community' is trivial and unworthy of concern?

A Digression into Theory

Before I go on to discuss the implications of these questions, I need to beg your indulgence for a few short paragraphs of moral theory.

I do not hold for intuitionist moral arguments. Intuitionism says that you can arrive at moral truth by contemplating a situation in a moment of calm and measuring one's own feelings towards that situation. It is as if the universe is filled with moral vibrations and the brain has some type of mental sense organ for picking up these vibrations.

All of this is nonsense. No such faculty exists.

My points above were not intended to pick up moral intuitions. They have to do with consistency. Whatever moral condemnation is justified against a city that posts a sign in its civic center that says, "We Are White People" that same level of condemnation is justified against a city that puts up "We Trust In God." Those who think that the latter is a trivial concern unworthy of a good person’s time and attention needs to also stand ready to assert that any protests against "We Are White People." Those who think that some more severe level of outrage would be justified against a community posting, "We Are White People" in its public school rooms cannot consistently assert that "We Trust In God" is a trivial concern.

At least, the person who gives these two events different moral evaluations needs to provide us with an explanation as to where the moral differences can be found.

(See yesterday's post for a defense of the analogy between religion and race on matters of government discrimination.)

The Civil Rights Calendar

I have heard some people describe the Atheist situation in America as being comparable to that of homosexuals in the 1960s – on the verge of a political movement that has brought them substantial progress.

I disagree. I think that a more accurate comparison puts atheists in the United States today on the same level as blacks in the 1920s. Blacks at the time were living in a society where they were surrounded by signs on water fountains, restrooms, sections of a restaurant, and parts of a bus that said "colored" and "white". There was no organized resistance against these injustices for the most part. Society was allowed to live a lie of "separate but equal" where blacks were clearly separate and clearly not equal.

In order or atheists to be able to claim that they have reached a level of sophistication in defense of their rights that blacks had in the 1950s, they would have to be willing and able to identify some community that has decided to post "In God We Trust" in its civic center or classrooms and make that community an example of all communities that expressed this type of bigotry.

How would blacks respond to news that a community that is 85% white had voted to post the sign, "We Are a White Community" in city hall?

They would probably begin with an economic boycott. They would advise anybody in the country planning vacations in that town to change their plans and to avoid the city. They would contact businesses and organizations planning conventions in the city and call for them to cancel those conventions or move them elsewhere, and encourage all other organizations to consider different locations for their businesses. They would contact businesses considering expansion into the city and have them reconsider.

My point is that anybody who claims that atheists are overreacting to a decision to put "We Are Not Atheists" in city hall must, by consistency, be ready to object that blacks would be overreacting to a sign that says, "We Are a White Community." If they are not ready to say that blacks would be overreacting to such a sign cannot, consistently, argue that atheists are overreacting to a sign that says "We Are Not Atheists" or, what amounts to the same thing, "We Trust In God."

The Pledge Project: The Race Analogy

I put a lot of weight in this project on claiming that a pledge of allegiance to 'one nation under God' is like a pledge of allegiance to 'our white community'. Similarly, I often compare a sign on the walls of city hall or in a classroom or on the money that says, "We Trust In God" with a sign that says "We Are White" or "We Are Not Jewish."

Some people may hesitate at that analogy, so I want to explain why it works.

First, a word about analogies in general. An analogy says that, "Since A is like B in all relevant respects, since X is true of B, we can expect that it is also true of A."

The phrase 'in all relevant respects' is important here. In all cases of analogy, there are differences between A and B. The analogy does not assert that A and B are identical. It only asserts that their differences are not relevant.

For example, you want to know the gas mileage that Car A will get. You look at Car B. Car B is exactly the same make and model as Car A. It has the same engine type with the same settings, the same body design and weight, the same drive shaft properties, the same kind of tires, and was driven under exactly the same conditions that Car A would be driven on. However, as it turns out, Car B is blue, while Car A is red.

The color of a car has no effect on its gas mileage. Therefore, the color of the car is not a relevant difference when it comes to drawing an analogy from the gas mileage for Car B to the gas mileage to Car A. Anybody who came along and said, "This analogy does not work because Car B is a different color," can be dismissed – not unless he can show some genuine relationship between car color and gas mileage.

The same is true with a sign in City Hall that says, "We Are White" or "We Are Not Jewish” and a sign that says "We Trust In God" or "We Are Not Atheists". Yes, there are differences between racism and religious bigotry. The question is whether there are any relevant differences? Is there anything about trust in God that justifies a sign in City Hall that says, "We Trust In God" that would not also justify a sign that says "We Are White?"

I know of none.

The relevant property – the property that makes the analogy work – is that there is no necessary connection between trust in God and patriotism or moral character, just as there is no necessary connection between race and patriotism or moral character.

The person who asserts that there is a connection between race and patriotism or moral character is a racist. She is guilty of pre-judging the members of that race based on an irrelevant quality, and this is guilty of the moral crime of prejudice. There is no argument that can be given for putting up a sign in city hall that says, "We Are White People" that is not ultimately grounded on prejudiced and bigoted assumptions that white people 'belong' in this community in ways that non-white people do not.

Similarly, the person who asserts that there is a necessary connection between religious belief and moral character or patriotism is expressing exactly the same sort of bigotry. The only evidence of a connection between atheism and immorality or treason exists in the imagination of the person who believes it. He believes the connection because he wants to believe it – just as the racist believes in the lesser moral qualities of blacks merely because he wants to believe it.

The reasons why people would put up a sign that says, "We Are Not Atheists" in city hall and on school room walls are substantially the same kinds of reasons that they would use to defend a sign that says, "We Are Not Jews" or "We Are Not White". Those reasons would have just as little merit.

Some people will bring up the fact that blacks have been treated significantly worse than atheists in this country.

That’s not a relevant difference.

The proposition, "X has been treated unjustly" is not proved false merely by pointing out "Y has been treated more unjustly than X." The injustice inflicted on X depends solely upon the nature of behavior towards X, and does not depend in the slightest on society's worse behavior towards Y.

Assume that a person walking through a park is robbed. The robbers make off with $200 in cash. Later, it was discovered that somebody else walking through the same park was robbed of $300 in cash and beaten. Now, imagine going back to the first person and saying, "Because the second person was treated more harshly than you were, we must now judge that no crime was committed against you. The people who took your $200 did nothing wrong in doing so, given that somebody else was robbed of $300 and beaten."

The argument makes no sense.

Putting up a sign that says, "We Are Not Atheists" remains a moral crime against atheists in the same way that putting up a sign that says "We Are Not Jews" would be a moral crime against Jews or "We Are White" would be a moral crime against whites. Greater moral crimes may have been committed against Jews or blacks, but that does not justify society in committing this particular moral crime against atheists.

Another difference that somebody might bring up is that race is not a matter of choice, while religious beliefs are a matter of choice.

This also is not a relevant difference.

Let us assume that race is a matter of choice. A physician has come up with a way of programming a bunch of nanites into altering a person's genetic code, altering their race. So, people gain the option of choosing their race. It would still be wrong for the government to post a sign that says "We Are White People" because society has no reason to try to coerce all of its citizens into being white.

Make no mistake about it – a sign that says "We Are White People" is an attempt at coercion in these conditions, in the same way that a sign that says, "We Trust In God" is an attempt to coerce citizens into trusting in God.

On the other side of the coin, imagine that scientists discover that a particular organization of brain cells near the hypothalamus is associated with rape. One hundred percent of the people whose cells in this region are organized in a way that scientists call Structure S, it turns out, commit rape. So, rape (in these cases) is shown to be something less than a choice.

In this case, this discovery may cause us to move the disposition to rape from the category of 'criminal' to the category of 'illness'. However, it would not make rape a legitimate and permissible act. This is because the discover that the desire to rape is (in these cases) caused and not a matter of choice does not change the fact that rapists do harm. In virtue of the harm done, people have reason to pressure citizens into pursuing whatever medical options exist that would make them less of a danger to others.

