So. You've heard I'm sure. A court out west has declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. What you may not have heard are a few of the things I'm about to say.
I guess I should start by describing my religious views. I attend no church, and profess no belief in any particular God. I was baptized, and once when I was younger I sincerely prayed for Jesus to enter my heart and be my personal savior. I guess I don't reject that, but I'm not at all convinced that Christ rose from the dead. I'm also skeptical that the Bible is the perfect, flawless and only written Word of God (a claim that, as I've pointed out to some of my fundamentalist Christian friends, the Bible doesn't even make for itself). Ultimately, I'm an agnostic. According to some Christians I'm still saved since I accepted salvation; according to others, I'm probably going to hell to suffer eternal firey torture, just like everyone else is who doesn't believe. About the only thing I believe for sure is that a God who would do that to anyone isn't worthy of being worshipped. (Even Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot could be forgiven after a few million years of torment, wouldn't you think?)
With that out of the way: I believe that everyone who truly cares...
...about democracy, and most especially anyone who cares about the 1st amendment and religious tolerance, should be sickened by this decision. Atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews, Christians, Muslim, Sikh, it doesn't matter.
It will surprise most people to learn that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. Nor do any words like them. What the Constitution does say is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
That's it. There's nothing more. Those words are from the 1st Amendment.
The language seems strange, doesn't it? "no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Those are the words that were used by the courts to ban voluntary school prayer. The exact same reasoning is now being used to claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Once you realize that, then the only surprising thing is that the courts haven't banned the Pledge before.
Since this "no law respecting an establishment of religion" business is supposed to give us "separation of church and state," why doesn't it just say that? Is it just because the language is old and archaic? Or is there something else going on here?
At the time that the Bill of Rights was enacted, there was a great deal of concern among those who were trying to create this country. There had been conflict in Europe in the previous few centuries that were rooted in religious disputes (although religion was far from the only cause of wars). Now there were 13 separate mini-nations, 13 separate States, and the religious views among these States varied.
Fortunately, a tradition of religious tolerance was part of these States already. Virginia had the first Constitution in the world that openly called for complete freedom of religion for all citizens. Thomas Jefferson wrote that portion of it. The First Amendment, drafted by James Madison, was based on it.
Two interesting facts about that which few people know: James Madison was a rock-ribbed Fundamentalist Christian, an old-school Baptist from the exact same line as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Also, at the same time that Virginia had that freedom of religion statute, it also had an officially Established religion--Anglicanism. They had a state bird, a state flower, a state song, and yes, a state religion.
Oh yeah, that reminds me of a third fact: about half the States, like Virginia, had officially-established State Churches at the time that they ratified the 1st Amendment. Moreover, most of them kept those officially sanctioned, state-endorsed religions for several generations after the 1st amendment came into force. No one thought there was anything unusual about this.
Why not? Because the first amendment was written to protect the right of states to do that. It was written to assure that if the people of a state wanted a state religion, they had the right to have one.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." These words were clear and sensible: the Federal government, through the actions of the Congress, could do nothing to prevent people from practicing whatever religion they wanted, and furthermore, would not interfere with the right of states to keep their officially-established religions. States could have them, or not, but Congress was barred from having any say in the matter, or establishing one itself. That was up to the individual states to determine, through democratic means.
Eventually, all of the states chose--through democratic action--to dis-establish their churches. By the way, it was the "dis-establishmentarians" who argued in the various states to --democratically--get rid of their state churches. Remember that word you learned in school, that was supposedly the longest in English? Well, it was the "antidisestablishmentarians" who opposed disestablishment of the churches in the states. Now you know.
Of course, it only made sense for the states to disestablish their churches. All were religiously pluralist, after all. One at a time, they all did that. By the mid-1800s, the last state got rid of its Established Religion. The Federal courts were never involved--Constitutionally, they clearly had no say in the matter. So the people did what people living in democracies are supposed to do: they thought about the issue, argued with each other, and eventually voted on the matter.
Over the last 40 or so years, the courts in the United States have taken an extremist, ahistorical, and highly un-democratic view. They have decided, simply, that the 14th amendment, ratified in the mid-1800s, means the first amendment "right" not to have "established religions" means we can't have school prayer, holiday religious displays on government land, or any mention of God in almost any state function. Oddly, although no one at the time would have interpreted it this way, they decided that the first amendment meant that no local government anywhere had the right to "establish" religions.
