"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
The Pledge Is Not For Our Children
By Gary Krasner (09/21/05)
This essay is an appeal to a Conservative intellect. Liberals no longer have an ability to think and reason. On policy issues, they rely on feelings and demagogue them to the hilt. So we cannot count on liberals to lead us to enlightenment regarding disputes over church-state issues. Unfortunately, so far it's been conservatives who have gone with emotion on this issue. And they should know better.
As an atheist, I was gratified that Dr. Michael Newdow prevailed in U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in June 27th, 2002. Referring to the "under God" phrase that was inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance 50 years ago, and writing for the 2-1 majority, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin concluded that it "is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus', a nation 'under Vishnu', a nation 'under Zeus', or a nation 'under no God,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
Almost at the two year mark, the Supreme Court heard arguments and weighed in with their decision: They "decided" not to decide anything. Specifically, Newdow's case was dismissed last year because he lacked proper standing as the parent. Thus the court was able to duck the issue, though the case was expected to return.
And so it has. Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton found that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." This time, Newdow is representing other families who appear to have standing.
I suppose I couldn't be more at odds with my fellow conservatives than I am regarding the Pledge of Allegiance case. Not only do I oppose the practice of compelling children to recite a pledge (of any kind), I also oppose the "under God" inclusion. I'll discuss both aspects separately, beginning with the efficacy of a pledge.
A caveat: This will not be a scholarly dissertation. I'm not a scholar, and a lot has already been written anyway on the Establishment clause with respect to the pledge. Anyway, in due time, I suppose we'll all have the opportunity to read Justice Thomas' scholarly support for the religious pledge, and Justice Ginsberg's scholarly opposition to it.
All I hope to do here is expose my fellow conservatives with a healthy dose of common sense.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A PLEDGE?
Children must never be required to recite a pledge of allegiance—even to a Constitutional government. Perhaps especially to a Constitutional government.
First, Children must understand that a pledge or promise is like a solemn contract; an issue of importance that must be adhered to. We certainly don't want them to deem pledges as routine daily utterings. They must understand pledges to be special, and sincere declarations that come from their own conscience.
Children are also too young to understand what a pledge of allegiance means in a tangible sense. Even for many adults, it may seem confusing. For one thing, a loyalty oath presents an apparent contradiction in a nation in which the right to dissent is one of it's main precepts. Declaring independence from England presented a dilemma for many in the Continental Congress, after having been forced to swear their allegiance to King George. An organized pledge of allegiance seems necessary under authoritarian governments. It seems out of place in a free nation.
Children are presented with enough puzzling contradictions about our way of life. We shouldn't add to it. The only pledges we should extract from our 7 year-olds are not to steal, lie, and to brush their teeth after they eat. We can expect more from them later on.
Regarding the aspect of coercion, most adults (and even US Senators) are sufficiently articulate to explain to their peers why they might remain silent during a pledge. But children don't understand the political and religious nuances of this debate. All they understand (usually from overhearing remarks from their parents or political commentators in the media) is that those classmates who refuse to recite the pledge are unpatriotic, or otherwise bad people.
In schools today, ostracism and bullying has reached such a scale that it's contributing to dropout rates, serious violent incidents and sometimes school shootings. We should not foster such conditions. In primary school, perhaps it's best to emphasize what all children have in common, and to teach it—not force them to recite it. (Justice Scalia has drawn a higher threshold for 'coercion' in his previous opinions on church-state cases. For that reason, I'm hoping he recuses himself again when Newdow comes before the court.)
The thing that should be taught is their valuable inheritance, and how and why our form of government, together with our religious and racial tolerance, stands supreme among nations. Teaching the 'hows' and 'whys' are precisely what schools should be about, rather than forcing children each day to utter lines by rote, whose import (to them) must invariably decline with each recital. Besides, patriotism, like other noble callings, is best taught by example.
Note: I understand that a 'pledge' case may be pending before the Supreme Court. But it has nothing to do with religion, nor with forcing children to utter words they don't understand or appreciate. U.S. v. Wonschik, filed in January 2004, merely petitions the court to overturn the conviction of a man who violated a federal gun law. The petitioner contends that the trial judge's leading the Pledge of Allegiance during voir dire somehow deprived him of a fair trial.