These cases illustrate that choice is not the relevant factor here. It is a disposition to cause harm. Race is as relevant to the disposition to cause harm as religion is.

So, it remains the case that as far as relevant differences, a sign that "We Trust In God" remains morally analogous to a sign that says, "We Are White People." There are no morally relevant differences between the two situations. There are certainly differences, but there are no differences that would give a sign that says, "We are not atheists" any moral status different than one that we would give to a sign that says, "We Are White People," or "We Are Not Jews."

The Pledge Project: Flag Burning

Today, June 14th, is Flag Day.

In an earlier post, I wrote about a Wisconsin legislator who was in trouble for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance. In explaining why she did not do so, she said that "the flag is just a piece of fabric".

Her statement is quite true. The flag is a piece of fabric that is not worth the loss of a single life, or even the loss of any significant piece of property. As I argued at the time, if you were injured in an accident and the only cloth that I had available to use as a bandage to stop the bleeding was an American flag, I would use it.

If there was a risk of your house burning down and, somehow (imagine whatever scenario you like) I could use a flag to prevent the loss of your home, I would do so. A flag is worth a lot less than a house. A flag is, after all, just fabric.

Now, I would not use a flag to clean the dishes or to use as a fine strainer to get the pulp out of orange juice. Not unless I had some particularly important reason for having clean dishes or orange juice. That would seem to state an unequivocal disregard for the values that the flag represents. But it does not show disregard for the values that the flag represents to use it to save a life or a house.

Now, when it comes to those values – when it comes to liberty and justice for all, for example – these are cases where I would not destroy the principle to save a life – not even my own. In fact, if the choice was between the principle of liberty and a life, I would choose the principle over the life, even if it were my own. Or, at least, I hope that I would be able to do the right thing. If I had to make a choice between an the institution of justice and a life, even my own, I would protect justice.

One of the strange things that I have noticed over the past seven years is that there seems to be an inverse relationship between a person’s devotion to symbols (flags, lapel pins, pledges, mottos), and their devotion for the principles that these objects are supposed to symbolize. The Bush Administration strikes me as being populated and supported by people who will destroy liberty and justice to save a life, but willingly see thousands of people killed and homes destroyed to save a flag.

One of the statements that the Bush Administration used repeatedly since 9/11 is that our freedoms are of no use to us if we are dead, and so he will do whatever it takes to protect American lives. This type of statement simply ignores the fact that most of the people in uniform are there to do exactly the opposite – to give their life if it proves necessary to protect the freedoms and justice that the rest of us enjoy.

They are heroes because they put the institutions of liberty and justice above life. Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts dishonor those soldiers by asserting that the institutions of liberty and justice are to be the first things sacrificed the instant there is a life at stake.

We hear a great deal about Democratic Presidential Candidate Barak Obama not wearing a flag pin and not saluting the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance (the latter being a lie). We hear very little about Bush’s illegal wiretaps, cruel treatment of prisoners, arrest and confinement without trials, and signing statements.

The people who support Bush, we may assume, are the people who are critical of Obama. What these people exhibit by their behavior is the same principle that I identified above. The more vocal a person is when it comes to defending the symbols of liberty and justice for all (lapel pins and pledges), the less interested that person seems to be in defending liberty and justice for all.

Given this disposition, we might be well served to abolish pledges of allegiance, lapel pins, flags, and similar forms of patriotic idolatry. Those religions that prohibit followers from worshipping idols and symbols of whatever divine entity they follow because the worshippers of idols forget to worship the deity might be onto something. We might well have reason to believe that the promotion of patriotic idolatry goes hand-in-hand with the loss of respect for the values being symbolized.

This is just a hypothesis. It is not even that, really, given that it is grounded on anecdotal evidence that I might just be seeing purely because it is compatible with some interests that I have. Readers should not take this as an actual theory.

It does, however, point to the moral distinction between promoting symbols and promoting that which is being symbolized. It points to the fact that, morally, it is the love of liberty and justice for all itself that we should be promoting, not the love of the symbols of liberty and justice for all that we defend at the expense of those things being symbolized.

The flag is a piece of cloth. It is not worth our defense. Liberty and justice for all is worthy of our defense. But they are not a flag. When we see the flag we should be reminded not of a duty to protect it - because there is no such duty. We should be reminded of the duty to protect liberty and justice for all - that which the flag represents.

This relates to the issue of flag burning and whether this should be permitted or prohibited. I have mentioned that the right to freedom of speech is the right to be free from violence, not a right to be free from criticism. A person who communicates an idea by burning the flag has a right to be free from violence (including arrest and imprisonment), not a right to be free from criticism. In fact, most people who burn the flag are guilty of a great deal of criticism, because the ideas they are seeking to communicate are ideas worthy of criticism.

I had an idea for the next time the Senate debated a constitutional amendment to allow the burning of the flag. My plan involved getting all of the permits together for a fire in a field, where I would put up 100 American flags. Each flag would be on a pole that had the name of a Senator on it.

After the vote, I would go down the rows of flags while reading the roll-call of the votes for the Amendment. If the Senator voted for the Amendment, I would remove that flag and burn it. If the Senator was not present or abstained, I would remove the flag without burning it. In the end, there would be a field of flags and empty flag poles, where every flag represented a Senator who knew the difference between a symbol of liberty and liberty itself, and protected that which had the true value.

In this case, those who protected liberty itself would have protected the symbol of liberty as well, while those Senators who voted against liberty would have failed also to protect the flag.

This seemed to me a good way to communicate the idea that some Senators seem to have forgotten the difference between defending a symbol and defending an institution, and the true defenders of the flag are those who defend, not the cloth itself, but the institutions that give the flag meaning.

The Pledge Project: The 'Voluntary' Argument

A reminder to readers that I am spinning up Atheist Ethicist Journal to handle day-to-day reporting on 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' until July 6th.

One claim that is going to be used over and over again by those who support 'under God' in the Pledge is that it is voluntary. Nobody is being forced to say it if they do not want to. At the same time, these people will point out that the opponents of 'under God' are attempting to prohibit people from saying the Pledge, so the opponents of 'under God' are anti-freedom.

This is an easy rebuttal to those claims.

In fact, I want to express this rebuttal in terms of a fantasy I have that somebody will have an opportunity to step up to a microphone at a Barak Obama rally and ask him the following question.

Senator Obama, assume that a community that is 85% white, where 100% of its elected officials are white, adopts a community pledge to our white community. However, they do not require non-whites to say this pledge. In fact, non-whites are free to leave the room whenever white people pledge allegiance to our white community. Would you support the argument that, since the pledge is voluntary, that it cannot be considered racist?

Of course that pledge would be racist.

Of course those who oppose a community having such a pledge are not ‘anti-freedom’ – any more than people who oppose the practice of walking into a store and taking everything out of the cash register are anti-freedom. A free society still places some limits on what people are free to do.

Technically, the reason that the voluntary argument is not relevant in this case is because the objection to having 'under God' in the Pledge is an objection based on its content. I am objecting to what 'under God' means in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. What the government is telling the people by inserting 'under God' in the Pledge is that a citizen that does not support 'one nation under God' cannot be considered a good American. It says this in the same way that it says that a citizen that supports rebellion or secession cannot be a good American, and a citizen who does not support liberty and justice for all cannot be a good American.

It does not matter who actually utters the words, "A citizen who does not support one nation under God cannot be a good American," the statement is both malicious and false and nothing that a moral person would support. The properties of being malicious and false remain a part of the content of this Pledge even if nobody says it – and is precisely the reason why a good person would not say it.

The parallel question about the community that adopts a pledge of allegiance to 'our white community' brings these properties up to the surface. We recognize straight away that a community that would adopt a pledge of allegiance to 'our white community' has attitudes towards people who are non-white that are malicious and false, and they are using this Pledge to reinforce those malicious and false attitudes.

