Over God
The US Supreme Court celebrated Flag Day by sidestepping the issue of whether or not God belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance. Here's what I had to say two years ago when this case first came to light. This article really vexed people. (Read on; I continue current comments at the end.)
*****
Just in time for our nation's birthday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the phrase "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, equates to government endorsement of religion and is in violation of the separation of church and state. Reciting the Pledge in school - and forcing a teacher to lead the Pledge - is therefore unconstitutional.
Oh, did that set their hair on fire in Washington. Ari Fleischer, speaking for President Bush (not ex cathedra, I might add), said, "The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous." Not to be left out, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the ruling "just nuts." House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol - the same place they sang "God Bless America" the night of Sept. 11 - for a mass recitation of the Pledge. If Lawrence Welk was still on, these guys would rock! Virtually the entire Senate showed up for a morning prayer Thursday to affirm that the United States is "one nation, under God." This time Bush spoke for himself, and said that the court's decision ignored fundamental beliefs of American society. "America," he says, "is a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty." And with God.
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri was one of the first legislators to react to the ruling. "Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves," he announced. Well, if by Founding Fathers he's referring to the authors of the Constitution, of course they're not. Most of those boys, as anyone who's studied American history knows, were Deists. They believed God, if they believed in him at all, merely started the ball rolling, and then went back to his macramé. They did not believe in a God who took a personal interest in the lives of people or nations, and certainly did not believe the US was under him. John Adams believed that "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." James Madison wrote, "Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." And from Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. … Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
If the Founding Fathers were spinning in their graves, it was back in 1954, when the words "under God" were added to the Pledge in the first place. Back then, the US was in the middle of the Cold War with the USSR, which, as a Communist nation, was officially atheist. Most of its people were members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and probably followed their religion much more strictly than the gadabout postwar Americans, but no matter. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, no less, led a campaign to get the phrase inserted into the Pledge. President Eisenhower called for the change, and Congress agreed. When Ike signed the legislation, he declared: "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." The Founding Fathers would just shit.
As would Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge. He composed it some 60 years earlier, for The Youth's Companion magazine, a family publication that was the Reader's Digest of its day. Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a Christian Socialist. He was hired as the magazine's circulation manager after being pressured into leaving his Boston church because of his political beliefs. The editor who hired him was a fan, and asked him to write a few words for schoolchildren to recite at the quadricentennial Columbus Day celebration in 1892. Bellamy initially included "equality" right before "liberty," but cut it because the state superintendents of education were against equality for women and blacks. God was never considered. Years later, when Bellamy retired to Florida, he stopped attending church altogether because of the racial bigotry he found there.
[Note that Bellamy omitted God from the Pledge for the same reason the Founding Fathers demanded a separation of Church and State: less to save government from religion than to save religion from government. When "under God" was added to the pledge, his family objected on his behalf. To no avail.]
Congress did not officially recognize the Pledge until 1942. The following year, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. So when God wriggled His way into the Pledge, it was (officially) only a dozen years old, and by no means universally accepted. The appeals court noted the Supreme Court ruling, but said that even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."
[For the past two years, I've taught a number of students have relatively moved here from Eastern Bloc nations. They have expressed their surprise, not that God is in the Pledge, but that schoolchildren are expected to recite a loyalty oath every day before classes. It strikes them as something that would exist under Communism.]
Is the Pledge unconstitutional? In the broadest sense, of course it is. It clashes with our accepted policy of separation of Church and State. It's not as bad a school prayer or posting the Ten Commandments in the classroom (remember that one?), but it does bring God - albeit a generic God - in where he doesn't belong. This is the sort of case that gets everyone's knickers in a twist, not just because it's a hot button, but because it serves as a "first straw." The Supreme Court has already said that printing "In God We Trust" on our cash is constitutional. (This motto wasn't added until 1955, about the same time God made it into the Pledge, and for the same reasons.) What about singing "God Bless America" at official events? Using "So help me God" in court or in the Presidential Oath of Office? ("God" is not in the Constitution, but George Washington added it, just for luck.) Opening sessions of the Supreme Court with the "God save the United States and this honorable court," or Congress with a prayer? Actually, the fact that Congress can do this and not be struck down by lightning seems to me proof of God's absence, rather than his presence. The 9th Court has set aside its ruling for the moment (school is out anyway), probably to keep the Supreme Court from getting involved.
