1

Do we truly think that the Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist is claiming to be “under” the same deity as we are?

Buddhists don't claim to be under a deity; Hindus have multiple deities. Check the friend of the court briefs from the last go round on this.

But having said all that, I think the idea of a pledge of allegiance to a republic is inherently absurd. It should be the other way around. Government officals should pledge allegiance to the people of the United States; they should not be required to simply "uphold the Constitution."

It's especially offensive to inculcate this idea in schoolchildren.

That said, were I a Christian, I'd be 100% with you on this for your arguments.

That said, there is a fourth way: not to hinder the state unless there is a serious reason for doing so (and those political matters with which I strongly disagree with conservatives don't count as "serious reasons" especially when we see the fruits of their success in this regard).

2

I wish all Christians shared your view. I could coexist quite amicably with the faithful if they weren't so intent on shoving their religion down my throat and coaxing it from the throats of my children. The wording of the pledge should never have been changed. This whole brouhaha could have been avoided.

3

I am of the mind that this is another argument that really doesn't matter. Ultimately, we are all under God whether or not it is stated in our Pledge of Allegiance. Those are just words that are said by rote in most cases, and don't really touch the heart of most people reciting it. The problem non-believers have with the pledge is that they don't want to be reminded that they will be held accountable for their actions to a Higher Power.
In Romans 1, Paul says God revealed Himself in creation and by the law given to the Jews. Man has rejected God since the beginning in both cases, and God will give man over to his desires, that is, allow him to continue down this path. God will judge everyone for their rejection of Him at some point.

4

A very insightful post.

I'm of the mind that expressions like "under God" in the Pledge aren't unconstitutional, in part at least because a generalized and vague acknowledgement of God in a civic ritual is not what the Founders had in mind when they prohibited the "establishment of religion."

Nevertheless, to anyone with a deeper faith and a more robust religious practice, asking schoolchildren to recite "under God" must seem thin gruel indeed. As faith always starts to die when state-sponsored.

At the same time, the legal effort to banish even "under God," vapid though it may be in itself, is an effort to marginalize all expressions of faith, and to that extent I would resist it because the vast majority does believe in God, and our traditions include the mention of God, and to constitutionalize their prohibition insults both.

5

A very insightful post.

I'm of the mind that expressions like "under God" in the Pledge aren't unconstitutional, in part at least because a generalized and vague acknowledgement of God in a civic ritual is not what the Founders had in mind when they prohibited the "establishment of religion."

Nevertheless, to anyone with a deeper faith and a more robust religious practice, asking schoolchildren to recite "under God" must seem thin gruel indeed. As faith always starts to die when state-sponsored.

At the same time, the legal effort to banish even "under God," vapid though it may be in itself, is an effort to marginalize all expressions of faith, and to that extent I would resist it because the vast majority does believe in God, and our traditions include the mention of God, and to constitutionalize their prohibition insults both.

6

A very insightful post.

I'm of the mind that expressions like "under God" in the Pledge aren't unconstitutional, in part at least because a generalized and vague acknowledgement of God in a civic ritual is not what the Founders had in mind when they prohibited the "establishment of religion."

Nevertheless, to anyone with a deeper faith and a more robust religious practice, asking schoolchildren to recite "under God" must seem thin gruel indeed. As faith always starts to die when state-sponsored.

At the same time, the legal effort to banish even "under God," vapid though it may be in itself, is an effort to marginalize all expressions of faith, and to that extent I would resist it because the vast majority does believe in God, and our traditions include the mention of God, and to constitutionalize their prohibition insults both.

7

How serious is the effort to 'marginalize all faiths' if its primary target is what you describe as 'thin gruel'? I think a more serious attack on faith was France's policy of forbidding Muslim women from wearing headscarfs and (this was less report but the prohibition applied to Jews wearing skullcaps as well)

8

It's not obvious to me that Christians should be reciting the pledge of allegiance and saluting the flag, regardless of whether it contains the words "under God." A Christian's allegiance (i.e. devotion and loyalty) belongs to Christ and his Church, and one can "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" without pledging allegiance to Caesar.