In the same way, the American community has adopted malicious and false attitudes towards citizens who do not believe in God, and 'under God' in the Pledge is being used as an instrument to reinforce those malicious and false attitudes.

In these cases, the fact that people voluntary choose to utter, or have the freedom to voluntarily choose not to utter, the pledge is no argument for or against its merits.

In fact, in our community of white racists, we can see that the people who freely and proudly pledge allegiance to 'our white community' are morally more suspect (at least on this issue) than any who does so as a result of coercion. The strength of the racist sentiments that a citizen has can be measured by how freely and how proudly that citizens pledges allegiance to 'our white community'. While the person (the white person) who says such a Pledge out of social conformity and a desire to fit in, while morally flawed, is not as flawed as those who actually provide the social pressure to pledge allegiance to 'our white community'.

The flaw with coercion in this case is that by forcing people to say, 'our white community' this will, over time, still have the effect of growing the racist attitudes that are inherent in such a pledge. What a person is forced to do one year (surrounded by praise for doing so and condemnation for any sign of resistance), she may do willingly the next. This is because, over time, the agent may internalize the prejudices that sit at the foundation of a pledge to 'our white community'.

So, coercion is definitely an evil. It is a violation of the right to free speech and, in this case, it is a tool for the growth and development of prejudice. However, the absence of coercion is no defense against the charge that a pledge of allegiance to 'one nation under God' is morally no different than a pledge to 'our white community'.

Given the tendency of some people to distort and twist words to political advantage, the above argument does not say that belief in God is tantamount to racism. It says that a pledge of allegiance to one nation under God (in light of the fact that there are good citizens who do not believe in God) is prejudicial in the way that a pledge of allegiance to 'our white nation' is prejudicial.

A just white person can be opposed to a pledge of allegiance to 'our white community' without saying that all white people are evil. Similarly, a just Christian can be opposed to a pledge of allegiance to 'one nation under God' without saying that all Christians are evil. The white person simply needs to say, "As a white person, I will endorse expressions of bigotry against blacks". The Christian simply needs to say, "As a Christian, I will not endorse expressions of bigotry against those who do not believe in God."

The good white person will not try to argue, "Since the pledge to our white community is voluntary, then it is perfectly legitimate." The good Christian will not try to argue, "Since the pledge to one nation under God is voluntary, then it is perfectly legitimate."

The Pledge Project: Audience Participation

I have a question from the studio audience that I have been sitting on for a week now because I could not find a way to fit it into the discussion.

It’s time to introduce that question.

I am hoping for the changes in the pledge and US currency to be achieved. But to be completely honest, I hate sitting around and hoping for others to do and fight for beliefs or the right to not have any....what can I do? What can I do to be more involved, to be more informed, and to be part of the change instead of just watching it happen?

Let me answer this by stating what I intend to do, and what you can do to help if you are so inclined.

I expect the 9th Circuit Court to release its opinion on or after June 26th. At that point, for the next week or 10 days, the nature of this blog will change considerably.

I have already asked for and received permission to be off work from June 26th to July 6th, so my days will be free. I will be spending those days monitoring the national debate on the 9th Circuit Court opinion, directing readers to what is being said, where, and by whom.

For the sake of those who subscribe to this site by email, I will be using my other blog, Atheist Ethicist Journal, to monitor the day-to-day activities once the Court decision is released.

What I would like you to do is to go to those places and introduce arguments into the debate that have been missing for the past 50 years.

Where somebody objects to 'the secularist's goal of removing all mention of God from the public square', I want you to go there and say, "Under God has never been about allowing God in the public square. It's always been about keeping atheists out of public office. If people want to mention God in the public square they can say the Pledge without 'under God' and add 'so help me God' at the end if it pleases them to do so."

If they complain about atheists "offended by every mention of God," I want you to go there and say, "I'm not offended by the mention of God. I'm offended by the fact that the government thinks every citizen who does not support 'one nation under God' is as bad as a citizen who does not support 'liberty and justice for all'."

If they say that religion is necessary for morality and that removing God from the school is the source of all evil, I want you to go there and answer, "Mr. X is guilty of moral chauvinism – the crime too many religions are guilty of where they say that 'those who belong to my church are morally superior to those who do not."

If they complain about the minority imposing its will on the majority, I want you to go there and ank, "Would you see nothing wrong with a community that happens to be 85% white adopting a community pledge of allegiance to 'one white community'? Would you see opposition to such a pledge as a minority trying to force its will on the majority?"

If they speak about posting 'In God We Trust' in the civic center or the classroom, I want you to go there and protest, "I do not think that it is appropriate for a law-abiding citizen to have to walk into a classroom or a government building and see a sign on the wall that says, 'If you do not trust in God, then we do not consider you to be one of us.'"

If they speak about showing respect for those who fought for our freedoms, I want you to go there and answer, "Some of those who fought for our freedoms did not believe in God. Yet, you want to compare those who do not support 'one nation under God' to those who do not support 'liberty and justice for all'. That's not a show of respect. That is an insult. Unlike you, I insist on showing respect for all of those who fought and died for our freedoms, not just that fraction that happened to share your religious belief while insulting those that did not."

If they speak about how the Pledge is non-discriminatory because students are free to leave the room while others give the Pledge, I want you to go there and answer, "I can think of no better way to teach children that atheists are unpatriotic then to conspicuously exclude them from a pledge of allegiance." Or, alternatively, I want you to ask, "If we have a Pledge of Allegiance to one white nation, but black students were free not to participate for personal reasons, would you argue that this eliminates all trace of prejudice from such a pledge?"

If a candidate says that the Pledge and the Motto does not call into question the moral character or the patriotism of atheist citizens, I want you to call for that candidate to put this on the record by voting for a resolution that says, "The fact that a citizen does not trust in God, or does not support one nation under God because of a lack of belief in God, in no way diminishes his moral character or patriotism."

The goal of this project is that, by the time the public discussion of this issue dies down again, we have introduced a whole new set of arguments into the public debate – arguments that have been sorely missing or underrepresented in the past 50 years. These are arguments that do not mention 'separation of church and state' or the First Amendment or the Constitution. These are arguments that do not care about the intentions of the founding fathers. These are arguments about how a government ought to treat its peaceful law-abiding citizens.

I am not saying that those other arguments are bad arguments. I am saying that I trust that those arguments will be adequately represented in the public debate. They will be used by people who are not familiar with this blog. They will be used by people who are familiar with and comfortable with those arguments. My hope is to augment those arguments with arguments that have so far gone largely unheard – moral arguments of the type that I have been presenting in the Pledge Project.

From the time the Court releases its opinion, through the July 4th weekend, 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' will be front page news. I want to use that opportunity to introduce them to arguments that they will almost never get a chance to see under any other circumstances. This is a short window of opportunity, and it will not come again until the Supreme Court decides the issue probably in the year 2010. We need to use this window of opportunity to inject these arguments into the debate now to have any hope of influencing that decision.

I would like you to monitor the news during those seven days and send me reports on who said what. In those reports, tell me

(1) Exactly what was said. (Provide exact quotes in context.)

(2) Who said it.

(3) Contact information where readers can go to respond to what was said.

I want you to take advantage of this information as I post it on this site to take advantage of that contact information to present the arguments that have made up the Pledge Project.

I want you to solicit the help of your friends, relatives, and group members who share an interest in these issues and this project.

Our focus is going to be on the mainstream media – on people who, if they hear these new arguments, will be able to present them to a wider audience. Our focus will be to get national news agencies to ask their invited quests and political candidates, "What do you think about the argument that ‘under God’ in the Pledge has to do more with keeping atheists out of public office than with mentioning God in the public square?"

Or, to ask a defender of 'under God', "You say that 'under God' is not an endorsement of religion. Would you say that 'liberty and justice for all' is also not an endorsement of liberty and justice for all?"

Or, "Do you think that it is fair for the child of an atheist to have to sit in a classroom where there is a sign on the wall that says, 'If you do not trust in God, then we do not consider you to be one of us'?"

That's the goal of this project.

