June 24, 2004
Supremes Reveal Cowardice
It was reported last week that the U.S. Supreme Court ducked the question of the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress in 1954. By avoiding making a decision, this right leaning court has once again weakened itself, the country, and the American family.
In case you have forgotten, the first Amendment to the Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.No one argues that this is a constitutional issue. It is also a politically charged issue, and one that I believe deserves a full hearing by the court. The problem that the court faces is that it is blatantly un-constitutional, and they knew that if they heard arguments, it is doubtful that a convincing line of reasoning could be made to uphold the law. So they took the low road, the very low road, and used the technicality of the plaintiffs’ custodial rights as a parent being in question.
I’m against the Pledge modification by Congress for four very simple reasons:
- It clearly conflicts with the establishment of religion clause. By stating “under God”, Congress establishes that there is a God, and that our country is under God’s domain. If that doesn’t break the establishment clause, what does?
- It conflicts with the “abridging the freedom of speech” clause. What right does Congress have to tell us what to say? If Congress had created the pledge, I could maybe deal with them changing it. In that case it would be like Congress modifying a tax law. But Congress didn’t create or publish the original Pledge; Francis Bellamy did in “The Youth’s Companion” in 1892. It was in regular use before being officially adopted by Congress in 1942. Imagine Congress passing a law changing Psalm 23 to “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Congress art with me; thy rod and thy staff and thy taxes they comfort me.” Congress should have as much right to force speech upon us as it does to restrict our speech.
- It offends my religions beliefs, and I’m not an atheist. By using the words “under God” it implies that God automatically extends protection and blessings over the U.S, no matter what actions it may take. I would have preferred a version influenced by the Boy Scout pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, in duty to God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” This would place the responsibility on us to do our duty. But since Congress tends to screw up most things they touch, we shouldn’t expect much else. By proclaiming divine providence under God, we weaken ourselves.
- It didn’t have to be modified by law. It had already been modified several times before Congress got their hands on it. Should Congress be allowed to change what had previously been a grass roots patriotic expression? If President Eisenhower had suggested a contest for school children to come up with a pledge modification that reflects our national heritage of service, and then chosen a winner. No laws would have been passed, but the effect would be the same (without an unconstitutional law).
So the Supremes ducked an obvious constitutional question, impinged on the rights of parents, and missed an opportunity to create a win-win situation for everyone. They could have ruled the law unconstitutional, but given the history of the pledge as being a grass roots expression, allowed individual states to determine which version they use. It’s just a shame that this court seems to lack courage and backbone. Let’s hope that they find some soon. Posted by Al Maline at June 24, 2004 09:54 PM
Al-
Although I take issue with all 4 of your arguments, I will only address your first:
It clearly conflicts with the establishment of religion clause. By stating “under God”, Congress establishes that there is a God, and that our country is under God’s domain. If that doesn’t break the establishment clause, what does?
If the use of the word God clearly conflicts with the establishment clause, then why has there been over 200 years of reference to God in our civics, laws, and governmental processes? Granted the adding of God to the pledge is a fairly recent occurrence, but the other references have always been there; in our States, in our Congress, in our Courts, and in our Executive.
This Country has never been secular, and yet your argument suggests Hamilton, Madison, et al “clearly” envisioned that it would be.
How do you reconcile the precedents, too numerous to list, against what you believe to be the intent of this Amendment?
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War—were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
From The Library of Congress’ exhibition on “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”
Posted by: George at June 25, 2004 01:04 AMI’m an atheist, but a conservative christian friend of mine and I actually agree that “under God” should be taken out of the pledge - and for the same reason.
Placing God in the pledge marginalizes religions’ roles in our life. Just as I don’t want to have to pledge to something I DON’T believe in in order to pledge to something I DO believe in that tells me I DON’T have to believe in the first part (did that make sense?), my friend doesn’t want his God brought down to the level of nations and finite politics (that IS why it was placed in the pledge - not for some undying love for baby Jesus. Pardon if I offend). Taking God out of politics brings more clarity to both, and may help us all find common ground in which to move us forward towards a more successful, just, and peaceful society.
Not to mention eliminate one of the more hypocritical portions of our governmental policy that our enemies use against us.
Personally, I think all reference to God should be eliminated since it is clearly biased towards those religions which believe in one supreme being and refer to that being with the word God. This alienates pagans, buddhists, and many other religious paths without even bringing the question of Atheism into the matter.
Then again, I’m not a big fan of the rest of the pledge either. I’d like to see something that ties in more with the oath one takes upon entering public office or joining the military, that focuses on defending and upholding the constitution of the united states of america more than it does on being loyal to the united states no matter what. In the former, you’re swearing your allegiance to the principles upon which the country is based. In the latter, you are swearing your allegiance to the government even should it become opposed to those principles. I think that a free nation would be better served by a pledge in which all citizens promise to defend the nation’s founding principles, and protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, than it is by the pledge of allegiance we have now.
