The New Hampshire Union Leader posts about a federal case against the Hanover School District attacking the inclusion of the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, added in 1954 at the request of President Dwight D. Eisenhower to distinguish America from the heathen commies.
This isn’t a new challenge, but one that seems to bring out strong feelings each time it rears its head. The basic argument is that the Establishment Clause forbids the government to support theism as opposed to keeping its nose out of religion altogether.
The opposition position, as stated by Jay Sekulow, lead counsel for the intervenors, The Center for Law and Justice, is as follows:
The Pledge and the phrase ‘one Nation, under God’ should not pose a constitutional crisis,” Sekulow said. “There is ample precedent — including from the Supreme Court — that underscores the fact that patriotic exercises with religious references are consistent with the First Amendment. We’re hopeful the court will see this suit for what it is: a legally flawed strategy to purge all religious references from American public life.
What makes this argument interesting is that the argument for inclusion of the phrase has to be carefully framed in the negative, since its real purpose would likely defy the constitutional prohibition.
In other words, they can’t argue that America is indeed a nation under God because we were formed in accordance with the Judeo-Christian ethic of our forefathers, who were careful to make sure that we, unlike England, would never have a state religion, but similarly believed that the general parameters of this ethic were the norm. At the time, the idea that America would include Hindus and wiccans was just too ridiculous to consider. Atheists, well, were best used for clogging holes in the Puritan dike.
Thus, the argument is based upon precedent that the inclusion of religious references in patriotic exercises has been with us since the beginning, and continued unabated. This is clearly true, from the Declaration of Independence to our daily coinage and the writing on the wall over our judges’ heads (In God We Trust). But it really doesn’t answer the question.
The opposition to those who would remove religious references in government is that it constitutes an attack on religion, on God. These secularists would have a society devoid of people who believe in a deity and rejecting their belief in such things as the Golden Rule. Some have argued that it is an attack on Christianity, and that the United States, like it or not, was born a Christian nation. Again, there is a lot of support for this proposition, though the support doesn’t suggest that it was intended to be a Christian nation, but rather that our forefathers viewed life through the prism of Christianity because that was their normal perspective.
And then, there’s a third view on this issue, which suggests that it’s a total waste of time and who cares anyway.
What remains unclear to me is how removing religious references from government, its patriotic exercises, buildings, coinage and the wall behind the bench, will be the end of religion. Let there be a crèche in front of every Christian home across America. Let every child offer a prayer to the deity of his choice every morning and every evening. Nothing stops this from happening. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my government, and I assuredly don’t need their permission to believe as I do or their support to make me feel better about my beliefs.
Given that there are a multitude of ways for individuals to engage in the practice of their religion, what does the government have to do with it? There is a logical disconnect between the government including the words “under God” or “In God We Trust” and any belief I, as an individual, may hold or practice. If those words disappeared overnight, it wouldn’t alter my beliefs one iota. So what?
But then, I have never gone into a courtroom, seen the words over the bench, and felt personally affected. The ubiquitousness of the word “God” around us results in a diminished recognition that it’s there. It’s just part of the background noise of our world, there but ignored. It’s goofy and unnecessary, but generally inoffensive since it’s of so little consequence. That isn’t always the case, however.
Others feel differently. Others see the word and feel the offense that comes from a government stating something different than they believe. I feel this when I’ve gone to public school commencement exercises and had the opening benediction include a prayer to Jesus Christ, Our Savior. First, this doesn’t comport with my beliefs, but more importantly, this has no place in a public school.
It reminds me of people who argue that Christmas trees aren’t religious symbols, but merely seasonal, fun symbols that bring joy and pleasure to many. While I agree with the latter, I disagree with the former. They are indeed religious symbols. That’s why they call them “Christmas Trees.” So let home after home sport a Christmas Tree and we’ll have more than enough to go around and we can all enjoy the beautiful lights and the joy of the season. But keep it out of our government buildings. There’s just no need for it to be there.
The notion that America will fall into moral decay if we don’t include the word God here and there is just silly. We can fall into moral decay no matter how much religion is injected into our government. The removal of all religious references from our government is of no consequence to our belief in God, or lack of belief in God. While separation of church and state is a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution, the concept is sound to express the import of the Establishment Clause. Believe what you want. Practice it however you want. Just don’t make it a part of our government. Religion doesn’t need government’s permission.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not at odds with the current Pledge of Allegiance, or James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance”, Thomas Jeffersons “A Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom”, or the Declaration of Independence.
