IN “THE Pledge: Learning to live with a compromise’’ (Editorial, Sept. 9), you support continuing to hold voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in Brookline schools, arguing that since the practice is opposed by “relatively’’ few, the debate has been long and is now “tired’’ and “ended,’’ and both sides are “well-meaning,’’ the current “respectful compromise’’ should be maintained. But if the debate is over, why does the Globe feel that it’s necessary to influence public opinion with an editorial?
Let’s remember that many worthy causes, from the antislavery crusade through the civil and gay rights movements, have been carried forward by proponents who are in the minority, and have followed drawn-out trajectories, marked by intermediate “respectful’’ compromises (the Missouri Compromise; separate but equal; don’t ask, don’t tell). The history of these movements also makes it clear that well-meaning people have often acted in ways that we now consider to be contrary to the common good. That’s why mature decision-makers judge issues without regard for the perceived quality of the motives on each side.