Before I go, I want to conclude with a couple of side notes.

First, this is not a conflict between Atheists and Christians. A person can be a Christian and still appreciate that it is wrong to hang a sign in city hall or in a classroom that says, "We do not consider a person who lacks trust in God as being one of us." This is true in the same way that a person can be white and still disapprove of hanging a sign in city hall that says, "We do not consider a person who is black as being one of us."

A person can be a Christian and appreciate that it is wrong to have a Pledge of Allegiance to 'one nation under God' in the same way that a person can be white and appreciate the wrongness of a pledge of allegiance to 'one white nation'.

In fact, a few of these people have already written in comments and emails endorsing the Pledge Project.

All these people need to recognize is the right of all peaceful and law-abiding citizens to the equal respect of their government.

Second, while links to my site are flattering, it is best to put the argument itself in your communications directly, rather than to do so with a link to this cite. Most people do not follow links. If you do not present the argument in your communication, then the readers you are trying to reach will not see that argument. You need not give me credit in your statements. This is not about credit. All that matters is that you get the arguments out there.

The Pledge Project: Political Consequences

"Vote for me, and I will turn America's court system over to you." This appears to be Republican presidential candidate John McCain's strategy to get religious conservatives to support him, the way they supported Bush in previous elections.

MSNBC: McCain Reaches Out but Evangelicals Still Wary

I would bet good money that the McCain campaign is counting down the days to the 9th Circuit Court opinions on 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' (now between 0 and 21 days away). They have probably prepared a full-court press on the topics of "patriotism" and "judicial activism" starting the day that the decision comes out, and following through to the day of the election.

With millions of votes, tens of millions of dollars, and millions of hours of volunteer time on the table, the release of the Court opinion – particularly if it goes against 'under God' in the Pledge – will be harvest time for the McCain campaign.

Meanwhile, I would also bet good money that the Obama campaign doesn't even see this one coming. Some time before the end of June some Obama staff worker will be working with CNN on in the background when the news channel will break with some important news. "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again ruled that 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment." Uttering a string of profanities she will then drop everything as she starts making frantic phone calls saying, "We need some kind of response, and we need one quick."

This, of course, is pure speculation on my part.

Obama does have a part of his campaign directly focused on evangelical outreach.

Nevertheless, the Obama campaign plans to add a full-time evangelical-focused staff member to its existing religious outreach team and is rolling out an effort over the summer to organize over a thousand house parties built around an hour-and-a-half-long curriculum on faith and politics.

Part of Obama's evangelical strategy seems to be getting them focused on issues like poverty and the environment, rather than homosexuality and abortion. Still, I suspect that Obama will see no need to have an outreach program for secular America. Why should he, given that secular America has very little to offer in return in terms of votes, money, or volunteer labor?

If the people involved in this outreach are competent, they are ready for the upcoming 9th Circuit Court opinions regarding 'under God' and 'In God We Trust', and they will not get caught by surprise.

Obama has already stated that he expects McCain to attack him largely on issues of patriotism, and the 9th Circuit Court opinion will provide the best possible opportunity for such an attack.

The smart response from the Obama campaign would be to denounce the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in no uncertain terms – even more harshly than McCain. Politically, it would be wife for him to express as much hatred for the secularists who are 'seeking to remove all mention of God from the public square' and to profess how important it is that Americans express their religious views in public ceremonies and rituals. He will then talk about the importance of faith in his own life and state how religion is good for Americans (implying that no religion is bad for Americans).

The reason that this is the smart response is because he has little to lose in siding against secularism, and a great deal to gain. There are few votes in embracing secularism. There is almost no money in it. There are few volunteer hours to be expected from those who identify themselves as secularists. Siding with secularism in this country is the same as handing huge amounts of resources to one’s opponent. This is not something that a candidate who wishes to win will be prepared to do.

I suspect, Obama is in this election to win.

In Obama's only statement on this issue that I am aware of, he said that he did not feel oppressed by the words 'under God' when he went to school. (Call to Renewall Keynote Address) I would like to know if he feels the same way now that he has been the victim of a smear campaign that motivates people against him on the basis of a lie that he does not say the Pledge. Has this made him aware of what the political consequences are for those who cannot honestly pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God'?

Secularists are not going to get any help from either side of the political isle until they make it worthwhile in terms of votes, in terms of cash, and in terms of volunteer labor hours worked to give that support.

This is the situation that we have gotten ourselves into by 40 years in which secularists have presented their arguments to the courts in the form of politically unpopular lawsuits, but not to the people. While secularists have expected the wall of separation of church and state to stand forever, sectarian sappers have been tunneling underneath.

Once they control the judges, there will be no wall.

These are the political facts. Let's not ignore reality here.

Politics is fueled by the making of political deals – the "you wash my back and I'll wash yours" method of social interaction. In McCain’s case, the deal that he is going to propose will be, "You give me the White House, and I will give you the courts."

This is a deal that the religious base will accept, because they appreciate the power of the courts. Though they cry against 'judicial activism', they define 'judicial activism' as 'any judicial decision that produces a result that I do not like'. 'Judicial activism' for these people means, 'Any decision on the part of any judge that I disagree with.'

Since the defense of secularism will not come from Obama, it has to come from people outside of politics who recognize the value of secularism – from you and me.

We have to create a nation where it is once again safe for a candidate to say that he supports the separation of church and state and to say that he opposes the government declarations that question the membership of those who do not trust in God. We need to make it safe for politicians to suggest that there is something wrong with the moral character or patriotism of a citizen who does not support 'one nation under God'. Then, and only then, will we have politicians on our side again. Then, and only then, will we atheists themselves be able to run for public office and win.

We need to put some votes, some cash, and some willingness to do work behind secularism. Then, we will have a voice that the politicians will have reason to listen to.

The Pledge Project: An Endorsement of Religious Belief

I know that this is not a blog in Constitutional law. However, there is a statement in the Supreme Court record that:

(1) Is blatantly absurd.

(2) Can be easily shown to be blatantly absurd.

(3) I have never seen the proof of its absurdity anywhere other than in this blog.

The absurd proposition appears in County of Allegheny et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union where, with an eye towards previous Supreme Court decisions, the statement was made that:

Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge, characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement [492 U.S. 573, 603] of religious belief. Lynch, 465 U.S., at 693 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring); id., at 716-717 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting).

I have been reading the briefs for the 9th Circuit Court case that will be decided in the next 20 days or less. I have seen repeated references to this absurdity. Yet, nowhere have I seen what to me is the most obvious proof that it is absurd.

The easy proof that this is an absurdity requires a simple substitution that brings the absurdity right into the light.

Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the pledge, characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that the government may not communicate an endorsement of one nation, indivisible.

Or

Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the pledge, characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that the government may not communicate an endorsement of liberty and justice for all.

There is no proposition that the government may not endorse union, or that the government may not endorse liberty and justice for all. Yet, these two statements make clear how absurd it is to claim that 'indivisible' does not endorse union, and 'with liberty and justice for all' does not endorse liberty and justice for all.

It makes clear the absurity of the claim that 'one nation under God' does not endorse the proposition of 'one nation under God'.

I am going to be redundant here simply to make sure that the point gets through.

It is absolutely absurd to say that the Pledge is not an endorsement of liberty and justice for all.

It is absolutely absurd to say that the Pledge is not an endorsement of one nation, indivisible.

It is equally as absurd to say that the Pledge is not an endorsement of 'one nation under God'.

In fact, I can hardly think of a statement so easily proved false as this statement that the Supreme Court has repeated through a whole string of decisions – that the words 'under God' added to the Pledge does not endorse religious beliefs. Anybody who believes that the Pledge does not endorse 'one nation under God' has to believe that it does not endorse 'liberty and justice for all', and that is simply unbelievable.

Yet, as I have said, in nearly 30 years of Supreme Court decisions in which this claim has been made, I am surprised never to have seen this very simple proof as to its absurdity.

