Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Scissors MacGillicutty wrote:
>
> >I don't know the degree or level at which other people posting
> >on this topic are involved in the official political machinery of
> >the US.
>
> I'm not, but it just seems to me like a fight not worth having. It
> alienates people massively for little imaginable gain. The pledge,
> that is. Same-sex marriage alienates people, but it's a matter of
> serious principle.
>
I too think it's trivial -- that is, _personally_, I think it's trivial.
BUT, as I tried to argue sometime in the last year, many things are simply part of the weather, and it is pointless to fuss about them. (I believe I listed the Weathermen as an example.) There is no doubt that considered abstractly, "under god" does not belong in public ritual such as the pledge. And when someone raises an issue, it is raised! Period. Before I became involved in politics -- I think in 1962 -- I had a conversation with a colleague at a party which I'm both happy and embarassed to remember. Embarassed because my position was so obnoxious; happy because with a shift of substance the principle was correct. I argued that we had to support (usual "liberal" weasling in reference to meaning of support) the demands of the movement in the south but it was unfortunate that they were being raised at that particular time.
I was completely wrong about the civil rights movement. But I was completely correct that when certain demands are raised, we have to support them. We can (pointlessly) wish that the fuss about the pledge had not been raised. But people have a right to raise it. Their argument is a correct argument. And now that it's on the table, to oppose it is piggish.
Carrol