I'd like to see a case come before the court that goes to the issue of coercive pledges or oaths in a free society, and the compulsory aspect as it relates to children, irrespective of the "under god" clause.
THE PROBLEM WITH GOD
But forcing children to say things—by itself—doesn't have Constitutional implications. Obviously, the "under God" reference in the pledge will be the issue examined, if Newdow's case is heard by the court. So let me go beyond whether or not forcing children to recite a pledge is an efficacious civics measure, and explain why it's bad to use government to inculcate a belief in God with other people's children.
Those who want God in the pledge have honorable intentions. But "intentions" isn't the problem. Their problem stems from fear. And by being in fear, they cannot appreciate that what atheists want is really the same thing they want:
Theists feel that a world devoid of God will become an immoral, dangerous place. But I don't share that fear, perhaps because I was raised in a secular home. I don't think my parents ever explicitly taught me about ethics and civics—other than by their fine examples of being decent people with integrity. I grew up to become an activist, committed to helping other people and trying to correct wrongs, without an expectation of heavenly rewards in the afterlife. And I know many other people like myself. As the legendary conservative radio commentator Barry Farber often said, "one needs only to find one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." So I have first-hand knowledge that belief in God is not essential for building good character.
What many theists don't understand is that secularists are just as passionate about their beliefs as theists are about theirs. And they want to raise their children with THEIR core values and system of beliefs just as much as theists do with their own children. So, should there be any wonder that atheists wish that their children NOT be taught or forced to recite each day that God exists? As Newdow said, what if the pledge read, "one nation, in a Godless world…". Obviously, those who want God mentioned in the pledge would not prefer THAT sort of mention! They wouldn't even settle for having their 'God pledge' alternate every other day with Newdow's suggestion of a 'Godless pledge'.
No less a champion of Christian values than Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) stated in July 2005 (during a book tour promoting his book, "It takes a Family") that [paraphrasing], "freedom of religion is essentially freedom of conscience." He was making the broad point that our nation was founded on the basic principle that individuals should have the right to act in accord with their strongly held beliefs. Two centuries ago, 'strongly held beliefs' most often meant religious beliefs. But not today. With increasing prevalence, acceptance of secular philosophies are supplanting religion. Not even 'strength of conviction' fully distinguishes them: An atheist may be just as certain that the airplane he's traveling in won't crash, based on his 'faith' in technology and aerodynamics, as a religious person may be, based on his faith in his god.
To further muddy the waters of 'belief', even the theists may be evolving somewhat: In my own work, I've counseled hundreds of genuinely religious parents on their rights to claim the religious exemption from vaccination. In interpreting the scriptures and teachings of their respective religions to be inconsistent with vaccination, many Christians and Jews seem to draw upon modern secular concepts involving nutrition and medicine, and merge them into the religious constructs they've formulated. Perhaps an indicator that strongly held secular beliefs are becoming accepted on a par with religious beliefs may be that the number of states that have enacted philosophical waivers from vaccination has increased to 22.
SUPERFLUOUS ARGUMENTS
There's a whole class of arguments one often hears on those dumbed-down tabloid shout-fests on the cable news shows. I'll touch on a few of them here, mainly because Newdow and his colleagues usually get shouted down and their responses rarely get a fair hearing.
Many theists have cynically argued that there's nothing wrong in exposing all children to diverse beliefs and philosophies; that it's all part of the learning process. Nonsense. The pledge is not a lesson ABOUT religion. It's a recitation. It forces children to declare that which they might not ordinarily support nor fully understand or appreciate. It forces them to utter words to indicate they're taking a position on a subject (i.e. the question of god's existence) defined as a "deeply-held conscientious belief". In 1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a dissenting opinion that, "it borders on sophistry to suggest that a 'reasonable' atheist listening to the pledge would not receive the clear message that his beliefs were out of step with the political norm."
In other words, the pledge is not an academic matter. They're not reciting the multiplication table. Rather, the 'God-pledge' forces the child to acknowledge that America is a nation under God's dominion, whether they or their parents hold that belief of not. When you consider that children are impressionable, and easily subject to indoctrination, Newdow's interpretation is the most reasonable: Government should remain silent and take no position whatsoever on God's existence—the strict neutral position.