Situations like this make me wonder if I am not the person who is overlooking something obvious. How is it that a whole nation can miss what to me is entirely obvious – that the words 'under God' endorse religious beliefs in the same way that 'indivisible' endorses union and 'with liberty and justice for all' endorses liberty and justice for all?

To me, this is truly a case of a people, so overwhelmed by culture and tradition, that none of them even thinks to consider the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. Not only do they refuse to say what is completely obvious, but in their minds they manufacture an image of clothing and convince themselves that they see it. That this applies to proponents and opponents alike. Nobody dares to admit what is too obvious to deny – that 'one nation under God' endorses the religious belief of one nation under God in the same way that 'with liberty and justice for all' endorses liberty and justice for all.

If it is not the case that I am missing something – if this argument is as obvious as it appears to be – then this is an argument that needs to be made a part of the public debate before the Supreme Court actually passes judgment on the issue.

If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declares 'under God' to be unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court will likely hear the case in its 2009-2010 term. Oral arguments will likely be heard in late 2009, giving us about 18 months to make this argument so much a part of the public consciousness of this issue that no news commentator and no Supreme Court judge can ignore it.

I have been giving this argument for 2.5 years now. I first gave this argument in the story, A Perspective on the Pledge. I expanded on the argument to make the book by the same name, "A Perspective on the Pledge."

I would like somebody to explain why this argument does not utterly destroy the claim that the Supreme Court has used for 30 years to assert that 'under God' does not violate the First Amendment.

Anybody?

The Pledge Project: Moral Chauvinism

The Pledge Project: Promoting Morality

One of the claims that we are certain to hear if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declares 'under God' to violate the Constitution is how the country is descending into greater and greater immorality as a result of moving God from the schools and the country.

In other words, if you want to be safe – if you want to live without fear of being robbed, raped, or murdered, you need to support 'under God' in the classroom, 'In God We Trust' on the classroom walls, prayer in schools, abstinence only sex education, and creationism. If you do not support these things, do not be surprised if you wake up slaughtered in your sleep by the evil secularists out there waiting for an opportunity to get you.

The standard response to these types of claims is for secularists to say, "Atheists can be good, too." Indeed, this is true.

I selected the name that I use for this blog precisely to counter this type of prejudice. To a lot of people, putting the terms 'atheist' and 'ethicist' together in the same blog title is an oxymoron – like writing about round squares or unmarried bachelors. This prejudice needs to be put in its place – along with all of the other prejudices that have plagued humanity.

So, I would like to recommend a new type of response to this claim. Rather than the defensive, "I can be moral, too," type of response, I would like to recommend a response more like the following:

Mr. X has just given us an example of one of the things religion has been most successful at since religion was invented – promoting bigotry. It does this because the practitioners of each religion get to declare that they are morally superior to all others, so members become the privileged class with God's own right to look down the inferior members of society – the infidels, the heathens, the unbelievers, the heretics, ir noses on everybody else.

I am not saying that every religion suffers from the same moral chauvinism – though, historically, it has been a very common attitude to take.

In addition, let's not deny that some atheists are moral chauvinists as well, writing or speaking as if lack of belief gives in a God gives a person membership in a morally elite club that gets to look down on all others.

I have argued against these positions repeatedly in this blog, and I will argue against them in the future. The propositions 'At least one god exists' and 'No god(s) exist' carry no moral implications. It's the stuff that we add onto these claims that carry moral weight. Atheists are just as capable of tacking absurdities onto the proposition, "No god(s) exist," as theists are at tacking absurdities onto the proposition, "At least one god exists."

But Mr. X has proven by his statements that he belongs to one of those religions that does preach and does practice moral chauvinism.

Mr. X has just told us that he sees two type of people in the world – those who share his religion, and those who do not. Mr. X has just told us that of the two that he, of course, belongs to the morally superior group, while those who do not share his views are the morally inferior to him and his kind.

Of course, Mr. X is a member of the morally superior group. Can we imagine Mr. X telling us that his group is the morally inferior group? This has always been the case with this type of moral chauvinism. Moral chauvinism simply is the expression of the attitude that "I belong to a group that is morally superior to all others. So, I get to morally judge others by one simple standard. To what degree do you share my morally superior qualities."

Perhaps Mr. X is magnanimous enough that he is willing to widen his circle of morally acceptable people a little – to let in religions that are not too much different from his own. Yet, this is the same chauvinism as the white racist willing to expand his circle of prejudice to include a few brown people, but which cannot fathom the idea of letting in blacks.

Of course, the shade at which Mr. X decides to draw the line between those who are acceptable and those who are unacceptable, since it is not grounded on evidence, is grounded only on Mr. X's personal preferences.

Or, I should say, his personal prejudices, because that is all we are talking about here.

Nobody has the right to assert moral superiority over a whole group – not unless the group itself is defined as people who are guilty of some crime (e.g., murderers, rapists, thieves). The very act of dividing the world into groups, and asserting that one's own group is morally superior to all others, is an act of moral chauvinism. This is bigotry.

Each of us has a right to be judged by our own actions – according to the quality of our own deeds. If it should turn out that every other atheist on the planet is a sadistic serial killer, it would still not be justified in claiming that I am a sadistic serial killer - not without evidence that I am actually sadistically killing people.

This tendency to divide the world into groups (my religion vs. your religion, my country vs. your country, the fans of my soccer team vs. the fans of your soccer team) and assert moral superiority of one group over the other, is a religious trait. It is a human trait. I strongly suspect that if Earth were to become totally populated by atheists, that those atheists would still be dividing themselves up into separate group, declaring the moral superiority of 'my group' over 'your group', with all of the ill effects that we have seen in the conflicts among different religions.

This is a human quality, but it is an evil quality – one that we have every reason to fight against, and to condemn whenever and wherever it emerges.

It emerges any time that somebody argues that we need 'under God' in the Pledge, 'In God We Trust' in the motto, prayer in school, and creationism in science classes, in order to promote morality in the schools. These statements are built on the assumption of moral chauvinism - an unfounded assumption that those who are members of 'my group' who trusts in God are morally superior to all other groups, and people are moral only to the degree that they belong to and follow the dictates of 'my group'.

Strangely, even some atheists are moral chauvinists – not in the sense of holding that atheism is morally superior to others, but in assuming that atheists are morally inferior to others. These are the people who write or speak to tell us that atheists must be more moral in order to set a better example – to prove to others that we are not as bad as others think we are.

This attitude tells us that the speaker has internalized society's moral chauvinism against atheists – turning it even against themselves. These types of claims assume that atheists are not already living moral lives. These types of claims say, in effect, that the public hostility against atheists is deserved, given the moral inferiority of atheists, and that we need to shun that moral inferiority if we are to earn the moral respect of our 'betters'.

None of us are morally perfect. There is certainly room for moral improvement among atheists as there is room for moral improvement among all people. I am not objecting to the claim that atheists can do better – atheists certainly can do better. I am objecting to the assumption that the prejudice against atheists – the judgment that atheists must work harder in order to deserve to be considered the moral equal of others that I am objecting to.

I object to this assumption. I object when it comes from a theist who asserts that 'under God', 'In God We Trust', school prayer, and creationism are essential for morality. I object when it comes from an atheist who says that atheists must engage in more moral behavior before they can be considered the moral equal to theists.

And I think that this type of chauvinism needs to be answered with something other than, "But I am a good person." I think it needs to be answered with, "By merely making that claim – unless you have some evidence to back it up – you have proved yourself to be a moral chauvinist."

The Pledge Project: Liberty and Justice for All

In debating whether to have a Pledge of Allegiance, another view that I encounter comes from those who protest the Pledge, not because of the words 'under God', but because of the words 'liberty and justice for all'.

These people come in two major stripes.

The first group says, "I do not say the last six words of the Pledge, 'with liberty and justice for all', because we do not have liberty and justice for all. We are engaged in a great deal of injustice. Saying that this is a nation of liberty and justice for all is a lie.'