Weirdest of all, they decided that almost anything involving mention of God amounts to "establishment of a religion" by the state. That's right, if you say "One nation, under God," this is the equivalent of declaring Mormonism the Official Religion of Utah, or Judaism the Official Religion of Boca Raton.
So if a Rabbi utters praise to God at a commencement address at your local High School, that's "establishment of a religion." (In case you hadn't heard, the courts have ruled that way, too.) If your local school board--those people you elect to run your schools--votes to allow a moment of silence before class, that's "establishment of a religion."
I've been waiting for the day they banned the Pledge of Allegiance. I pretty much assumed it was coming. I've also been waiting for the day when our courts, in their arrogance, make it illegal for teachers to wear Stars of David or Crucifixes in class. I assume that's on its way too.
Why not? There are those who take this further: they argue that the President should be forbidden to say "so help me God" when he takes his oath of office. They argue that "in God we trust" should be taken off the money. And they argue that allowing--just allowing--local school boards to ask children to voluntarily say the Pledge of Allegiance every day is an "establishment of a religion."
Oh, and by the way, it does not matter whether you agree with this or not. Your opinion is irrelevant. The courts have declared democracy irrelevant. Their judgment is the only one that matters. So even if you agree that the Pledge of allegiance should be done away with in schools, it doesn't matter. Whether you agree or disagree, your opinion is meaningless.
You know, if you went to your local school board meeting, and argued against school prayer, or against saying the Pledge, I might support you. If it were about school prayer, I probably would. If you were running for my local school board arguing against school prayer, or against saying the Pledge, there's a good chance I'd vote for you. But again I repeat: what we think doesn't matter. The courts decided, and that is all there is to it.
Nice, isn't it? A bigot calling himself an atheist and patriot has gotten a similarly bigoted court to club the rest of the country over the head. I'm sure a handful of so-called "liberals" (not all of them, but some) will back him on this, pontificating that what the courts are "really" doing is "protecting our Constitutional rights."
They aren't. This is naked, intolerant religious bigotry and an arrogant exercise of raw power. These people are ramming it down everyone's throats. In doing so, they are perverting the 1st amendment and subverting Democracy.
As a non-religious person, I fart in their general direction.
Well, of course this court decision is "undemocratic" -- that's kind of the entire point of our judicial branch. You might as well object that you didn't get a vote in Roe v. Wade or Brown vs. Board of Education.
I repeat my basic observation: the courts have, through a series of decisions, decided that the 1st amendment means the exact opposite of what it clearly says.
Is that what having an "independent judiciary" is really supposed to be about? The freedom of courts to declare that words mean whatever they want them to mean? That subversion of democracy itself is the courts' primary function?
I would suggest that the point of the judicial branch is to independently interpret laws created by the democratic process--independent of the political process, not over and above it.
On Roe V. Wade--I'm pro-choice. But a growing number of legal scholars (including left-wing and pro-choice scholars) are coming to the conclusion that it was a bad decision. They made up, out of nothing, a "right" based on their personal moral views, and then rammed it down the rest of the country's collective throat. (On the other hand, Brown v. Board is almost universally agreed to have been a straightforward and correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment.)
By applauding a decision simply because we agree with the result, we are applauding rule by fiat.
Dean, your point was well-made, as usual. Let me address the somewhat peripheral "religious views" preface, specifically the hell part.
The intensity of hatred felt by the enemies of God in eternity will make Ariel Sharon look positively giddy with affection for Yasir Arafat by comparison. Given the choice between remaining in hell, or going to heaven to be tormented by the overwhelming continual presence of the being they hate, fear and despise most in the entire universe, would any actually choose heaven? I think not.
As for Mao, Stalin, et al. (you forgot FDR and Ted Kennedy), the real issue is that you and I, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and all other humans stand guilty before a holy God. Would you be more prone to worship an unjust God who treated Cassie Bernall exactly the same as Eric Harris? How about a rapist and his victim? Mengele and the Jewish children? The ultimate difference between Osama and yours truly is that Christ took my penalty, not that I'm any less guilty.