Another canard: They insist that the phrase, "under God" is an innocuous, nonsectarian reference to a generic supreme being. I say that's irrelevant. The first clause of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". It doesn't read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Catholicism, and Judaism and Islam (etc.)". What this tells us is that the Framers were not concerned about the nature and conception of whatever god is under discussion. Instead, by using the generic term 'religion', the Founders were indicating that they were referring solely to the 'existence versus nonexistence' aspect of god.
And how is that? Because a belief in a supreme being is the sole distinguishing feature of theistic religions. Or as Newdow said in his oral arguments before the Supreme Court when asked if he thought 'under God' was a religious exercise: "I think it definitely is, and it is because the two words are, 'under God', and I can't see of anything that's not religious under God…".
Thus, the clause can logically be translated as, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a belief in God". With that interpretation, it would seem that the First Amendment forbids government from expressing any position on the matter, pro or con. The so-called religious pledge obviously violates that.
Another argument you hear is that references to God and religion can be seen in many places in our federal institutions of government. Members of Congress, for example, wasted no time following Newdow's first appellate victory in 2002, before they passed a resolution affirming their belief in God. Somehow, examples like these are supposed to prove that there's no real separation of church and state. But the three branches of government do not have to abide by the laws they create for us. They operate by their own rules and are exempt from many federal laws. They can cite "God" anytime in their official capacities; or post whatever religious symbols they want in their government buildings.
Finally, those who defend publicly-lead prayer, or references to religion or God (their God) in the public realm are on shaky ground when they say that this nation was founded in Judeo-Christian values. First, it's irrelevant. What matters is what's contained in the Constitution, and not the religious background or personal expressions of belief of those who wrote it. Second, if it were indeed relevant, then one can cite ample evidence that while some of the Framers were monotheists and pious, others were either deists or atheists, and were clearly vocal supporters of the concept of a wall of separation, as evidenced by their opposition to such things as publicly funded religious schools; taxation by the church; religious tests to hold public office; and so forth.
Besides, without a firm wall of separation, these same Christians will rue the day they made a fuss over the "wall", once Muslims start to be the majority in certain areas in the U.S. Because without that "wall" firmly established, it will always be those in the majority who will determine to which God or messiah those public religious references, pledges, invocations, prayers (etc.) will be made. The day that Christians must stand up in class and repeat after the teacher, "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), will be the day they finally get it.
And regret it as well, because in any given era, the adherents to the Abrahamic religions have interpreted each of their respective holly scriptures in dramatically divergent ways. And none of these interpretations could have been independently invalidated, because personal interpretations about the metaphysical world cannot be objectively disproven. But secular modernism moderated the western religions. Today, we don't have laws for every proscription in the Ten Commandments. And while slavery (condoned in the Bible) was the norm and was accepted (or tolerated) during the time of our Founders, secular reasoning forced a recognition that it was inconsistent with our Founding principles. But for a large portion of Muslims today, the Koran teaches them that Islam must be spread to nonbelievers by the sword, and I don't have to inform anyone where they stand on gender equality. Thus, the "regret" I speak of is the willingness of many conservatives to subject our laws to!
the vagaries of religious interpretation, by eroding the wall of separation.
Fortunately, there are many devout Christians who want a strict wall of separation. They understand that society cannot draw a consistent, agreed upon line that separates innocuous religious symbolism in the public sector, and government endorsement of religion. They understand from history that government endorsement and association with religion leads to the religion being corrupted.
THE FRAMERS' INTENT
The Framers of the Constitution expressed similar concerns, though you'd never know it from listening to conservatives.
It was apparant to most, including the Framers, that a sturdy wall of separation was necessary to preserve the rights of nonbelievers from the fanaticism of the believers. And that fear has been born out: Atheists are the only group in the U.S. that are legally denied rights available to all other groups. Dr. Newdow, for example, reminded the Court that, "there are right now in eight states in their constitutions provisions that say things, like South Carolina's constitution, 'no person who denies the existence of a supreme being shall hold any office under this constitution.'" He went on to note that no state legislator in those states has yet dared to object to these provisions for fear of being labeled an atheist, and perhaps consequently have their own qualifications (i.e. belief in God) for holding office be challenged.