The second group says that they do not say the Pledge at all for substantially the same reason.

These people miss an important fact about the Pledge. A pledge to "one nation . . . with liberty and justice for all' is not a statement that we are actually a nation with liberty and justice for all. It is a statement that we should be a nation with liberty and justice for all.

Consider the first group – the group that says the Pledge but leaves the last six words off because 'we are not a nation with liberty and justice for all'. These people are still pledging allegiance to the United States. These people are still pledging allegiance to 'one nation under God'. Yet, if their interpretation is correct, they are pledging allegiance to a nation that is both, at the same time, 'under God' and 'without liberty and justice for all'. Their interpretation of the Pledge would be ideal for a theocratic tyranny.

Yet, these people in creating and in reciting this pledge, think that they are protesting tyranny and injustice. By their own statements, they are pledging allegiance to tyranny and injustice.

Those who refuse to say the Pledge at all on the grounds that lack liberty and justice for all have a more consistent (and sensible) view. At least they are not pledging allegiance to a nation 'under God' but without liberty and justice for all.

Yet, their refusal to recite the Pledge in virtue of their belief that we do not have perfect liberty and justice implies that everybody who says the Pledge believes that we have somehow reached a state of perfect liberty and justice. Yet, I doubt if you will find anybody who actually holds that view. Even those who are the most vocal advocates of saying the pledge can generally find some remaining injustice in this country worth complaining about (and in need of fixing).

The view that the Pledge states we have perfect liberty and justice, and that it is not to be said because it simply is not true, is an absurdity.

The fact of the matter is that the Pledge is not descriptive, it is prescriptive. It does not say that we do have perfect liberty and justice. It says that we should have perfect liberty and justice – or as perfect as we can get it. We may fall short of this ideal (as most people, and most nations, fall short of the ideals they set for themselves). However, the ideal is something to strive for.

Yet, this fact carries an important implication. In the same way that 'liberty and justice for all' is prescriptive, 'one nation under God' is prescriptive as well. By inserting 'under God' into the Pledge, the government is telling its citizens (and, in particular, young children who have a habit of accepting the claims made by authority figures such as government teachers without questioning it) that the nation should be a nation 'under God'. We may fall short of this ideal, but it is an ideal worth striving for, according to the government.

Now, when the government prescribes 'liberty and justice for all', this is another way of saying that we should strive to establish a country of liberty and justice for all. So, when the government prescribes 'one nation under God', this is another way of saying that we should strive to establish a country 'under God'.

Yet, somehow, we are supposed to believe that the government can prescribe 'one nation under God' without it being the case that the government is trying to establish 'one nation under God'. Yet, ask those people whether the government's attempt to prescribe 'liberty and justice for all' without it being the case that the government is trying to establish 'liberty and justice for all'.

Does the person you are talking to want to deny that the Pledge prescribes 'one nation under God', and that this is the same as trying to establish 'one nation under God', answer, "So, you believe that this country is already a state with perfect liberty and justice.'

When they deny this, tell them that they have only two options. Either the Pledge says that we already have perfect liberty and justice for all, or it says that we should strive for (establish, to whatever degree we can) liberty and justice for all. Either the Pledge says that we already are one nation under God, or it says that we should strive to be (establish, to whatever degree we can) one nation under God.

Any argument that the Pledge of Allegiance is descriptive ends up in this absurdity that we already have 'liberty and justice for all'. Any argument that avoids this absurdity yields the conclusion that 'one nation under God' is prescriptive - an attempt to establish 'one nation under God' just as the Pledge is an attempt to establish 'liberty and justice for all'.

The Pledge Project: Should There Be a Pledge?

Note: The Pledge Project is featured on the most recent edition of Dogma Free America. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

If you enter into a public discussion on 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, you will often encounter somebody who will argue that there should be no Pledge at all. 'Loyalty oaths,' they argue, are the instruments of totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, and free people should not be bound by such oaths. It goes against the very idea of freedom.

I want to take a good close look at the ethics of 'loyalty oaths'.

Let me begin by quickly clearing away some of the larger brush.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a loyalty oath. This is because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything. Intrinsic value does not exist. The only type of value that exists are relationships between states of affairs and desires. Moral wrongness is found in relationships between states of affairs and good desires (and the absence of bad desires). Good desires are those that people generally have reason to promote. Bad desires are desires that people generally have reason to inhibit.

Long-time readers will recognize these as the basic claims of desire utilitarianism, which I have argued for throughout this blog. A search through this blog for the term 'desire utilitarianism' or a look at the book mentioned on the right will lead you to postings that discuss the theory in more detail. Readers interested in an alternative presentation of desire utilitarianism (or 'desire consequentalism' as he calls it) are encouraged to check out No Double Standards

Anyway, a state of affairs in which people utter a loyalty oath such as a Pledge of Allegiance is bad only to the degree that a person with good desires would be averse to such a state of affairs.

One of the reasons a person with good desires might be averse to loyalty oaths is because they were used by totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany. However, the mere fact that a tool was used by evil people does not give us reason to reject the tool. Hitler also used airplanes and tanks, money, roads, cameras, and a great many other tools to further his ends. His use of a tool for evil purposes does not argue against our use of similar tools for good purposes.

A related argument that somebody can use is that there have been evil pledges. That is to say, the pledge itself was a promise to promote something evil, as when subjects in a dictatorship are told that they must pledge allegiance to the dictator. However, we can say the same thing about laws in general. Where there are laws, there is a risk of evil people promoting laws that do more to secure injustice than justice. We see this in totalitarian regimes all the time, and even in our own country where special-interest groups push for unjust laws that favor their faction over others. However, the existence of an unjust law is no argument against the legitimacy of just laws. The existence of pledges used for immoral purposes does not argue against the possibility of a pledge being put to good use.

I spoke above about the existence of desires and aversions that people generally have reason to promote. What if a Pledge of Allegiance were an effective way to promote good desires? That is to say, what if a pledge of allegiance to ‘liberty and justice for all’ were to actually to promote the desire for liberty and justice for all? Whereas liberty and justice (or an aversion to tyranny and injustice) are desires that people have reason to promote, this argues that we have reason to use such a ‘loyalty oath’ and no reason to refrain from using it.

In other words, a pledge, when the pledge is to something good (worthy of promoting) is something that a good person would favor (for its power to promote that which is good), rather than something to which a good person would be adverse.

What about the claim that loyalty oaths (a Pledge of Allegiance) is contrary to freedom?

We have to recognize that freedom is not an absolute. Freedom does not include a right to engage in murder, rape, or theft. Freedom does not extend to the ‘freedom’ to promote tyranny and injustice. The type of freedom that we have reason to argue is something good is the type of freedom that still does not rule out our taking steps to outlaw or to otherwise discourage people from murder, rape, theft, tyranny, and injustice. If a pledge of allegiance to 'liberty and justice for all' helps to discourage tyranny and injustice, then inhibits freedom in the same way that laws against murder, rape, and theft inhibit freedom.

This raises another possible objection – that pledges of allegiance do not work. We have had people pledge allegiance to 'liberty and justice for all' for over a century now, yet we still have unjust restrictions on liberty. (Furthermore, an argument can be made that those who argue most emphatically for the virtue of the Pledge of Allegiance seem to be pushing most strongly for unjust restrictions on liberty.)

This is an empirical question, and one that I must confess I am ill prepared to answer.

However, I will point out that we use oaths throughout our society in order to try to focus people’s attention on certain duties and obligations. Elected officials take an oath of office – effectively, a loyalty oath (an oath to be loyal to the Constitution of the United States, in the case of federal officials). Witnesses take an oath before stepping on a stand. Many married couples (myself included) take an oath as the central part of the marriage ceremony.

All of these oaths aim to fix into the mind a commitment to particular ends, and an aversion to that which would violate those commitments. I think it would be difficult to argue that those oaths have no effect – that they do not actually promote the ends that they seek to promote.