The U.S. seems to be much more interested in personal affirmations of loyalty than most modern western nations, which is curious, given that it also contains a larger percentage of people who personally profess Christianity. Perhaps the state feels insecure about their allegiances. Any other ideas?

9

At best, the presence of this language in the Pledge and similar expressions on the nation's currency represent an acknowledgement of a power higher than the State itself and the nation's dependency upon that power for its safety and well being. Nevertheless, a decision from the Supreme Court that would require the removal of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would represent a disastrous imposition of official secularism as the nation's public commitment.

Michael Newdow and company will not be satisfied until the United States government is not only secular, but secularist. That's the real agenda behind his lawsuits and what is really at stake in any future rulings. ~ Albert Mohler

10

I think a more serious attack on faith was France's policy of forbidding Muslim women from wearing headscarfs

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the ban was specific to young girls wearing headscarfs in public schools, not a general ban on Muslim women wearing headscarfs. I also think the policy was directed less at Muslim women freely choosing to wear a hardscarf (or habib) and more at the way that even European Muslim communities are drifting towards a kind of "virtual sharia" in which woman's rights to free choice are severly restricted. Another example could be the fight against the establishment of Muslim courts in Canada to resolve civil disputes amongst Muslims. The problem with this arrangement is that in Islam, a woman's testimony is valued at only half that of a man and in most family arrangements, the wife and child are considered as de facto property of the husband. In this context, the French decision could be seen as a way to ensure the rights of Muslim women, although I am not convinced of the wisdom of the policy.

11

Good post, Joe.

I like the Pledge of Allegiance because it affirms the principles of "libery and justice for all" and because it introduces the concept of a "republic" to young people and because it teaches respect for the flag.

I dislike it because it resembles just a little bit too much a mandatory loyalty oath. Children should be encouraged to be loyal to the U.S. of course. But loyalty is something the nation earns, and that a citizen freely gives his country in return -- it is not something the government browbeats its citizens into rotely promising.

On balance, though, I like it and think it's a good, healthy ritual.

In addition, I think the words "under God" were a defensible addition back during the height of the Cold War against the Soviet Union, during our struggle against the imperial ambitions of "godless" communism.

But nowadays, I think the words "under God" are just an annoying anachronism and are no longer justifiable. Michael Newdow gives every appearance of being an obsessed freak of nature, but he is correct to object to the lingering presence of God in the pledge. If the courts somehow end up striking the words "under God", I would be happy with the result.

In general, though, I think the various campaigns by nutty atheist groups to exorcise God and religion from the public domain are very misguided.

I agree to a certain extent with Gordon Mullings' opinion that the United States has a government and a historical tradition that is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian culture, morality, and traditions.

Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was to transcend the Judeo-Christian tradition of the American colonies by taking the lessons of the horrible English Civil War and Cromwell's Protectorate to heart. The events of those traumatic years demonstrated the evils of religious intolerance and state-sponsored religious conformity. Accordingly, the authors of the U.S. constitution established a purely secular federal superstructure over the various individual state governments.

But since the very idea of a secular government has its roots in Judeo-Christian history and tradition, this new secular regime was not so much a break with the Judeo-Christian past as it was a new chapter in its continuing evolution.

Some activists are keen to purge mildly religious symbols of our history, like the motto "In God We Trust" or a historical representation of an early mission church in the county seal of Los Angeles. But this is a historically ignorant over-reaction to important reminders of our past. Theistic artifacts are not violations of our rights, as long as they are not too prominent or aggressive.

The Pledge of Allegiance is different, because it goes too far. But even that is such a marginal case that I don't think it's a big deal.

12

The Wikipedia article on the pledge covers the history and legal challenges. Joe's point is mentioned in its last sentence.

Of note:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on 11 October 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day, 12 October.

How ironic, the Pledge's author was both a Baptist minister and a socialist, and the Pledge was written for a marketing campaign. It's just so perfectly American!

And lest anyone forget:

In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union, and to remove the appearance of flag and nation worship.