As for your personal condition, only you and God know for sure, but John 10:27 does seem to speak to the topic: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish." I would hope that everyone reading this would follow Christ some day, unlikely as that may seem.
My religious views should of course be irrelevant; my comments in that regard seemed necessary only to avoid the assumption that I argue as I do because I secretly long to impose a theocracy. A theocracy based on Esmayism is amusing to contemplate to say the least.
Something that does seem relevant here: I went through a period of my life where I had a deep and abiding fear and loathing of fundamentalist Christianity. It took getting to know a few of its adherants to realize I was just being prejudiced and reactionary. I believe that this fear, this prejudice, is quite common in the elitists who dominate Hollywood, the universities, much of broadcast news, and at least half the print media in the country--as well as the wealthy power-players who control today's Democratic party.
Surely, bad things have been done in the name of Christianity. But then, as bad or worse has been done in the name of secularism; just add up the Nazi and Communist body counts if you doubt it.
On the other hand, we need only look to the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement under Reverend King, child labor laws, and countless other decent reforms in America (not to mention private initiatives such as battered-women's shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, food and shelter programs for the homeless, addiction-recovery programs, etc.) to see the positive influence of Christian belief in our democratic system. I also highly respect the Christian impulses of humility and mercy and forgiveness; the world is a better place because of them, and would be better still if more people embraced those values.
I'd be interested in discussing some of these theological issues you mention, and I thank you for sharing your perspective. I may well start a new article on this matter to encourage further comment.
Re: the pledge being unconstitutional --
Clearly the argument can be made that a public school is not the place to be teaching about God; that should be left to our religious institutions and our private homes and private schools. I can't get too agitated about that, though. The problem it presents is not that great, as far as I'm concerned.
Vic Hanson said it best:
"Few abroad consider the danger to America arises from religious fundamentalism, excessive indoctrination, or cultural regimentation.
"No, the slur against us Americans is that we are at times self-indulgent, unwilling to express any notion of transcendence, and apt to put the well-being or even the whims of a tiny few above the general interest of the society at large."
I believe this to be an accurate observation because it cuts across all political parties: there are just as many self-absorbed Republicans as there are Democrats and Independents.
Furthermore, it reminds me that Socrates said that a society is eventually destroyed by an excess of its best quality.
Our best quality is our devotion to individual liberty. Perhaps we need to be reminded that there is something bigger than our individual selves, or even bigger than our nation.
So, this week, remember the pledge. On July 4th, try to remember what it is saying to you. Maybe there is more there than you thought.
Read my whole article on this at:
http://www.rubyan.com/politics/2002_06_01_archive.html#85203723
"Clearly the argument can be made that a public school is not the place to be teaching about God..."
A very strong argument. Let's take it to our local school board meeting (if we share one) and I'll stand up with you and at least say you've got a point. I might even say I agree.
But that's my point--the argument -should- be decided by your school board, your local elected officials, and the parents of your school district. Because we have allowed the courts to wrongly interpret the 1st amendment to take that right away from us, a decision like this silliness on the Pledge seems inevitable.
Perhaps the decision will be overturned. If so, the courts will have to face up to the fact that they've created a bizarre and unpredictable double-standard, and we'll no doubt see further strangeness. Sooner or later we'll see suits on things like having In God We Trust on the money, suggesting that teachers and government employees are allowed to wear religious symbols at work, and so on.
We have taken a fundamental right away from the people and allowed the courts to arrogate something to themselves they should not have. The resulting silliness is predictable, almost inevitable.
Dean,
You make a good observation. But I see one real fly in the ointment for liberals not yet mentioned by anybody regarding this first amendment issue.
Has anyone realized the double standard practiced by liberals on this particular issue? Liberals who treat our constitution as a living, breathing document needing "new life" breathed into it are strict constructionists on only ONE part of the entire constitution: the establishment clause.
How do you think they justify this mental gymnastics?
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
I favor saying the Pledge of Allegiance in the
classroom; let me establish that up front. It is
one of the last expressions of shared values left
to us. The movement away from shared values toward relative or the limited shared values of a group (religious or secular, ethnic or political) is a highly negative and ultimately disintegrating trend. (Insert Ara's quote from Socrates here.)