It is the absurdly broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause urged by Mr. Newdou that is at odds with the texts and historical facts. Would Mr Newdou argue with a straight face that Jefferson’s Bill For Religious Freedom, which ensured religious freedom and forbade the establishment of religion, was itself a violation of the Establishment Clause because it stated that almighty God was the source of our rights?
From 1776 to 1785, Jefferson worked to have legislation enacted to forbid the establishment of religion in Virginia. Madison also worked to have this legislation passed, and just a few years later Madison initiated the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution.
It is absurd to hold that the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution is something completely different than what Madison and Jefferson wrote, and what the Courts have relied on since Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) as the best evidence as to the meaning of the establishment clause. If Jefferson is not to be relied on for the meaning of the establishment clause, what then of the “Wall of Separation” doctrine?
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power…
Try this mind experiment:
Suppose next month the legislature of the State of Virginia were to pass Thomas Jefferson’s “Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom” in its original language. Would the courts would rule it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause? Suppose the same were done with Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance?
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html
I figured that someone would show up to push the issue on this. As noted in the post, there is no doubt that there is precedent to support the position that, based upon originalist ideas, the notion of invoking God in governmental life was within the Establishment Clause.
But your exercise, what would Jefferson have thought, lacks one crucial piece to make it persuasive: We are dealing with an interpretation today, so the appropriate question is what would Jefferson, if he were still alive today had lived through the development of American society to this point, have thought. On the other hand, is it up to Jefferson to decide?
And still undiscussed is whether there is any positive argument for needing to promote the use of “God” in government. You argument remains framed in the negative, with nary a positive reason why government is an appropriate place to promote the existence of God, whatever God you happen to prefer.
Not necessarily absurd.
Just to be sure I understand you correctly, you would not think it absurd for a court TODAY to declare a law -that was word for word the same as Jefferson’s VA Bill for Religious Freedom -unconstitutional under the Establishment clasue. Is that right?
Declaring the source of our rights acts as a reminder to those who might operate under the mistaken idea that rights come from government.
That was a good enough reason for Jefferson and the rest of the founders and it remains a good reason today.
It was similarly good enough for Jefferson that blacks were only 3/5s of a person. You understand me correctly, it would be absurd to freeze the application of concepts at a time when the state of affairs was entirely different.
So you really believe that the United States is a Christian nation because that was the societal norm at the time our founding fathers considered the issue of religious freedom? And you don’t think it absurd to refuse to apply the concept in light of a broader societal view because of the narrow religious world in which our forefathers existed?
But while Jefferson referenced God in the preamble to the Bill for Religious Freedom, which suited the parameters of his world, he went on to make clear that religion had no place in government whatsoever, and needed no such place. Jefferson wrote:
And so, follow the concept in light of the expanded view of religion in society, including everything from athiests to druids. Our world is limited to a few variations on Christianity, and I would absolutely expect Jefferson to say that his concept remains intact and sound, but broadened to include the existing breadth of religious view in our lives today.
Broadened to the point that government is forbidden to acknowledge the source of our rights -that same truth which the founders considered to be self-evident? That is absurd!
Do you suppose there no atheists in Jefferson’s time? Or perhaps you suppose Jefferson was unaware of their existence?
So you are contending that the United States is a Christian country. Our forefathers “natural rights” stem from God, and hence our government owes its existence to God, and appropriately appeals to God at every turn. There’s nothing like confusing an 18th Century belief system with the primary concept that permeates Jefferson’s work, that religion and government have absolutely no relationship or need for one.
There were atheists in Jefferson’s time, he was aware of their existence, and there is no conflict with Jefferson’s view of the proper relationship of religion and government and his view that our rights come from God.
What evidence do I have that the third assertion is true? Because his belief that our rights come from God permeates his work, even his most famous work directed specifically at barring establishments of religion.
You should never confuse the fashion of the time with the underlying point. In a different time, such as today, he would scoff at such a misapprehension.
The Tradition of God in Office
Eugene Volokh posts