In fact, if loyalty oaths had no effect, then tyrants and dictators would have no reason to use them. They, at least, expect these oaths to better secure their position. It is just as likely (or just as unlikely) that those oaths can also be used to secure certain values such as ‘liberty and justice for all’.

If we are left uncertain as to the effect of such oaths, we would still be left with reason to believe that a loyalty oath to 'liberty and justice for all' will have some or no positive effect. It will not have negative effect. So, we still have reason to use such an oath (in terms of its possible positive effect), and no reason not to other than the possibility that it is a waste of time.

All of this depends, of course, on whether the Pledge is being used to promote something worthy of being promoted (e.g., liberty and justice for all), or to promote something that should not be promoted (e.g., obedience to a tyrant).

A relevant problem is that people will inevitably disagree over what is worth promoting. There is always a risk that one faction will put its ideas into a Pledge as a way of shutting down the opposition, stifling debate on issues that very much need to be debated. One way to avoid this type of problem is to simply not have a Pledge, It is not possible to make rhetorical use of a Pledge if there is no Pledge to use.

We see this very problem with the Pledge of Allegiance. The words ‘under God’ were inserted into the Pledge by demagogues attempting to close debate on issues that are very much need to be debated. Worse, they attempted to close debate on issues where the government has a prohibition on taking sides – on matters of religion. This gives us unambiguous evidence that demagogues will seek to use a Pledge to manipulate the public, from which we can argue that it is better that no Pledge exists at all.

Here, too, we must weigh this against the fact that all institutions are open to abuse. The institutions of morality and law themselves are constantly being abused by demagogues seeking to manipulate the public. Yet, these institutions provide so much of an advantage when used correctly that the possibility of abuse does not argue for abolition. These moral and legal institutions include the practice of making pledges. Where we need to devote our energies is in fighting these corruptions, not in eliminating the institutions that are being corrupted. In would be difficult to argue that we should rid ourselves of the institutions of morality and law simply because some people abuse these institutions.

There is no argument against the moral permissibility of a good Pledge. There is no argument against the possibility of a good Pledge. The argument that evil powers have used Pledges is no more of an argument against a good Pledge then the fact that evil powers have manipulated the law is an argument against just law. Our focus should be on promoting justice over injustice, both in pledges and in laws, rather than throwing away tools that the unjust might be willing to exploit.

The Pledge Project: Prayers and Promises

First, a note. My posting, "The Pledge Project: House Resolution 5872" was picked up in the Carnival of the Liberals today. The host wrote about the article:

I thought at first that this would be the same old same old on this topic, but I believe Alonso has some good points. If only someone in Congress would ever think of things this way!

This describes exactly what I am aiming for in this series. I do not want readers to come here and find a repeat of the same arguments that they have heard from a thousand other sources discussing this issue over the past fifty years. I want them to come here and find an approach to the issues of ‘under God’ in the pledge and 'In God We Trust' as the national motto that have been ignored (and unheard) for the past 50 years.

A part of this project is to create a repository of responses that readers can come back to once the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hands out its decisions (in 25 days or less).

Some of the arguments that I want to respond to are those that are found in the State's oral arguments before the Court. Those arguments will undoubtedly enter into the public discussion once the debate hits the streets.

Today's post concerns a pair of arguments.

(1) That putting 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance makes it a prayer, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

(2) The words 'under God' in the Pledge do not make it a prayer. Rather, it makes reciting the Pledge of Allegiance no different than reciting the Declaration of Independence or singing the Star Spangled Banner – other patriotic expressions that contain a reference to a God. Whereas these latter items are permissible, the former must also be permissible.

Let me repeat the point that I am not interested in legal arguments in these points, but in moral arguments. The lawyers in making the arguments above followed them up by trying to provide evidence of how the court has ruled on prayer versus patriotic expressions such reading the Declaration of Independence. Mine is a moral argument, so I have no need for legal precedence. There is a distinction between what the law is and what the law ought to be, and this post is concerned with the moral question of what the law ought to be.

Prayers and Promises

I find it surprising how, in this debate, people overlook the most obvious facts.

Regardless of whether the Pledge is a prayer or a patriotic expression like reading the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance is a promise. A promise, in turn, is a part of a moral institution that carries with it certain implications. One of the major properties of a promise is that the person who makes a promise agrees to take on certain duties and obligations.

If I promise to pay you $5, then I acquire an obligation to provide you with $5. In general, if I make a promise to realize some state of affairs S, then I have given myself an obligation or a duty to realize that state of affairs S. So, if a child pledges allegiance to 'one nation under God', then she puts herself under an obligation to preserve or to create a state that can be described as 'one nation under God'.

We have legal scholars from one end of the country to the other arguing over whether the act that put 'under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance turned the pledge into a prayer. The comedian Red Skelton gave a speech that defenders of the pledge are very fond of where he worries that the term 'under God' might be construed as making the Pledge into a prayer and banning it from schools. In the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Michael Newdow (arguing that ‘under God’ is unconstitutional) took the time to provide quotes from Presidents and others to argue that the Pledge is a prayer and thus something the Supreme Court has already made unconstitutional.

However, not even a prayer has the property of putting the prayer-giver under an obligation.

Certainly, when a person prays she can make promises to God (or she can at least think that she is making promises to God). However, it is not in virtue of being a prayer that the agent adopts these obligations. It is in virtue of making a promise that the agent acquires obligations (or would have if there were a real God for her to make promises to).

I would like to know how it can be the case that it is wrong to ‘encourage’ (actually 'coerce') children into saying a prayer to God, but it cannot be wrong to 'encourage' a child to make a promise and, thus, incur an obligation to support 'one nation under God'. The prayer only asserts the existence of a God. A promise not only asserts that a God exists but puts the speaker under an obligations with respect to that entity.

The Second Elephant

At this point, I would like to introduce the second elephant in the room that everybody seems to be ignoring.

(1) The Pledge of Allegiance is a promise

(2) A promise to establish a state of affairs S (e.g. to pay you 5) is an act that puts the speaker under an obligation to realize state S.

(3) A promise to support 'one nation under God' is an act that puts one under an obligation to create a state of 'one nation under God'.

How can this act of putting children under an obligation to establish a state of 'one nation under God' not be an instance of Congress passing a law that seeks to establish religion?

Like I said, this blog is not concerned with Constitutional arguments but with moral arguments. So, I will leave it up to the Constitutional scholars to deal with the legal question of whether such an act, understood as having these qualities, violates the First Amendment.

My point, with respect to the moral case, is that any student who takes the Pledge of Allegiance puts herself under an obligation to realize a state of ‘one nation under God’, which is a quality not inherent to prayers.

Patriotic Documents and Anthems

This difference between the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer is also a difference between the Pledge of Allegiance and reading the Declaration of Independence or singing the National Anthem.

The mere reading of a document does not put the reader under any sort of obligation, even if he is reading a document that the author wrote in order to put the author of an obligation. If I write down on a piece of paper that I will pay Jane Smith five dollars, and you pick up the note and read it out loud, this does not put you under an obligation to pay Jane Smith five dollars.

A person who sings the Star Spangled Banner also does not put himself under any type of obligation.

This quality is reserved for those who make a promise – in this case, a promise to establish a state of 'one nation under God'.

Conclusion

I have no idea why the most obvious qualify of a Pledge of Allegiance – that it is a pledge and, thus, a speech act that puts the speaker under an obligation, has been so widely ignored to date. It appears to me to be a significant difference between a Pledge and a prayer, or a simple recital of a historic document or a song.

If there is a reason why this factor has not entered into the public debate, I would like to know what it is.

In the mean time, I think it is time for this fact to enter into the public debate.

The Pledge Project: Why?

I think that I owe an answer to this question:

Are you not bored with this yet? I used to be a regular reader here, but I have to tell you, this pledge thing is not that interesting. But every time I drop in for a visit, God and the Pledge is within the last few day's topics. Yawn.... While I am an atheist, and I don't like the phrase "Under God" anymore than you do, I just can't understand why you think this is such a large grain of sand in the Vaseline jar.