But would the absence of the Pledge or the
substitution of an abbreviated version really un-do us as a nation? Probably not. As many have pointed out, the addition of the phrase "under God" was added in the 1950's. During the Second World War era, pledgers never used that phrase. Can any one reasonably claim that period was any less patriotic or "God fearing" than today? Of course not. If anything the so-called greatest generation knew more than we will ever know (God willing) about the true meaning of patriotism and faith.
Today, the flag has been imbued with iconic
properties out of proportion to it's true roll,
that of symbol. The words behind the pledge
actually speak volumes about the emotionalism we’ve invested in the flag. "...[A]nd to the republic for which it stands..." comes second. Does our true allegiance belong to the symbol or to the nation that symbol represents?
As a Catholic I'm used to explaining much of the
arcane symbolism of the Church of Rome to
non-Catholics (12 years of parochial education have served me well). Some less charitable Children of the Reformation have accused us of everything from paganism to Satan worship. (I recently came across a web site claiming that Catholic veneration of saints was indistinguishable from Hinduism, even
suggesting one could switch between the two without conversion!) But apologetics has reinforced in me that my faith is a rich experience that cannot be delineated down to a single experience--likewise with patriotism. For instance, many devout Catholics were aghast a number of years ago when St Christopher was withdrawn from official veneration. There are even some devout Catholics who still won't leave their house unprotected by his medal. Many felt as if a sacred carpet had been withdrawn from underneath them. In the end though, without St Christopher or any of the other saints or much of the symbolism so many Catholics place much of their faith in, there would still be a Church rich in faith and strong in tradition and faith.
In that vein, I believe America could survive
without the physical artifacts of patriotism like
the pledge, an original copy of the Constitution or even a national monument destroyed by those who wish us ill. Likewise, it would it survive without the secular rituals that bind us one to another and all to one like the Pledge of Allegiance. The currency won't loose it's intrinsic value without “In God we trust” emblazed across it. While we may
be spiritually bereft if we lost any of these
things, we would survive. To be an American is
ultimately a state of mind, a shared belief in the inalienable rights of the individual with the Constitution as our collective moral guide that
endowing us with the freedom to continually argue over it’s meaning.
As the Torah defines the people of Israel (a name I choose deliberately to symbolize the original meaning “Who struggles with God”) so the
Constitution is to Americans. No museum or temple
holds the original tablets of the ten commandments or a hand written first edition of Scripture yet these endure. The ancient temple rituals have been long lost to obscurity, yet God is still worshiped and hasn't raised any objection so far. As long has we hold onto the principals embodied in the pledge, none can stand against us, but if we exhaust our passions by clinging to symbols and forget their meaning we have become a hollow shell of ourselves.
From the old lady born in 1950....
Both of my parents are deceased now & I have thought of them so much with all that has happened since they passed on.
My Dad died just eight months before our horrific tragedy. I can tell you I am happy both of them have gone on to a better place.
They were both believers in a Almighty Being.
They raised us to be devout Americans. To love our country & abide by the ten commandments. My father was in WW2 & he belived in the Pledge to our flag. He was fighting for us under the red, white & blue.
Going forward, I shall always remember in 1968, when my little 2 year old sat up in the car while I was driving home after picking him up from his daycare. He belted out the Pledge & tears ran down my cheeks. I felt so proud of him & loved that he had learned that in nursery school.
I believe as your earlier commenter by Paul...
It is a state of mind over our Pledge. To me it is a feeling of great pride & all my children learned it & I believe as my father did that it helped us love our country.
Notice I never mentioned religion?
When you love a child it is hopefully, unconditional, something you never think twice about. The love is there & became a part of you from their birth & to many while carrying that child. So love is a state of mind, heart & soul.
I think it would be sad to see our Pledge leave. I think our children love to care about things other than themselves. They come into our arms and we are to gently guide them. Having grown up in the 50's I am proud to say I instilled upon my children the love of God & Country. We were all from Texas & there was a lot of boasting about our great nation there. (I just had to throw that in).
In alcholics anoymous, people would get hung up on the first step. I came to believe that God had power over me. It was later changed to, I came to believe that a Higher Power than me.
No, I am not an alcholic but was in Al-Anon. Most all 12 step programs have been tremendously helpful to millions of people in believing in a Higher Power.