To me the Pledge is an insult to our school children who will be loyal to the nation because they see value in doing so, not because they have ritually repeated an oath of allegance a couple thousand times during their school years. Senator Ferguson and the politicians that supported him were committing a foolish act of political grandstanding in modifying what was already an ignorant ritual.

13

Andy S,

How ironic, the Pledge's author was both a Baptist minister and a socialist, and the Pledge was written for a marketing campaign. It's just so perfectly American!

It is, isn't it? Nice way of putting it.

To me the Pledge is an insult to our school children...

Maybe the pledge is an insult to our school children, but I don't think so.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives "defending the flag", so I think it's good for students to acknowledge that and be grateful.

14

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives "defending the flag", so I think it's good for students to acknowledge that and be grateful.

Rote: A memorizing process using routine or repetition, often without full attention or comprehension.

Works great for learning scales on the piano. Not so good for leaning why Americans have sacrificed their lives.

15

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the ban was specific to young girls wearing headscarfs in public schools, not a general ban on Muslim women wearing headscarfs. I also think the policy was directed less at Muslim women freely choosing to wear a hardscarf (or habib) and more at the way that even European Muslim communities are drifting towards a kind of "virtual sharia" in which woman's rights to free choice are severly restricted. Another example could be the fight against the establishment of Muslim courts in Canada to resolve civil disputes amongst Muslims.

You're right the ban is restricted to girls in public schools...not in general. Your other statements are incorrect. First Jewish yamikas were also included as well as noticable religious symbols in general (I believe small crosses were ok but not large ones). Second if this was about Muslim women being free then why a policy for Muslim girls who are not adults? Do minor children have a right to free choice when it comes to the religious obligations of their parents? Why would it only work in one direction? For example, a girl who *wanted* to use a habib in defiance of her parents' wishes would have no support from this policy!

The Canadian example is nothing more than a form of arbitration which is agreed upon by parties before entering a contract. It's no different than writing a clause in a contract saying "if the parties get into a dispute it will be settled by a rocks, paper, sissors contect". In the US, for example, people can agree to have their cases heard by 'Jewish Courts' that apply religous based rules to their dispute. They agree, though, to abide by the results so judgements and such are binding. The relevant thing about this is that unlike actual sharia the parties must agree to this beforehand so there is no real deviation from Western freedom. It is nothing more than an extension of the classical liberal right to contract.

16

I think the real problem here is that education must be more than the memorization of facts (which can be found in a book by anybody); good education should model, train, and develop. The question is, what are we modeling, training, and developing? When I was a kid (in the '80s), my unconscious assumption that the point of the Pledge was to acknowledge our national unity and participate in that unity. It also inculcated patriotism and an understanding that we are blessed and upheld, to some degree at least, by God (and as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence). Not too different from what you get by watching the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving special. And this impression was confirmed by the beliefs and actions of my parents, friends, community members, as well as my teachers. So, my character and beliefs were being formed in the way my parents wanted them to be.

I imagine that today, the modeling, training, and developing is different. Among other things, it seems that this Pledge decision will model the elimination of all references to God from educational activities, train children that religion has no place in the public square, and develop them into people who are intolerant of anything they disagree with (I think the tolerant position is to allow children to opt out if they wish). Some parents will be happy with this, but I suspect that a majority will find this opposed to their values. If public education is for the common good, what do we do if we discover that it no longer serves that purpose?

17

It's quite possible to make a case that the "under God" part of the pledge should be taken out on the grounds it's offensive to Christians.

For some, "God" is much to sacred a concept to be dragged into politics as it has been in this situation. Remember that for the majority of its history, the pledge has not contained this phrase. It was added by Congress to make a political point. Many might see that as presumptive arrogance and disrespectful of God.

Every time I hear of this suit, and also the self-righteous pundits on both sides of the issue, I wonder if God really appreciates being put into the middle of this mess. One side claims He doesn't exist, the other wants to claim Him as some kind of trophy to be won as a sign they are on the "right" side. Really I wish they would all just shut up.

18

First Jewish yamikas were also included as well as noticable religious symbols in general (I believe small crosses were ok but not large ones).

