Americans: Some "under God", some not

ron.ozrock.net

The usually highly divided U.S. Senate has been brought together in remarkable unanimity -- not by 9/11, or the war in Afghanistan, but by the recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found the use of "under God" in classroom recitations of the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. Within 24 hours of being issued, it was the target of unanimous condemnation by the Senate; and remarks from prominent political figures across the spectrum roundly condemned it: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S. Dakota) calls it "just nuts"; President Bush calls it "ridiculous"; and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) said that he can't recall "a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court". So why does essentially every politician from both major parties not only condemn but belittle and chastise this ruling?

It's not the logic of the ruling. In fact, the ruling seems so painfully obvious that it's almost embarrassing that it didn't happen before. (More on that later) The "establishment clause" of the First Amendment seems to bar the endorsement of particular religious views over others by the government: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". And ruling after ruling from the Supreme Court underscores this, including recent rulings barring student-led prayers at high school football games and stopping the display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Monotheism (the view that there is exactly one god) is certainly a substantive religious view embraced by many major religions. Overall, about half of the people in the world accept some form of monotheism; the half that don't include Atheists, varieties of Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, and others. So surely an officially mandated pledge issued by the government -- in the form of public schoolteachers -- that appeals to God (the name we usually use for the deity accepted by monotheists) is an endorsement of some religious perspective (monotheism) over others (non-monotheistic views). What could be clearer?

In short, if you accept that the state should not endorse Christianity at the expense of Judaism or Islam (and if you don't, we've got worse problems than I thought), then it's hard to see how the same principle shouldn't bar the state from endorsing monotheism over non-monotheism. As Judge Goodwin writes in the opinion itself, "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' 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."

So what's the problem? In the din of demagoguery and name-calling, are there actually any reasons being offered for thinking this ruling is wrong? It can't that the numbers of people affected aren't significant enough. Consider the possible insertion of appeals to Jesus into government business (as the appeal to God was inserted into the pledge in 1954, at the height of anti-Communist paranoia and the heyday of loyalty oaths). And suppose I'm right in suggesting that most Americans would find it unacceptably exclusive of Jews and Muslims. But by the most conservative estimates, at least 5% of the American public consider themselves Atheists -- which is over twice the percentage of Jews, and likely higher than all non-Christian forms of monotheism combined.

One criticism of the ruling that gets wide lip service is the "What next?" argument. "What's next?" we're asked; "Taking 'In God We Trust' off the money?" Or as Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) put it: "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken from new presidents?" But what makes these things so absurd? In fact, the clear logic of the current ruling should get us to ask these questions to expose other ways monotheism is endorsed in government practice.

The scare tactics of "what's next" talk are standard when assumptions are challenged. But they often threaten "absurd" consequences, which, once considered, become part of the virtue of the challenge rather than its drawbacks. Consider similar talk no doubt brought about by the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, which overturned racial segregation in the public schools: "What next -- integrated bathrooms? Buses? Interracial marriage?"

Maybe we -- including the courts -- are embarrassed that we've lived with this inconsistency for so long that acknowledging it now would make us feel too stupid. If it's so obviously a problem, how did it escape the Supreme Court, whose own opening invocation makes appeal to God? But surely that is a bad reason to keep it up. Segregation and institutional racism are a tragedy and an embarrassment to the nation and all those who let it go on; but one of our virtues as a nation is that this did not keep us from eventually condemning it and working to end it.

But in spite of its obvious and compelling logic, this decision will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court. Why? Because especially on such big issues, the court is unfortunately more about politics than principle -- and I don't just mean the court's recent ruling in the case of the presidential election. The Supreme Court has a long and checkered history of letting clear principle be bent to the political winds of the day: Think of their acceptance of slavery, or of the internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war.

Those times when the judicial branch has bucked this tendency and stood up against the politics of simple majority to uphold the freedoms and rights of all -- as in Brown vs. Board -- have been some of the high moments and positive turning points in our society, and which moved us closer to being a more principled and more inclusive nation. Maybe it's in the case of schoolchildren in particular that we can sometimes get rulings that break through these barriers, as in Brown vs. Board, where it was schoolchildren who were more vulnerable to and impacted by the inherent unfairness of "separate but equal".

I hope for such a turn here; but I expect and fear that we will instead see an anti-inclusive backlash, as suggested by the response to the current ruling of name-calling rather than reasoned argument. We already have heard calls for a constitutional amendment. To do what, I wonder? Could anything be more obviously an indication that down deep, many people do not in fact accept the "establishment of religion" clause of the first amendment, and would like to see it thrown out? If there is indeed such an amendment, let's call it what it is: The Religious Exclusion amendment. But think about how shameful it seems from our current perspective to consider passing a "Separate but Equal" amendment in 1954. Perhaps it's time to be nudged toward inclusivity toward all Americans again -- even those of us who don?t see ourselves as "under God".