Posted by: Jarin at June 25, 2004 01:26 AMDaveO and Jarin:
I certainly respect your opinions. What I object to is the “revisionist” argument that the references to God are Unconstitutional when clearly the writers of the Constitution thought otherwise.
What do you think people would say today if Bush tried to hold church on Capital Hill as did Jefferson and Madison?
Posted by: George at June 25, 2004 02:24 AM
“What do you think people would say today if Bush tried to hold church on Capital Hill as did Jefferson and Madison?”
Depends on which people. What if George Bush was jewish?
But to reply to your first statement, “…when clearly the writers of the Constitution thought otherwise.”:
The writers of the Constitution were wise enough to look past their own beliefs and practices to establish a document that provides an inherent disconnect between nation and God. It was the shortsighted polical aims born from the young Cold War that decided to change that.
God shouldn’t be on our money either.
I mean, I can think of many good results stemming from taking religion out of government. Can you think of any good results stemming from increasing religion’s existence in government? Or from maintaining the status quo? I can’t.
Posted by: DaveO at June 25, 2004 02:59 AMGeorge:
Considering the age it was written in, I think it’s remarkable that the Constitution is as secular as it is.
If you’re right about the first amendment not covering this sort of thing, though (and I’m not certain that you are, but am not presently prepared to argue it either way) I think that it’s high time a true freedom of religion clause was added to the bill of rights. America is about freedom, including the freedom of religion, even if somehow the wording of the constitution does not fully reflect that particular freedom at this time. We’re a nation with a vast number of faiths, all of which deserve recognition and respect and none of which deserve governmental endorsement over others.
Holding services on capitol hill is one thing… it’s my understanding that this was done as a service for the congressmen who wished to attend. It was voluntary, not mandated, and is far more an example of religion supporting congresspersons’ individual faith and beliefs than it is of political figures welcoming religion’s involvement in the role of government. I have no problem with that. I’m not even against army chaplains, whose existence is justified by similar reasons, though I’d like to see a larger representation of alternative beliefs among them. But I am decidedly against requiring citizens to pledge their allegiance to this country under a God they may not even believe in. Particularly when this is a pledge that people learn in kindergarten or earlier and recite every day in school. If you were a parent whose family belonged to a pagan religion, and your child was being made to recite every day in school the words “one nation, under God”, how would you feel? I don’t have kids myself, but personally think I’d feel a lot like my child was being indoctrinated into the beliefs of another religion without my consent. And yes, in many cases kids can opt out of saying the pledge if it conflicts with their beliefs, or just not say those two words, but they still have to stand there and listen to everyone else say it, plus get weird looks for not joining them… which is really not much better. What is the big deal about returning the pledge to its original form and letting people make their own decisions about what deities may or may not be watching over this country of ours?
Posted by: Jarin at June 25, 2004 05:35 AMI think people often confuse official goevernmental law and convention. What the Constitution prevents is “a church” from making laws or giving official edicts to citizens of the U.S.
I get nervous when religious zealots try to make Christianity an offical religion of the U.S., but the Constitution was not meant to sway public sentiment or nutcases.
Atheism is not the official government position. The government is simply not promote a position through law. The Pledge is not law.
I consider myself an atheist and am sometimes offended by right wing religious fanatics. But the Constitution isn’t there to keep me from being offended, It’s supposed to protect me from being jailed for political and religious reasons.
When i was about five I went to Sunday school with a neighbor. I questioned the teacher’s suppositions about Jesus and was not swayed by her arguments. I wasn’t harmed , didn’t feel outcast. I just didn’t agree with her because I had been taught differently. I sometimes wonder why everyone is so thin skinned about everything in this country.
Posted by: Greg at June 25, 2004 06:01 AMFrom a recent post on my blog:
Religion and politics
It is the dawn of the twenty first century. Physicists are [perhaps] close to realizing the Unified Theory (which Einstein unsuccessfully searched for the last thirty years of his life), we have been to the moon, we have decoded the human genome and numerous other wonders abound, and yet, Americans cling to that old time religion and it’s dogmas. We use religious belief as a litmus test to choose our presidents. In the current issue of U. S. News & World Report, Gloria Borger quotes a top white house aide as saying, “Being seen as the secular candidate is an enormous danger”. As Borger writes, […]”An overwhelming majority of Americans say they are religious-70 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans. Secular is out; assembling a flock is now key to political success.”