This is correct, but I still think the restrictions were directed more at the French Muslim community in response to their apparent unwillingness to join French secular culture. I think that the murder of Theo Van Gogh and some of the interesting statements by European mullahs, among other things is provoking something of a European backlash to Muslim tribal culture. In my opinion, the others were thrown in to avoid accusations of Muslim discrimination.

The Canadian example is nothing more than a form of arbitration which is agreed upon by parties before entering a contract.

I think this is a bit misleading. In Muslim law, a woman's testimony is given only half the weight of a man's and women are considered subject to their husband or father (if unmarried). It is hard to believe that many Muslim woman in the West would freely submit to this form of arbitration. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Muslim woman and girls are severly oppressed by the males of the family, including the relatively common practice of a 13 year old girl being married of to a cousin in the Home country so that he may be brought West, and "honor killings" are not unheard of in Europe.

19

"The problem non-believers have with the pledge is that they don't want to be reminded that they will be held accountable for their actions to a Higher Power."

Who can spot the logical inconsistency?

20

"Michael Newdow and company will not be satisfied until the United States government is not only secular, but secularist. That's the real agenda behind his lawsuits and what is really at stake in any future rulings."

Utter nonsense. This is another hysterical conservative slippery slope argument, like civil unions for gays will lead to people marrying animals. It is easy to overstate the stakes. Besides, secularists are the aggrieved party here. We've had it your way for fifty years, and it never should have happened. Now, theists will unnecessarily and unjustifiably feel a sense of loss when they no longer can impose their worldview on the children of others. If it even pans out that way, which I doubt will happen.

21

I wrote a related article a couple years ago on this issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712099/posts

“Rattling off the Pledge of Allegiance as a vacuous, ritualistic ordinance without meaning and faith in Christ, God in the flesh, is to me nothing but an ignorant blasphemy.”

22

Brad Dacus

"The phrase 'one nation under God' is a factual recognition that our nation’s liberties are premised not on the whims of man, but on the natural laws of our Creator."

It's this sort of thing which illustrates precisely why the amended version of the Pledge is unconstitutional. The amusing irony is that Mr. Dacus does not seem to appreciate that statements like his -- along with the usual anti-materialst and anti-atheist propaganda that accompanies such statements -- provide some of the best evidence against the coercive recitation of the Pledge.

Remember that the Supreme's punted Newdow's previous case on procedural grounds. Newdow makes a very compelling argument and short of an awful argument from the religiously inclined Supremes that 50 years of Pledge recitation is enough to make the amended Pledge a meaningless traditional exercise, Newdow is guaranteed victory here.

23

bevets

"a decision from the Supreme Court that would require the removal of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would represent a disastrous imposition of official secularism as the nation's public commitment"

We're over 200 years past that point, bevets.

Sorry to break the news to you.

24

ucfengr

"In this context, the French decision could be seen as a way to ensure the rights of Muslim women, although I am not convinced of the wisdom of the policy."

I'm not convinced either. But I'm not opposed to the experiment.

France has done an excellent job of ensuring that the interests of France override the interests of any deities that may be invoked by its citizens. That is what the head scarf thing is all about (it applies to big crucifixes, too, as I recall). It's about showing great respect for France in buildings that were built by France, i.e., public buildings where the business of the country is conducted.

Americans don't appreciate this because Americans, in spite of the rhetoric and propaganda we are always confronted with, love their "freedom" more than they love America. Sadly, like the confused Brad Dacus I quoted above, they fail to recognize that the American system of government is the source of that freedom. Americans should proudly set aside their personal prejudices when they enter a Fedearal courthouse or legislature. Those are places where all Americans should feel safe knowing that nobody's religion is going to interfere with justice, which is nothing more than fairness obtained through the application of reason.

25

I think this is a bit misleading. In Muslim law, a woman's testimony is given only half the weight of a man's and women are considered subject to their husband or father (if unmarried). It is hard to believe that many Muslim woman in the West would freely submit to this form of arbitration.