I had a near death experience, yes I did, I really did. To not believe in someone greater & or a divine entity is sad to me to those who don't.
Dean you wrote a tremendous article here that I really enjoyed & reading comments you got tells me about a clear division people have. I wonder what you will teach your little boy Jacob on the matter of the Pledge & an Almighty, God, Higher Power or whoever. You have some really good thoughts & from all your writings I believe you have a Higher Power & that Higher Power is what keeps you so strong, straight forward & honest.
This article taught me a lot & I have relatives in Virgina. Never knew that about Virginia...
Keep your wisdom coming because it is so very interesting & gives us a chance to think of things in a different light.
I am a Christian who believes 100% in what you said about the separation of church & state.
These courts have really taken what our founding fathers intended and turned it around completely.
When I lived in Texas for 10 years, I attended a very large non-denominational church that is carried nation wide on religious stations. One day Peter Marshall (who wrote the book THE LIGHT AND THE GLORY) came there to speak on the Christian Heritage of our country, going all the way back to Christopher Columbus, and how he wrote in his personal diary the real reason why he went out to "discover america". It wasn't just for financial reasons, but he & his parents believed in Jesus (note his name meaning "Christ-
bearer") and talking to Him every day, God told Christopher to go & spread the gospel to the natives that didn't know about Jesus. God had queen Isabella to finance the trip, for when you are in the will of God, He will provide.
Now back to our founding fathers: Like you said, back in Europe, the government controled the religeons, and that is not what our founding fathers wanted. They wanted to be free to worship God in whatever way they wanted. This country was founded by men who believed in God. You can see this in the buildings of Washington D.C., "in God we Trust" on our currency, etc.
In the Declaration of Independence: "We Therefore, the representatives of the United States of America apealing TO THE SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD...do solemnly publish and declare that these colonies are to be free independent states....With a firm reliance on the protection of DEVINE PROVIDENCE, we pleadge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."
Besides Patrick Henry's famous quote, he also said: "THIS COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST."
George Washington believed in God, because in his daily journal he prays: "OH HEAVENLY FATHER, DIRECT MY THOUGHTS, WORDS, & WORK. WASH AWAY MY SINS IN THE IMMACULATE BLOOD OF THE LAMB, AND PURGE MY HEART WITH THY HOLY SPIRIT, THAT I MAY SERVE YOU IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HOLINESS THIS DAY, AND ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE."
In the Supreme Court decision of 1892, the court stated that the laws of this land are based on the teachings of the BIBLE. And in 1963, this same court decided to remove the BIBLE from our schools because of this "new interpretation" of the separation of church & state. Of course, we all know what happened to our schools these last few years with all of the violence. Take God out, and this is the result.
I think Dennis Miller said it best, "Isn't is great we live in a country where a Federal Appeals court can declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because the words 'under God' are a violation of Separation of Church and State. Well you know something your Honors, following that logic, wouldn't the fact that you were sworn in with your hand on a Bible render you UNEMPLOYED? Or maybe we should respond by withholding your obviously unconstitutional 'In God We Trust' paychecks, huh? Or why don't we just change the phrase to 'One nation under a crushing blanket of oversensitive Political correctness.'
Bravo Dennis!
I can understand people who are not Christians being made uncomfortable by declarations about the Christian nature of the country.
What I can't tolerate is the notion that a minority should be able to ram its personal views on issues like this down everyone's throats.
Enjoyed your discussion to the Pledge issue, history of church-state separation, etc. I tend to agree that the Ninth Circuit was wrong, but
unlike many critics I think it something of a complicated question, and I'm quite bothered by some of the "Establishment" (as in media, not church) criticisms.
If you haven't, you may want to see my views on the latter at the Discriminations weblog.
Well,if a person ever experiences the realty of JesusChrist one discovers that Christianity is a way of life not a religion.I know that as I walked along the waterfront contemplating suicide and called out to the Lord, He certainly intervened,prevented me from killing myself,and has changed my life for the better.
If we take a look at society from the school house to the home and evaluate the mess we have , it all traces back to the removal of the bible, prayer and God from schools and public affairs. Could it be that the principles set up by Jesus Christ and the Creator really work?
Liberalism does not work. It has a 100% failure rate.History shows us this.