Our founding fathers created a separation of church and state which the Christian right has been struggling with for years. The Republican party has coopted this fight to garner votes and win elections. The Bush campaign is now contacting congregations to elicit help in the upcoming election. With the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, a potential floodgate of right wing religious fervor is waiting in the wings. This election will see more emphasis on the personal religious beliefs of the two candidates. President Bush says he is reborn , although rarely attends church. I do not remember John Kerry discussing his religious beliefs in the past but they have moved to center stage since he has become the presumptive Democratic candidate for president. Apparently, Kerry attends church more than President Bush, is he more religious than the President? Are both these men true believers, which one holds the stronger faith? Conservatives in the Catholic Church want to bar Kerry from communion because of his pro choice stance. Does this make him a bad Catholic? How can Americans decide who is the real god fearing candidate? Religious belief is subjective and cannot be judged objectively. There is no way to determine who believes what or how strongly. Voters can only judge from the rhetoric of the candidates. Most of the time, Republican candidates are assumed the more religious because of the party’s historical alignment with that element of society, the Christian Coalition, for example. Does this mean Americans find Republicans more true in their religious beliefs and following that line of logic, does that mean Republicans are better people, more moral, etc?
Gloria Borger ends her column with the statement, “So long as the faith is real”. Whose faith is she questioning, Kerry’s, Bush’s? The American people should be judging candidates on their records and the issues not their religious beliefs or lack thereof. If we as a nation let religion take precedence over the issues, we will be turning back the clock. There is nothing wrong with religion and everything right with many of it’s precepts. Unfortunately, most wars (including the current “war on terror”) have been over religion or used religion as an excuse. Jesus preached a philosophy of inclusion but formal religious doctrine has historically practiced exclusion. This means there will always be a non believer, an enemy, an infidel or someone to be converted to the proper religion. Which religion is right? We have been fighting over that question for millennia. Keep religion out of politics and politics out of religion. We can be a nation of Christians but should not be a Christian nation.
Posted by: dennis mccowan at June 25, 2004 11:42 AMI honestly don’t care whether references to God are kept in the pledge and on our currency or not. I don’t think that they should have been put there in the first place, but I also don’t think that it is a big enough deal to spend all the money to redesign our currency and everything else that would come with this change.
What I do take issue with is the use of one’s religious beliefs in shaping public policy. When will the discussion switch to this more important aspect of religion in government?
Posted by: dave at June 25, 2004 11:46 AM*sigh*
The Supreme Court didn’t duck the question of “under God”, as that was not the question at hand. The question at hand (and pardon my non-lawyerly explanation) was whether a person with no standing in a cause could be party to a suit… and the answer was a resounding “we’ll stick to the status quo”. It’s only incidental that the case that the party without standing brought addressed the issue of “under God”.
SCOTUS is faced by a literal landslide of cases, and it has a long history of choosing cases that allow it to bring clarity to issues bearing upon the US Constitution. It’s difficult (but not impossible) to make strong case law on weak cases. Shoe horning a case that was really about legal standing into one about “under God” wouldn’t have done anyone much good.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that I’m a big fan of “under God” myself… I am a faithful Christian, but I’m not entirely comfortable making theism so central an aspect of our pledge.
On a separate note: “separation of church and state” is a recent construct… and arguing that our modern application of the Establishment Clause is somehow a strict reading of the founders’ intentions undermines otherwise cogent discussions of the role religion plays in public life.
And finally, Dave: Your taking “issue with … the use of one’s religious beliefs in shaping public policy” is an insidious form of anti-religious bigotry as it denies the reality that we all — religious or not — have personal mythologies that we use to guide our decision making process… whether my mythology is codified or not is really beside the point. Which may be why we’ve not switched “to this more important aspect of religion in government”.
Posted by: Silus Grok at June 25, 2004 01:46 PM… To put it another way: calling for a separation of Church and State is not the same as calling for the separation of Church and Statesmen.
Posted by: Silus Grok at June 25, 2004 01:47 PMThank you for calling me an insidious biggot. I’m glad you could determine that about me from a two paragraph post.
But without getting deeply into a philosophical discussion, I’ll say that most morals and laws stand on thier own through simple logical analysis. We shouldn’t have laws in place for religious reasons.
Killing, stealing and such things are illegal because a society cannot function while crimes that make every person distrustful of every other person are allowed. Religious justification is not necessary for such laws. Our leaders can and should govern our country based on logic and reason, something which is much more universal than thier personal religious beliefs.
Posted by: dave at June 25, 2004 02:13 PMDave: I grant that it’s a fine line… but there is still a difference between saying something is a form of insidious bigotry and calling a person I perceive as advancing such a thing an insidious biggot.
I would also say that your second comment was much more agreeable than the first… the second makes room for people of faith in government, while the first did not appear to do so.
So perhaps we are of a closer mind on this than I originally thought.
Greg:
Sorry to break it to you, but the pledge is law. On June 22, 1942, Congress added the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag Code, though it would not gain that name for three more years. And on June 14, 1954 president Eisenhower signed into law a bill changing it to include the words “under god”. Please note that the Flag Code is located in section four of the US Code, which is itself described on the gpoaccess.gov website as “the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States” (emphasis added). Here is a link to the section of the Flag Code containing the pledge of allegiance.
Posted by: Jarin at June 25, 2004 05:57 PM