Arbitration, I believe, is only available for civil disputes, not criminal disputes. So even if the victim of a crime and the accusor both agreed, their case would be heard in regular criminal court. I believe the 'Jewish Courts' also hear family disputes but I do not believe their decisions are binding on the regular family courts of the US.

As far as the right to contract goes, coercion is a pretty potent defense against breach of contract so any woman who had a civil judgement imposed on her by a voluntary arbitartion court would have an easy means to challenge it in regular court.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Muslim woman and girls are severly oppressed by the males of the family, including the relatively common practice of a 13 year old girl being married of to a cousin in the Home country so that he may be brought West, and "honor killings" are not unheard of in Europe.

I have no problem with making this stuff illegal if it isn't already. I do not see how forbidding headscarfs is somehow the same thing.

This is correct, but I still think the restrictions were directed more at the French Muslim community in response to their apparent unwillingness to join French secular culture.

Not a very sensible policy IMO. First of all, people should not be forced to join 'secular culture' (whatever that is). If they are not hurting other people they should be free to live in a non-secular manner. Second, attacking a custom that many respect (including many women) is bound to have the exact opposite effect. It will inflame the radicals who will use it as evidence that secular culture cannot live peacefully with religious people. It will make the custom a virtual 'martyer' leading people to put more energy into supporting it that they wouldn't have otherwise done. Also wasting energy on a harmless custom will mean less energy to fight more serious customs that cannot be tolerated by a secular society such as 'honor killings', female genitle mutulation, and so on.

26

Larry--I must admit to being a tad uncomfortable having you agree with me, even a little;).

27

Also wasting energy on a harmless custom will mean less energy to fight more serious customs that cannot be tolerated by a secular society such as 'honor killings', female genitle mutulation, and so on.

I tend agree. I also question the wisdom of the policy. I would have been more sanguine about a policy banning the habib (full body suit and veil) for school children, as opposed to the headscarf, which is relatively innocuous.

28

I'm as conservative as they come politically. I also served in the Marine Corps, not to defend the flag, as so many say, but the Constitution of the U.S. Having said that, I've always been bothered by the Pledge of Allegiance and by attempts to ban flag-burning.

I guess it comes down to what people mean by "allegiance"--especially to a piece of cloth. Yeah, yeah, I know the flag represents our nation, but as a Christian my allegiance to the nation is only conditional. As Peter so boldly claimed (and I paraphrase), if I am ever presented with a conflict between my Christian faith and my allegiance to the nation, guess which one loses. "We must obey God, not men." And no, this isn't a call to mutiny. Paul also commands us to obey those in authority over us. It comes down to the demands of the two "cities," as Augustine discussed.

Flag-burning bans bother me even more. To ban flag-burning, especially by Constitutional amendment, is to deny a legitimate means of protest. You can command obedience to laws, but you cannot command love of a country.

29

ucfengr

"Larry--I must admit to being a tad uncomfortable having you agree with me, even a little;)."

Heh. I'm certain that we agree with each other on far more topics than we disagree. But most of those other topics are soooo boring. ;)

30

Tom, it's great to hear the voice of "old-fashioned" conservatism again. Substitute Buddhist for Christian and liberal for conservative and those could be my words.

31

Joe:

The fact that the 18th century French philosopher Rousseau used the term "civil religion" does not mean that the employment of the term God in 21st American civil space is Rousseau's version. You seem to be committing a version of what a friend of mine call's the "etymologist's fallacy": the fact that a term has a particular origin does not mean that the term is being used today in the way in which it was originally used. For example, Socrates gave an apology to the Athenian jury; the other day, I gave an apology to my wife for spilling water on the kitchen counter.

Frank

32

You convinced me once on this, Joe. I'm still with you. Good post.

33

The Pledge issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to the point that symbolism is more important than substance. In other words, if "under God" is permitted then people of faith "win," and if it is not then our opponents "win." We need to choose our battles with more maturity and wisdom. There are a hundred cultural and social issues facing the church in America that are more pressing and deserving of our attention.

34

Trackback wouldn't work, but I quoted liberallly at my blog. Outstanding work.

