I take your point about the moral inequivalency of PR campaigns and lawsuits. But advocates use the tools available to them. The lawsuit and the Constitution are the tools of the minority. Right and popularity are not necessarily the same thing. Ask any adulterer.
Regarding the will of the people, I have no reason to believe that there was a great groundswell to amend the Pledge in the 50's. It's like Congress naming July 1 Apple Pie Day. One advocate proposes, there's some tepid interest, and there's nothing to be gained in opposing. Trying to change it back 50 years later would be another matter entirely. Something that people didn't need in the first place has become a necessity. Kind of like chocolate chips in brownies.
There are ways to look at the two change actions other than popularity, of course. One way is in terms of inertia. There was no reason to add the language. The Pledge was just fine the way it was. The point of it is loyalty to our country. Any additions are clutter. I mean, we could throw in Mom and apple pie, too. Nothing against Mom and pie, but are they really salient to loyalty to country? No, and neither is God.
It's one of those situations where something wasn't broke but someone had to go and fix it. Too bad. Fixing the fix is problematic and has a small group of stakeholders. I'd say the damage has been done and that's it. The only practical thing to do is to marginalize the Pledge, which, in itself, is not necessary either, not change it back.
Karen |