Merely remnants of antiquated laws you say? President Bush called the 2002 Newdow ruling "ridiculous." He said it was a "fact" that our rights come from one god, that only those who believed in one god would be considered for appointment to the bench. What could possibly embolden a sitting U.S. President to announce his intention to violate Article VI of the Constitution (i.e.: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.")?
The only reason a politician would venture so far is because of the perceived or real popular support for the proposition (Ironically, the reason the Framers drafted the Establishment was to ensure it wasn't subject to popular whims.) One thing that fuels opposition to the "wall" is the popular argument that our Founders were the products of Protestant Catholicism, and therefore, the precepts of our Constitution are based upon that religion.
The first clause is clearly incorrect. A good many were secularists or Deists. For the remainder, I would observe that the most idiosyncratic message that Protestantism (as the name implies) conveyed was that dissent and reform instituted by mere individuals against the dominant Catholic hierarchy was possible without the sky falling. In other words, far more than religious themes, it was the spirit of independence and dissent that Protestantism may have awakened. Thus, just like Protestantism was a rebellion against Christian orthodoxy, our Founders were rebelling against the orthodoxy of monarchy-run government, and government-favored religious sects. Current-day conservatives seem to want to return us to the good old days of state-sponsored churches.
The Protestant reformation was the precursor that spurred Anglo-Saxons toward greater possibilities, such as the expansion of the rights of ordinary men, or the creation of a body (House of Lords) that represented men, in order to counter the power of the monarch. By the time the American colonists were ready for independence from Britain, classical liberalism and a secular political culture was ripe with treatises on self-governance, basic rights of the individual, and lessons learned about absolute power and theocratic rule. It is these philosophical concepts and remedies we recognize today in the text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and not religious dogma, nor even religious prose common in the literature of that era. Religion isn't mentioned in the Constitution precisely because it was an important aspect in their personal lives, and they wanted to keep it that way—important, personal and uncorrupted by government.
Besides, in an era when many people were not only pious, but also frequently used religious and poetic expressions for rhetorical effect, asserting today that they were believers themselves seems like a tautological exercise that proves little. For example, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "all men were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Judging from most of his other writings, which were very critical of commingling government and religion, as well as similar caveats from his separationist allies, one can easily interpret that line, and similar statements as creative prose in a style shared by his contemporaries.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the spiritual beliefs and religious backgrounds of our Founders in general, had a great influence on them. It's evident in their personal expressions. However, only the most basic laws of human behavior—killing, stealing, bearing false witness—found it's way into our laws, and all were common to both religious and secular-pagan societies. Christianity didn't hold a patent on proscriptions to murder, stealing, assault, dishonesty, infidelity, etc. I haven't come across federal laws that possess distinguishing features of Christianity that didn't exist in nontheistic cultures. Indeed, to 9 million atheists and agnostics in the U.S., the very notion that prohibitions against murder and robbery would not be possible without the invention of religion is not only preposterous, but insulting.
Let's put aside for the moment the contention that we're a "Christian nation", and how it's supposed to justify government's endorsement. The point that overshadows that, or the observation that these men were religious themselves, or that they may have revealed their belief in God or Deism in their personal correspondence, memoirs, speeches, or even government documents, was that the sole mention of religion or God that they included in the actual blueprint for our government (The Constitution) was to direct government to stay out of ecclesiastical matters, and by logical extension, remain silent on the existence of God—because once you resolve that God exists, the next step begging to be taken is to select the particular religious narrative and messiah that refers to that God.
And there's the danger. Because it's one thing for me to take a position on the existence and nature of God. But it's quite another for the government to do so. Presbyterians believe in Jesus, but Jews don't. Catholics believe God is a Trinity, and Muslims believe God is One. Buddhists and Hindus believe there are multiple Gods. Of course atheists maintain God doesn't exists at all, and agnostics aren't sure. The U.S. is well represented by all religions and secular philosophies. When governments of nations with diverse cultures appear to take a side in these controversial questions, those nations invariably split apart, always violently.