35

I really like the points you have raised. We need to have further disucssions on this issue. I fully agree with you, and you have made many people sit up and take notice about this aspect. Keep up the good work.
Amber

36

1.) Reciting the pledge is not "coercive." Anyone wishing to abstain may do so. (Unlike the coercive teaching of macro-evolution and modern sex indoctrination.)

2.) Some have condemned the pledge because it is "ritualistic." They are forgetting the value of ritual. Christians (and everyone else) do many things by rote which later take on more significant meaning. When I was a child, I can say that the recitation of the pledge had zero impact on me. I hardly even considered what I was saying. The only modest reward at the time was the pride that came from successfully memorizing it. It was only later in life that the pledge took on more meaning. (The same is true of the Lord's prayer and the 23rd Psalm.) Meaning will come at the time when we need it most.

Moreover, I think some of you are forgetting the value of shared ritual. How did you feel when saying the pledge for the first time after 9-11? Did the pledge take on more meaning for you?

A very good example of shared ritual is the traditional wedding vows. They are filled with meaning. It is significant that the other weddings we attend through the years have the same vows. They cause us to recall when we said them ourselves and remind us of their significance.

I am not talking about idolatry. To pledge allegiance to our Republic must come only to the extent that it is "under God." This is completely scriptural. If "God" is removed from the pledge, then citizens will be beholden to pledge allegiance to the Republic whether it is "under God" or not. Which is worse? Which has the most potential for mischief? Does not the Pledge absent "under God" serve to grant the state ultimate authority? Think about it.

I will never say the pledge without specifying my country is under God, for one day it may not be and my first allegiance must be to Him.

37

No one has yet demonstrated from where Congress could get the authority to write "under God" into the pledge. It seems a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.

And in that case, the words should be struck.

That would not prevent those who wished to add something from saying, "by the grace of God," or even "under God," as they choose, at the end of the pledge -- the same as some insert "so help me God" at the end of their oaths to serve the U.S., or the presidential oath.

38

I'd like to make a further argument for Frank Beckwith's point. Isn't it clear that those who instituted those words in the pledge were standing in the monotheistic tradition history that includes Christianity? Assuming Christianity is correct, as you do, Joe, there's only one being who matches up to the things that tradition says about God, even if you don't include any of the statements distinctive to Christianity. That means that the term 'God' in the pledge does indeed refer to the being that tradition refers to by using that term. It's clear that there are statements about God that the pledge and the civil recognition of God in other places leave out, but that doesn't mean that the word doesn't refer to God. That argument relies on a semantic fallacy.

It's not clear to me whether you are making this mistake, Joe, because you aren't just talking about Muslims and Jews who believe different things about God than Christians do. You include Buddhists, Wiccans, and Hindus, who do not use the word 'God' to refer to any deity anything like God. Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, do stand in the monotheistic tradition beginning with the God of Abraham, the one true God. Words for deity or the absolute or higher powers in the mouths of the people you lists do not refer to God. Words for God in the mouths of Muslims and non-Christian Jews do refer to God, but they come from someone who believes different things about God than Christians do (and thus false things about very important elements of God's nature, if as I'm assuming Christianity is correct; people who don't believe in God say none of it will refer to anything, but that's not the position I'm dealing with now). They still refer to God with those terms, or else they couldn't be believing false things about him.

The reason I think your case is difficult to make is because I'm not sure Wiccans, Buddhists, or Hindus think they are referring to anything when they say "under God". They're like the atheist. I'm fairly sure they're on Newdow's side here and think they're having to say something that isn't about any existing entity when they say the pledge. That means they're not in the discussion. Those who say "under God" in the pledge and mean anything related to the tradition of the God of Abraham refer to God. Those who don't seem to me to be meaning the expression very differently from what it means in the English language in this part of the world in our time given the historical background behind it. So I just don't think this argument makes any sense.