It's hard for me to see this case as anything other than a nuisance suit, or perhaps a testing of the waters. The plaintiff is an atheist who didn't want his second grade daughter exposed to the Pledge. I'm sure he has her best interests in mind. Nothing says love like pointing out your daughter as the child of a freak. He says, "I don't see this as being problematic in any way except to offend the people who want to infuse the government with their religious beliefs." The only reason to bring such as case is to offend those people. A USC political science professor said, "Maybe they didn't expect so much of an outcry." What? Please pass the crack pipe. Still, this case amuses me because I'm so tired of cases involving school and religion coming from the religious right. I like to see someone else take an aggressive stance for a change, chasing the school prayer people out of the building, rather than just responding to their madness after the fact. But considering all the time and money that goes into such a court challenge, I can't help but wonder if those resources might be put to better use elsewhere. As for our helpful atheist, I have to ask, "Were your parents atheists? Or did you find this on your own? And do you really think a few years with God in the Pledge is going to destroy your daughter's ability to reason?"
Especially since most children can't make heads nor tails out of this nonsense anyway. They recite it without thinking about it, and what they can puzzle out makes little sense. Who, for example, is Richard Stans? Why is there one Asian under guard? And how did he get to be invisible? The only thing that makes sense, from a schoolchild's point of view, is injustice for all.
I'm all in favor of taking God out of the Pledge. Especially since he's such a Johnny-Come-Lately to the whole affair. But more than that, it will return my favorite line, one that's been missing for so long. That's the line about the one naked individual. For that, I'll gladly stand.
*****
That said, I was tickled by the Court's decision. In this, as ever, I am somewhat alone.
The Supremes didn't rule whether or not the phrase was Constitutionally supported, merely that the atheist dad, who is divorced from his wife, did not have the right to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The girl's mother has legal custody, and is a born-again Christian to boot. She has no problem with the Pledge as it is, and doesn't want her child getting tied up in all this legal malarkey. What the Justices said, in essence, was "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but stop hiding behind your daughter's skirts and be a man."
Or words to that effect.
William Rehnquist wrote a separate opinion, supported by Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, venturing that the Pledge does not violate the Constitution. But officially, the matter is still open to anyone who wants to bring another suit.
Off the record, I'm sure the Justice League breathed a collective sigh of relief. Last summer's opinion that folks ought to be able to have sex with whoever they wanted brought a firestorm of criticism and a barrage of Constitutional threats across the country. The last thing they, or we, need is some freak gunning for an "under God" or some similar nonsense. Deciding by not deciding still pissed both sides off, but freed up the judges' schedules for a summer of partying.
*****
Just in time for our nation's birthday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the phrase "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, equates to government endorsement of religion and is in violation of the separation of church and state. Reciting the Pledge in school - and forcing a teacher to lead the Pledge - is therefore unconstitutional.
Oh, did that set their hair on fire in Washington. Ari Fleischer, speaking for President Bush (not ex cathedra, I might add), said, "The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous." Not to be left out, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the ruling "just nuts." House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol - the same place they sang "God Bless America" the night of Sept. 11 - for a mass recitation of the Pledge. If Lawrence Welk was still on, these guys would rock! Virtually the entire Senate showed up for a morning prayer Thursday to affirm that the United States is "one nation, under God." This time Bush spoke for himself, and said that the court's decision ignored fundamental beliefs of American society. "America," he says, "is a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty." And with God.
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri was one of the first legislators to react to the ruling. "Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves," he announced. Well, if by Founding Fathers he's referring to the authors of the Constitution, of course they're not. Most of those boys, as anyone who's studied American history knows, were Deists. They believed God, if they believed in him at all, merely started the ball rolling, and then went back to his macramé. They did not believe in a God who took a personal interest in the lives of people or nations, and certainly did not believe the US was under him. John Adams believed that "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." James Madison wrote, "Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." And from Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. … Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
If the Founding Fathers were spinning in their graves, it was back in 1954, when the words "under God" were added to the Pledge in the first place. Back then, the US was in the middle of the Cold War with the USSR, which, as a Communist nation, was officially atheist. Most of its people were members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and probably followed their religion much more strictly than the gadabout postwar Americans, but no matter. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, no less, led a campaign to get the phrase inserted into the Pledge. President Eisenhower called for the change, and Congress agreed. When Ike signed the legislation, he declared: "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." The Founding Fathers would just shit.
As would Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge. He composed it some 60 years earlier, for The Youth's Companion magazine, a family publication that was the Reader's Digest of its day. Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a Christian Socialist. He was hired as the magazine's circulation manager after being pressured into leaving his Boston church because of his political beliefs. The editor who hired him was a fan, and asked him to write a few words for schoolchildren to recite at the quadricentennial Columbus Day celebration in 1892. Bellamy initially included "equality" right before "liberty," but cut it because the state superintendents of education were against equality for women and blacks. God was never considered. Years later, when Bellamy retired to Florida, he stopped attending church altogether because of the racial bigotry he found there.