Ceremonial Deism
A concept that's not often heard in popular debate forums has been responsible for inconsistent rulings by the court involving the Establishment Clause. Since 1963, the Supreme Court has sometimes employed a concept called 'Ceremonial Deism'. It was introduced in 1962 by Eugene Rostow, the Dean of Yale Law School, who referred to it as practices that are, "so conventional and uncontroversial as to be Constitutional." (Says who, I wonder?)
If a practice is deemed customary—even if it has religious origins, but may have lost some of it's religious significance—then it may be deemed an exception to the Establishment Clause. Some traditional activities in the observance of Christmas are good examples of Ceremonial Deism.
An obvious flaw with the concept is that its validity is an artifact of its own definition: Those who wish to see more religion in the public sector are inclined to interpret more things as Ceremonial Deism; secularists will interpret fewer, if any. You don't have an objective test when the results are so dependent on the biased eye of that beholder. Each side will rarely see it any other way.
The uneven decisions of the court, thanks in part to this legal construct, has opened the floodgates for challenges to past Establishment clause prohibitions. The American Family Association of Mississippi, for example, has been heading an effort to get "In God We Trust" posted in every public building and every public school classroom. So far, a number of states have passed the law requiring it be posted in public schools. The Colorado legislature is considering that the posters be put up in each and every classroom. A provision permits taxpayers in Colorado to file lawsuits if they discover a public building or classroom without the slogan. The United States Postal Service is going to be posting the slogan in each of its 38,000 branches.
On the federal level, bills were filed in Congress, following Newdow's victory, that would deny federal courts below the Supreme Court the power to hear challenges to the Pledge and to Ten Commandment displays and expressions of religious faith on state or local government property. The same was filed in the Senate, with the additional provisions that would recognize "In God we trust" as the national motto, and permit it to be posted on state or local government property.
Another inherent weakness in Ceremonial Deism is that it fights a two-front war. The attacks it receives from the other end are those who are seeking to restore or salvage the true religious significance and meaning that's behind the tradition and symbolism. In applying Ceremonial Deism to "in God we Trust" and "Pledge of Allegiance" cases, Justice Brennan remarked that they're "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost, through rote repetition, any significant religious content."
Yes, perhaps being forced to state out loud every day that we're a nation under a monotheistic God is a rote exercise. But it's hardly an insignificant matter to atheist parents of the child who's forced to say it, or to religious people who don't wish to have their religious traditions lose their original meanings and reduced to mundane insignificance.
In 2004, when one of the Supreme Court justices suggested to Dr. Newdow that the 'under God' reference might be equivalent to Ceremonial Deism, Newdow replied, "I think that that [sic] whole concept goes completely against the ideals underlying the Establishment Clause. We saw in Minersville v. Gobitis and West Virginia v. Barnette something that most people don't consider to be religious at all to be of essential religious value to those Jehovah's Witnesses who objected. And for the Government to come in and say, we've decided for you this is inconsequential or unimportant is—is an arrogant pretension, said James Madison…".
One can easily view Ceremonial Deism as more dangerous than just an "arrogant pretension", when you consider that it employs the same reasoning that could easily justify the continuation of slavery—both institutions shared rich traditions in early America, albeit each with its share of dissenters.
Pretenses aside, I consider Ceremonial Deism just as much an extravagant convenience for judges as is the high court's recent flirtation with international law precedents. Last week, during his Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts likened the use of such precedents with the ease of finding a familiar face among a large audience—one is always likely to find one. Similarly, Ceremonial Deism is nothing more than a selective search to find that which will support a desired outcome. Perhaps it's not even apparent to the practitioners of this legal construct that they're ignoring the secular traditions of early America, and the supporters of separation whose views sometimes prevailed, and sometimes had not.