39

Rob Ryan:

You seem to misunderstand that there are two very different kinds of slippery slope arguments. One is an inductive argument based on historical facts. When people get more permissive, they will tend to open themselves up for even more permissive laws in the future. Induction on this observation seems as good as induction on any other. With each successive step, people become more open to being more permissive in other ways. Facts confirm that this has indeed happened. When it becomes a bad argument is when people project that a particular thing will be the way people will become permissive. It may well not be that people will become more permissive with respect to sex with animals simply because we're more permissive with respect to other sexual behavior. I assume that's what you meant by your very uncareful statement about slippery slope arguments being fallacious. They're not supposed to be deductive arguments to begin with, so we shouldn't expect them to establish a conclusion with 100% certainty, but even as inductive arguments we should be less sure of particular conclusions than we would be with the general observation that each more permissive step is likely to lead to even more of the more permissive steps in the future.

What you're ignoring, however, if I read you correctly, is that there is another kind of slippery slope argument. Indeed, it's the very kind of slippery slope argument that people like Justice Scalia and Senator Santorum have used with respect to sodomy laws (Scalia) and gay marriage (Santorum). The point they are making is that any principle used to support the removal of laws against sodomy or the establishment of gay marriage may logically entail more permissiveness with respect to other things. The principle often used for this sort of thing is that people ought to be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors. That principle does indeed lead to permitting incest and bestiality.

Some will make the principle more specific by ruling out harmful practices, but that begs the question against the conservative view, which takes gay sex to be harmful in itself by its very nature and by its denial of how God created men. If the notion of harm is restricted to bodily harm, then incest is also not ruled out, and some instances of bestiality aren't either.

Some will make it more specific by requiring consent, but some cases of incest involve consent, and Peter Singer thinks animals at a high enough level of development can indicate consent.

In the end, it's hard to argue against the general point Scalia and Santorum are making. If you're going to remove restrictions on sex on the grounds that they are behind close doors, even if you're willing to disallow non-consenting sex and harmful sex in the bodily sense of harm, then it seems you also have to ban laws against incest per se and bestiality per se and write more complex laws ruling out just certain cases of incest and bestiality. That means striking down sodomy laws and requiring gay marriage really does mean allowing bestiality and incest. It's not a slippery slope in the sense of one thing will make another happen. It's a slippery slope in the sense that the argument for doing one thing does in fact require us to do the other, because the same argument applies to both things. If we want to resist the second thing, then we should resist that argument for doing the first thing. If another argument can be mustered for doing the first thing, that would be different. So there really is something to what they're saying.

40

I said: "This is another hysterical conservative slippery slope argument, like civil unions for gays will lead to people marrying animals."

Jeremy responded: "I assume that's what you meant by your very uncareful statement about slippery slope arguments being fallacious."

Did I say or even imply that all slippery slope arguments fallacious? No! I have slippery slope issues myself with regard to church and state. I simply voiced my disapproval of two specific conservative slippery slope arguments. So...who is uncareful? ;-) Lets look at another part of your comment:

"The point they are making is that any principle used to support the removal of laws against sodomy or the establishment of gay marriage may logically entail more permissiveness with respect to other things."

Surely, then, you oppose the striking of state laws that forbid married couples to engage in oral sex, since the striking of such laws are surely based upon the principle you seem to fear so much. Quite frankly, I think sexual behavior between consenting adults is no one else's business. Why do you care what gay people do behind closed doors? Do you really think that there will ever be public support for marriage with an animal? This slippery slope argument beggars belief. It is a nightmare scenario put forth by religious conservatives who wish to encourage homophobes and frighten simple people into toeing their line.

41

"1.) Reciting the pledge is not "coercive." Anyone wishing to abstain may do so."

Wrong, Jeff. You display an insensitivity and lack of understanding of child psychology here. My two daughters, ages 7 and 9, participate in this prayer disguised as a patriotic exercise every day. I do not instruct them to abstain. Why? Because I don't want to traumatize them by making their different worldview the subject of scrutiny by their little peers, some of whom have already informed them quite candidly that they and their parents are hell bound. The younger told me that her teacher said anyone not reciting the pledge would have to go out into the hall. You must stand and recite or be an oddball. A pretty coercive set of choices there, if you ask me. Kids don't want to be different, especially if the difference leads to the disapproval of their peers. It is unnecessary to place my children on the horns of this dilemma.