The Pledge Project ends on July 7th.

Specifically, I expect that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to give its opinion between June 26th and June 30th. Whatever the date, I will then post a directory of postings written up to that time linking to the various arguments that I have discussed. Hopefully it will serve as a useful resource for those who will be engaged in the debate that follows.

NOTE: 6/23. I have discovered that the above prediction was based on false assumptions.

I have already asked for the time off from work for the week following the anticipated decision date so that I can fully participate in the debate.

The national discussion will probably go through the July 4th weekend where people will use the patriotic holiday to muster support for ‘under God’ in the pledge, then the story will fade as the nation moves on to other issues.

I will move on as well. However, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear the case late in 2009 or early 2010, rending a final opinion on the issue of ‘under God’ and ‘In God We Trust.’ I sincerely believe that if these moral arguments can be pushed into the public light before the Supreme Court hears the case, that there is a chance that the Supreme Court may decide correctly on these issues. Otherwise, the Court will give us a new and extremely narrow interpretation of the Establishment Clause that will prohibit nothing less than fine and imprisonment for not attending Church.

So, why am I putting so much energy into this?

Answer:

(1) Because I think these policies are extremely destructive – far more destructive than most people realize.

(2) Because the principles on which my objections are based have implications across a number of areas where discrimination and religious conflict are an issue.

The Costs of the Current Policies

A lot of people are significantly underestimating the harms of having ‘under God’ in the Pledge and ‘In God We Trust’ as our motto. In particular, they are ignoring the psychological harm being done to young children.

There have been a great many psychological studies done about what happens when you divide a population up into an in-group and an out-group. These experiments have involved differences as subtle as giving one group a blue ribbon to wear on their shirt and the out-group a green ribbon - or dividing a room between 'those on the left' and 'those on the right'.

The out-group becomes submissive and servile. They find it difficult to look members of the in-group in the eye. They become underperformers, suffering from a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence that keeps them from even trying to accomplish some of the things they might have otherwise strived for. At the same time, the in-group becomes dominant and aggressive. "Believing in themselves", they become much more willing and able to assert themselves against others, particularly members of the out-group. Because of the extra effort, they actually become more successful.

It does not matter whether we are talking about Arians and Jews, blacks and whites, males and females, theists and atheists, the psychological dynamics of in-group and out-group relationships follow the same pattern.

I see that pattern to be blindingly obvious whenever I read news stories about some abuse or insult inflicted on atheists and their passive response to these assaults.

How can you get 6 million Jews into the forced labor camps and gas chambers? How can you get millions of black slaves to work the fields with just a few overseers? How can you treat women as property for thousands of years and have women submissively believe that this is their rightful place, and keep them in that place even in several regions of the world today?

These things happen because the human brain is wired in such a way that out-group membership makes people submissive and obedient, unwilling to take a stand against their own victimization.

President Bush, when he said that he would not appoint anybody to be a judge who does not believe that our rights come from God, should have seen that as the end of his political life. It should have been like claiming that he will only appoint white judges or Christian judges. Yet, nothing happened.

Monique Davis, in claiming from her chair as a Illinois state representative that atheism is a philosophy of destruction, should have seen this as the end of her political career - the way that Trent Lott's career suffered with a single comment praising segregationist Strom Thurmond. She apologized only for raising her voice.

Kieffe & Sons, the Ford dealership telling secularists to sit down and shut up in their advertisement, should have been met with protests that would have threatened to shut down their business unless they gave a serious apology. For a few moments it seemed that they were actually worried about the response. Then they realized that the people they were dealing with were too passive to be much of a threat.

These are real-world observations that make it obvious that we are dealing with a situation with an aggressive and dominant in-group culture of theists against a passive and submissive out-group culture of atheists.

This comes from a program that teaches children on the first day of school, and on from there, that those who support ‘one nation under God’ and who trust in God belong to the in-group, and those who do not belong in the out-group.

Demoting Atheism

In addition to creating a society of aggressive theists and passive atheists, the Pledge and the motto do an excellent job of serving their primary purpose of steering children away from atheism (because no child wants to be a part of the out-group of he can help it) and towards theism (because children have a deep need to be a part of the in group if they can get in).

It does so in a way that shuts their mind to atheism, because atheism comes at too high a cost. Adopting atheism means entering into the out-group. Evidence that atheist claims might be correct stirs an emotional response – a level of anxiety that overrides rational thought and fixes the person’s brain on a belief that they cannot afford to let go of. They feel the anxiety and they conclude that atheism must be wrong. Somehow – someway – it must be wrong.

This is amplified by the fact that in-group members tend to assist in-group members up the social, political, and economic ladders. Presidents appoint only those people to be judges who believe that our rights come from God. Military officers recommend promotions and key assignments to members of their prayer groups. Voters bar from elected office anybody who is not willing to pledge allegiance to ‘one nation, under God’.

You do not need to have a person sit down to do a cost-benefit analysis for these types of considerations to have an effect. All you need is the emotional response that comes from recognizing that adopting a particular attitude towards God (or towards those who do not believe in God) puts certain values at risk. The emotional response is enough to generate the agent’s decisions on the matter with almost no cognitive input. “I do not like the way that your ideas make me feel, so your ideas must be wrong.”

The power of teaching young children that those people who support ‘one nation under God’ and who trust in God are good, and those who do not support these values are bad, is the power of the emotional associations that these practices create that will be with the child far into adulthood.

No amount of anecdotal evidence to the contrary has any relevance here. Anecdotal evidence is always (and rightly) highly suspect. We have the observed results that I have mentioned above of political leaders and businesses making hostile and denigrating comments about atheists without repercussions. No anecdotal evidence can change those observed facts.

Stigma

Finally, the stigma (the socially manufactured aversion) of atheism gets attached to anything that can be linked to atheism. By associating evolution with atheism and creationism to ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘under God’, proponents of creationism can touch basic emotions that the government has planted in children at a very young age.

By associating Democrat with atheist political factions can cause people to transfer the uneasiness that they have towards atheism to Democrats, and turn more than a few elections in their favor.

People are using the bad name of ‘atheism’ against some worthy causes, but the passive and servile atheist is unwilling to do anything to challenge these practices.

One option that those who support these good causes can do in order to save themselves from these associations is to strongly join in the denunciation of atheism and to assert, “Religious people can believe in evolution,” and “Democrats can have faith, too.”

Of course, nobody thinks to deny the ‘badness’ of the object of the original association – of atheism, in this case. One side tries to link what it wants people to hate with what is already hated (atheism), while the other tries to deny the link with what is already hated (atheism). What they share in common is the sociological fact (and it is a fact) that the comparison object is hated.

It is a hatred that is only made worse by the fact that the government is teaching young children that those who do not support ‘one nation under God’ are bad people (just as those who do not support ‘liberty and justice for all’ are bad people), and telling citizens, ‘do not think of those who do not trust God as being one of us’.

Conclusion

I am well aware of the fact that I am taking on a topic that out-group members are going to find . . . uninteresting. I am making claims that are completely at odds with the passive and submissive nature of out-group psychology.

However, the fact that people find the topic uninteresting is not an argument against my position. The empirical evidence to support my position is there. We see it every time elected officials and business leaders trash atheists and atheism wand receive an impotent protest in response.

It is exactly the type of behavior we were taught in grade school, where the school ritual was to denigrate those who lacked support for 'one nation under God', and we were told at best to take the insults in silence or at worst fiegn acceptance of those same standards. So, now, when politicians and business leaders denigrate atheists, we still follow our old school lessons and take the insults with silence or, at best, a weak and impotent protest that goes nowhere.

Yes, I think that this issue is important. I think it is worth every bit of the energy that I am putting into it. Soon, this issue will be front-page news and we will have a few days' opportunity to expose people to arguments that they have not had to deal with before. I want to be as prepared as possible to take advantage of that opportunity.