To obtain a legal grounding of the issues and cases involving church and state issues—but emphasizing Newdow and religious pledge cases—I recommend: "What's the Big Deal? The Unconstitutionality of God in the Pledge of Allegiance", by John E. Thompson, located at
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol38_2/thompson.pdf
In the 25-page paper, Jackson introduces another term which he believes the Court may rest it's decision on when Newdow comes before it: "historical acknowledgment." Not a theory, as much as it's a confluence of meanings represented by the phrases, "acknowledgment," "history," "tradition," and the concept of "de minimis injury." He writes that these elements contained in 'historical acknowledgment' have been instrumental in upholding past cases of government sponsorship of religious practices and symbols.
Jackson lists the components of 'historical acknowledgment' as:
The basic argument has the following components: (1) the federal and state governments have historically incorporated religious symbols and practices into the public sphere before, during, and after the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; (2) from this it follows that the Framers did not intend to forbid such practices (sometimes called "ceremonial deism"), and they are therefore permissible today; (3) as long as the tendency of current practices to establish religion is "no more than" these historical practices, they are permissible as mere "acknowledgments" of religion's traditional and historical role in the nation's public life; and (4) these practices have been going on since before 1791 without any negative effects, so there is no reason to forbid them now.
Jackson raises a number a legal arguments critical of these doctrinal creations. One of his concluding statements was:
Exceptions such as these undermine the principles of the Court's Establishment Clause doctrines. Whereas the primary holdings protect freedom and equality, the exceptions endanger them. Each approval of government-sponsored religious orthodoxy—such as legislative chaplains and Christian nativity scenes—can be used to justify the next endorsement, extending the web of discrimination against disfavored religious beliefs.
Thompson explains why he believes court decisions that have sided with separation are Constitutionally sound. He does a good job of explaining the various legal constructs that courts have used to reconcile or reject the religious pledge and other Establishment-related cases, such as the Endorsement test; Coercion test; etc. As a layman, I just find these constructs to be handy crutches for the religionists on the court. They're devices that enable them to achieve their ends. After he's confirmed by the Senate, I'm anxious to see how Chief Justice Roberts—someone who staunchly rejected goal-oriented decision-making on the bench—will tacked Newdow. Dr. Newdow might make the argument that these legal tests are either 'effects' tests, or they assess outcome from the standpoint of the individual. But a true originalist would have to conclude that the Establishment Clause is a directive aimed at what government must not do, and doesn't dabble in the possible effects on p!
eople when the government exceeds that prohibition.
Elsewhere in my research, I came across the following case that a lower court dealt with in 1908—25 years after the Pledge was introduced.
A school girl in Ohio was sent home from school after she refused to recite the Pledge. She was a Mennonite, and she had been taught not to say the Pledge. Her father, Ora Troyer, was charged and convicted for instructing his daughter to go against the law of man. He was fined and jailed for a month. He appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction.
The coercion and endorsement tests of the religion clauses have proven to be relatively fair tests to protect nonthiests from the majority. But it's anyone's guess whether the Supreme Court's recent Establishment Clause doctrines would have kept Ora Troyer out of jail for refusing to relinquish his conscientiously held beliefs. One wonders what the civil rights status of African Americans would be today had similar subjective and degree-oriented measuring tools were applied to Equal Protections.
THE TIES THAT BIND US
Ironically, those who want all school children to declare the existence of a monotheistic god everyday have forgotten that America's singular success and greatness is derived from the three branches of government that involves itself NOT in ecclesiastical issues, but rather the secular laws and the secular blueprint that the laws are based upon—the Constitution.
It's not necessary for us to quibble over whether or not the pledge exceeds the thresholds of various aforementioned legal tests. All one needs to understand is that the United States was the first successful multiethnic nation in history for one simple reason: We subordinated ethnocultural matters to one secular legal manifesto. Every nation before ours had been founded on an ethnocentric model: Faith in a religion or obedience to a monarch.
As we've seen, other nations that become more ethnically or culturally diverse often descend into ethnic strife. One of the more recent horrible examples of this occurred in the Balkans after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The success of an Iraqi federation will depend a good deal on building secular institutions and how well Iraqis can suppress religious and cultural partisanship. To function as a single nation, a common set of agreed upon rules must exist for everyone. But if the political and legal framework of a nation stems from religious concepts, then the logical sequela is, 'from which religion'? And that's when citizens of different religions begin to notice that inequities and favoritism develops. With no peaceful means to resolve it, minorities either must endure the hardships of their minority status, or violently rebel against the majority.