[Note that Bellamy omitted God from the Pledge for the same reason the Founding Fathers demanded a separation of Church and State: less to save government from religion than to save religion from government. When "under God" was added to the pledge, his family objected on his behalf. To no avail.]
Congress did not officially recognize the Pledge until 1942. The following year, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. So when God wriggled His way into the Pledge, it was (officially) only a dozen years old, and by no means universally accepted. The appeals court noted the Supreme Court ruling, but said that even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."
[For the past two years, I've taught a number of students have relatively moved here from Eastern Bloc nations. They have expressed their surprise, not that God is in the Pledge, but that schoolchildren are expected to recite a loyalty oath every day before classes. It strikes them as something that would exist under Communism.]
Is the Pledge unconstitutional? In the broadest sense, of course it is. It clashes with our accepted policy of separation of Church and State. It's not as bad a school prayer or posting the Ten Commandments in the classroom (remember that one?), but it does bring God - albeit a generic God - in where he doesn't belong. This is the sort of case that gets everyone's knickers in a twist, not just because it's a hot button, but because it serves as a "first straw." The Supreme Court has already said that printing "In God We Trust" on our cash is constitutional. (This motto wasn't added until 1955, about the same time God made it into the Pledge, and for the same reasons.) What about singing "God Bless America" at official events? Using "So help me God" in court or in the Presidential Oath of Office? ("God" is not in the Constitution, but George Washington added it, just for luck.) Opening sessions of the Supreme Court with the "God save the United States and this honorable court," or Congress with a prayer? Actually, the fact that Congress can do this and not be struck down by lightning seems to me proof of God's absence, rather than his presence. The 9th Court has set aside its ruling for the moment (school is out anyway), probably to keep the Supreme Court from getting involved.
It's hard for me to see this case as anything other than a nuisance suit, or perhaps a testing of the waters. The plaintiff is an atheist who didn't want his second grade daughter exposed to the Pledge. I'm sure he has her best interests in mind. Nothing says love like pointing out your daughter as the child of a freak. He says, "I don't see this as being problematic in any way except to offend the people who want to infuse the government with their religious beliefs." The only reason to bring such as case is to offend those people. A USC political science professor said, "Maybe they didn't expect so much of an outcry." What? Please pass the crack pipe. Still, this case amuses me because I'm so tired of cases involving school and religion coming from the religious right. I like to see someone else take an aggressive stance for a change, chasing the school prayer people out of the building, rather than just responding to their madness after the fact. But considering all the time and money that goes into such a court challenge, I can't help but wonder if those resources might be put to better use elsewhere. As for our helpful atheist, I have to ask, "Were your parents atheists? Or did you find this on your own? And do you really think a few years with God in the Pledge is going to destroy your daughter's ability to reason?"
Especially since most children can't make heads nor tails out of this nonsense anyway. They recite it without thinking about it, and what they can puzzle out makes little sense. Who, for example, is Richard Stans? Why is there one Asian under guard? And how did he get to be invisible? The only thing that makes sense, from a schoolchild's point of view, is injustice for all.
I'm all in favor of taking God out of the Pledge. Especially since he's such a Johnny-Come-Lately to the whole affair. But more than that, it will return my favorite line, one that's been missing for so long. That's the line about the one naked individual. For that, I'll gladly stand.
*****
That said, I was tickled by the Court's decision. In this, as ever, I am somewhat alone.
The Supremes didn't rule whether or not the phrase was Constitutionally supported, merely that the atheist dad, who is divorced from his wife, did not have the right to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The girl's mother has legal custody, and is a born-again Christian to boot. She has no problem with the Pledge as it is, and doesn't want her child getting tied up in all this legal malarkey. What the Justices said, in essence, was "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but stop hiding behind your daughter's skirts and be a man."
Or words to that effect.
William Rehnquist wrote a separate opinion, supported by Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, venturing that the Pledge does not violate the Constitution. But officially, the matter is still open to anyone who wants to bring another suit.
Off the record, I'm sure the Justice League breathed a collective sigh of relief. Last summer's opinion that folks ought to be able to have sex with whoever they wanted brought a firestorm of criticism and a barrage of Constitutional threats across the country. The last thing they, or we, need is some freak gunning for an "under God" or some similar nonsense. Deciding by not deciding still pissed both sides off, but freed up the judges' schedules for a summer of partying.
posted by John Bliss at
12:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home