And finally found a sympathetic federal judge who ruled the language “unconstitutional.” Of course, the decision will be appealed, no news there. My questions go to the reason of Newdow’s animosity, and to the question of how a federal judge had reached this conclusion.
The way I analyze the problem: The first inalienable right of the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience. There are two clauses that refer to this right. The first — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” — clearly restrains federal power vis-à-vis the states in matters of religion/conscience. At the time of the Founding, several states had “established” (i.e., “official”) churches of their own, and were mighty jealous to preserve them. The second — “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — extends to the personal sphere: the federal government may not prohibit religious practice or the right of conscience more generally, with respect to the human person. Indeed, this is the government’s most basic pledge to free men — to get “out of their face” when it comes to matters spiritual.
The problem I’m having with the Newdow case is I don’t see how the “under God” language is a constitutional issue. Because (1) that language was authorized by due, legitimate enactment of Congress. Now Congress is — under the constitutional framework — supposed to be the closest governmental body to the People there is — and of the three equal yet separate and balanced powers, the one most directly responsible/accountable to them.
What I want to know is: Where is the interest of the “sovereign states” in the Newdow matter? Where the interest of (2) the human person? Does Newdow really imagine that ideas of God contribute to the delinquency of minors? Or somehow subvert the civil peace? If that is the case, by such criteria of judgment as he employs, pornography gets an easier ride in contemporary culture than religion does.
But the real question is: Can a supposedly “sane” society justify such things?
This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.
I have strong doubts about both statements. I wonder what you think.
Thanks so very much for your informative and thought-provocative essay/post, and for the great quotes!
Was there more or less crime before "under God" was added to the pledge?
For that matter, did crime go down when "In God We Trust" was added to coinage?
traviskicks, I’m wondering whether you might have any insight into why Michael Newdow would so object to the “under God” language of the Pledge of Allegiance that he would make a personal crusade out of legally extirpating it, which arguably he has done.
---
IMO, this falls under a very sticky category. It is sticky because the root problems that are causing the problem are often not addressed, which, unfortunately, validates them. The root of the problem is socialism, with has spawned this question of whether 'under God' should be said in public school.
It has spawned the problem because, under the Constitution, Newdow and the parents he is representing have a right to raise their children a certain way and should be allowed to raise their children that way, free of government coercion. His point, that he is forced to pay tax money to an institution that flagrantly defies his values, is, in a way, valid. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
But on the other side, we have the vast majority of Americans who don't have a problem with 'Under God' and don't mind it being in public schools. Yet, some of these parents have problems with evolution being taught in school and sex/ed etc.. etc.. Their rights are being violated in the same way as Newdow's - opinions they abhor are being taught to their own children with their own tax money. It is repulsive.
To have an opinion one way or the other on any one of these issues is besides the point and counterproductive as it misses the bigger picture: socialism of public schools. Having government controlling public schools results in all these problems. If charter schools/school choice existed (or government was completely removed from education), then no one could complain about the happenings in the school their kids attend because no one is forced to send their kids to any particular school.
But our public schools are not run by the parents, they are run by the government: local, state, and federal, and so they are not free from political control. Thus, this problem exists. Both Newdow and other parents who disagree with any aspect of the public education forced on their kids should join forces to destroy educational socialism. Yet, because of differing ideology, an alliance of this nature would surely make these groups uneasy.
FYI, more on Charter schools:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm
This pattern exists elsewhere. The same parallel is found in the gay marriage debate. Why is there a debate over whether gays can marry? Why can't they just 'do it' at a Church that recognizes it? And why do they even need a Church? Why can't they just recognize it themselves. But they cannot because government has given itself the power to define marriage. Churches, religious institutions, etc... and whomever wants should be able to define marriage, without coercion from government and the benefits (tax etc..) that come with marriage are problems of over taxation and socialism.
There are a variety of other examples of this sort of thing I could give, for example, immigrants putting 'strain' on 'social services' is not a problem of immigration, but a problem of socialism. The argument that helmets should be required by law, because other people end up paying for that person's injury, is a problem of socialism.
Socialism, in any form, spawns all of these problems, which cause rancor, chaos, anger, and instability in society. It must be eliminated in the United States.
This Supreme Court will no doubt face a review of that decision in the 9th and (IMHO) a related decision made in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kaufman v. McCaughtry
In that case, the court held that atheism is a religion. This puts an entirely new spin on a lot of things.
Concerning Newdow, the removing of the “under God” is to establish atheism as a state religion under the First Amendment. Likewise, the inability to speak of God – pray to God – refer to God – in a publicly funded environment is to establish atheism as a state religion. This will no doubt reach to the Intelligent Design litigation as well.
From the opinion:
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by … God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion, Fleishfresser v. Dirs. Of Sch Dist. (7th Cir. 1994); see also Welsh v.United States … (1970); United States v. Seeger … (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos…. (7th,cir 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”) Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. … (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of the Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.
---
As government retreats, religion generally expands. Is it any coincidence that the religious revival of the 80s and 90s parallels the rising of conservatism?
Religion often performs many functions that governemnt often tyrnanically assumes, thus governments have historically been very wary of religion because religion can foster independent thought and form strong political movements. This is why most communist countries banned all religions and other tyrants (middle eastern) make sure they control religion or merge the two together (Iran).
So, as long as we keep expanding freedom, I think we have nothing to worry about regarding Christianity expanding.
One last thought, is that if government begins to exerte control over relgion, then religion and governemnt will become corrupted. It has been a dissapointment for me to see President Bush's 'faith based' inititatives lauded here on FR.
I don't want government controlling religion, I'd rather God control religion. Since government is a necessary evil, as James Madison said, "if men were angels there would be no need for government" (paraphrasing from Federalsit papers), then it maks no sense to put this necessary evil in charge of religion.
Of course, it is 'unfair' that faith based groups can't recieve public funds, but, again, this is a problem, not of discrimination, but of socialism. No groups should receive public funds for anything. Then the argument is moot.
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine
"A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."
- Justice Roy Black
Interesting question. Shuffling a couple of words here, could it be said that contemporary Christianity is in severe decline but the work of the true church moves forward unabated and un-noticed?
It's possible that more and more people are leaving the form to merge with the substance. If so, then the quality of the mores of society at large would have to show a pronounced gain over the years, which actually may be the case if examined closely enough.
I think that is the case. The 'negative' gets the press and attracts our attraction, continually obscuring the real world.
But the real world does manage to shine through once in a while. For example, how many people in the country were aware of the good things that were happening during and after Katrina, as opposed to the bad things that were happening?
Quality and quantity were on the side of the good, I'm sure. And though I don't have the vision to make a comparison between how the world and society at large responded to such catastrophes throughout history, intuitively I think the activity of today's generation would prove that substance is winning over form.
So regardless of those folks who attempt to alter our political system -- and succeed, or the actions of those folks who bend the system to popularize and support their proclivities and perpetrations, it should have no effect on our personal journeys, for government is not the teacher of ethics, morals, or righteousness, but the protector of the concensus.
That does not mean that we should just lay back and allow the perps to mangle the system. On the contrary, it should spur us on to greater efforts in preserving and refining how we are governed and represented.
Those we fight against are those that want to RE-define how we are governed and represented, and that takes us back to the source of the problem -- pro-active judges who are re-defining and creating law.
There will always be the flag-burners and pledge-slayers amongst us.