Fortunately, the Framers of our Constitution had great foresight. In addition to the unsavory aspects they witnessed from religious doctrine imposed by church-states, I think they wisely understood that to unify a culturally diverse nation, it would require there be a secular depiction of our beliefs and aspirations, as well as secular institutions to regulate public and government affairs.
It took a while before states fully complied with the Establishment Clause. Following ratification of the Bill of Rights, the major debate was not solely about Federalism. It was also about the disestablishment of the church. Churches in many states imposed taxes on citizens. Many local laws were religious laws. What the Framers advocated regarding church and state sometimes conflicted. But Madison, Jefferson and others who favored strict separation held sway.
Multiculturalism got its start in the 1960s as merely a means to give non-Anglos due credit for their contributions. Decades latter, it evolved into a doctrine that's seriously impeding assimilation. Now, since 911, it's creating a national security vulnerability, as Islamist militants are using it to recruit members from within our society. Separation of church and state fosters assimilation.
Ironically, theists who support the 'God pledge' may be helping multiculturalists in Balkanizing the U.S. Victor Davis Hanson ("Mexifornia: A State of Becoming", Encounter Books, June 2003) describes an example of how assimilation is discouraged: High school students in Southern California attend separate graduation ceremonies—those held in English, and those held in Spanish. Imagine if there were separate ceremonies held for theists and nontheists. The point is that demanding to have ones native or preferred religion, language, or culture used in the public realm can be divisive for the common culture. Keeping government out of the business of religion is a small price to pay to avoid fatal schisms in our society. Conservatives must realize that 'separation' is the ultimate ANTI-multiculturalism measure.
WHAT'S REASONABLE?
I've reached an age in my life where I've come to accept gray areas in many debates. It's easy to be doctrinaire when you're young, but then later, reasonable open-minded people consider their life's experience, whereupon they gain wisdom. When I was in my teens and twenties, I was antagonistic to religion and religious people. Today, I don't judge people that way. A person's religious beliefs means nothing to me either way.
I wish that was reciprocated. I see conservatives exhibiting a lot of hostility towards atheists who stand up for their rights. Newdow is considered a crank at best, a monster at worst. But I would argue that it's those who want government to be involved in religion who are the most didactic and unnecessarily contentious parties in this debate. The unreasonable people are those who feel that OUR government must take an affirmative position on the existence of a monotheistic god (the basis of all religion), and that the children of free people be forced to recognize that fact through a loyalty oath that they must recite each day, and nontheistic parents are expected to silently accept it.
That's the crux of the matter regarding reasonableness: I know there were a good many of America's Founders—most were deists, some were atheists—that advocated strict separation. They and their progeny have a rightful claim to the legacy of this nation. Yet I can also freely acknowledge that religion played a role in our society; a role in the moral underpinnings of our laws, and that many or even most of the Framers believed in God—however they defined 'God'. I also have no problem acknowledging that religion was incorporated in some of the colonial governments, and religious symbols and traditions were conventions adopted by the Congress—some of which have carried over to today.
Even Dr. Newdow said he finds nothing wrong with public displays of religious symbols, if they're presented in the historical context.
But for some reason, none of that is good enough for the radical 'religionistas'—the American counterparts of Sunni Wahhabists. Even though atheists, agnostics, and nontheists have never forced other people's children to deny the existence of god, the other side feels no inhibition nor shame forcing ours to believe in god.
If conservatives were genuine supporters of parental rights to control the rearing of ones children, they wouldn't be demanding that my child sit and listen to the government tell her that her father and mother are wrong about their most deeply-held beliefs.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Krasner
Gary Krasner grew up in the Bronx in the 50's through the 70's. He moved to Queens in 1975 after obtaining a B.S. degree in Psychology from CCNY. Today, Mr. Krasner works as a computer graphics artist by day. By night he runs Coalition For Informed Choice, a non-partisan organization that promotes personal freedom of choice in decisions involving our health.
Send Feedback To Gary Krasner
Site: http://www.cfic.us/
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
