"Under God" or not?Autor tekstu: G. Richard Bozarth
23 March 2004 Michael Newdow argued his case for the unconstitutionality of
„under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance before the U.S. Supreme Court. I watched the news report and thought this: As an Atheist and a Freethinker, I hope the U.S. Supreme Court does its duty to preserve, protect, and defend the
U.S. Constitution by ruling „under God" is a violation of the law known as
the First Amendment.
Then reality bit, and I had to predict the USSC will either deny Newdow
has standing to pursue litigation on his daughter's behalf, or it will
proclaim the phrase has become a tepid, ceremonial phrase with its religiosity
too diluted to be unconstitutional. Most likely their ruling will be the former
because it would liberate them from having to write anything for or against
„under God" to justify or protest a for or against decision. If they go with
the latter, then they truly are way too isolated from contemporary U.S. culture,
because all they have to do is peek out the front doors of the USSC building to
see the living proof of the phrase's religiosity in the form of all the
Christians praying and preaching on the building's steps about the necessity
of maintaining this acknowledgment of Christianity's three-part deity. The
unconstitutional religiosity of the phrase is also thoroughly proven by all the
speeches about it during the process when it was added to the Pledge in 1954.
All those politicians from Eisenhower on down to the rookies in Congress were
not engaged in adding some tepid ceremonial embellishment to the Pledge.
There's a lot of talk by both sides about what the Founders intended
concerning separation of government and religionism. Both sides need to know
this: it doesn't matter what the Founders intended if
what they intended does not preserve, protect, and defend freedom. Lots of
Founders did believe the nation they had created was a Christian nation. The
only separation the majority of them intended
was between only the federal government and religionism, thus each state was
free to engage in entanglement or separation. Many of them represented deeply
entangled states and fully approved of their states' entanglement. That was
why the laws known as the Bill of Rights were intended
to control only the federal government's behavior. Later it was understood
that preserving, protecting, and defending freedom in the U.S. meant the Bill of
Rights had to also control the behavior of state and local governments. The
Founders' intention was wrong, and
that wrongness was corrected with another amendment.
The Founders had other wrong intentions that were included in the
Constitution and required later correction. The Founders, even the very best of
them, did not fully understand what was required to make the U.S. a land of the
free. It required time and often very hard, bitter experiences for the wrongness
to be recognized and corrected. Two examples are slavery and women's rights.
The Founders intended the U.S. to be a slaveholding nation and for women to be second-class citizens ruled by male
relatives or husbands. These intentions, once laws in the founding document, had
to be rejected and corrected by amendments because finally it was recognized
that they did not preserve, protect, and
The Founders did have one intention that was first before all others and
the justification for the Revolution. It was also the promise to every person
who supported or fought to win the Revolution. It was their supreme intention,
and the only one that should have important cultural influence today. Their most
glorious, most right intention was to dedicate the U.S. to being a land of the
free. That noblest of their intentions is the only one that deserves undying
commitment from citizens, legislators, judges, governors, presidents, and USSC
Justices. All their other intentions have to be measured against their supreme
intention, and all the ones that fail to preserve, protect, and defend freedom
have to be ignored or corrected if still active as laws. Therefore the first
thing to ask about „under God" is this: does it preserve, protect, and
defend freedom, which is essential if all people are going to be able to pursue
happiness throughout their lifespans? The answer for „under God" is
„No!". There it is.
If religionists want to believe the U.S. is a nation under an imaginary
supernatural entity-Christianity's three-part deity, Allah, Vishnu, Santa
Claus, and so on — that's fine with me. Let them, when they say the Pledge
of Allegiance, personally add an „under (name of supernatural entity)" every
time. Nothing wrong with that. They can finish it off with "amen" or
„praise the Lord" or „Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho". Who cares? I don't. I would laugh, but I wouldn't care.
What is wrong, because it violates the law known as the First Amendment,
is for the government to make the Pledge a mandatory public school event, then
include in that mandatory event a phrase that tells children and adolescents
that a supreme supernatural entity exists and that in some way the U.S. is under
it, either because it rules the U.S. in some mysterious way or because U.S.
culture is supposed to be a religious culture dedicated to serving and
worshipping this supernatural entity. That is government being entangled
in religionism. That is government linking such beliefs to patriotism, thus
proclaiming Atheists and even any religionists who object to the entanglement to
be unpatriotic. Making the participation in the event voluntary does not lessen
in any way the fact that it is an official public school event. In Texas it is
an event required by law, which of course only increases the importance of the
event, the seriousness of the message, and the entanglement in religionism.
This is an intolerable insult to Atheists and those religionists who are
dedicated to keeping government and religionism separated. It becomes more
intolerable for those of us who served the U.S. in the military, which has
always been one of the most honored ways to practice the patriotism a person has.
„No Atheists in the foxholes" is as big a myth as Santa Claus,
Christianity's three-part deity, or any of the other imaginary supernatural
entities that humans have worshipped and now worship. In 1967 I could have
legally dodged the war in Vietnam. Being patriotic and also believing in the
rightness of the war at that time, I chose to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. I also had other important reasons for enlisting, but those two definitely
contributed to the decision I made. Eventually I served nine years in the
Corps. One year I spent in Vietnam. I wasn't in much danger in Da Nang,
but it wasn't my decision to serve in a unit that was not exposed to much
danger. I was an Atheist when I went it. I remained an Atheist even though there
were two or three times in Nam I could have been killed or seriously wounded.
When I got my honorable discharge I was an Atheist.
With the exception of Colin Powell and John McCain, it's practically
impossible to find among these god-fearing, Jesus-loving, flag-waving,
Pledge-reciting Republicans of the Vietnam generation any who made the same
patriotic choice I did. These war-dodgers and the religionists who support them
want to imply with „under God" I'm not patriotic? It pisses me off.
It especially pisses me off when these war-dodgers and the religionists
who support them use „under God" in the Pledge as proof
the U.S. is a Christian nation, thus Atheists, if they don't like it and
can't shut up about it, should just go find some other country to live in. If
the USSC was willing to receive evidence of the intense religiosity of „under
God", they ought to invite the various Atheist and Secular Humanist groups to
send in copies of the letters and e-mails from religionists that never cease
coming in. They would see „under God" used often as a weapon against us.
That is why „under God" does not preserve, protect, and defend freedom. When
government is entangled in any way in
religionism, that entanglement, however slight, never preserves, protects, and
defends freedom. There it is.
This is another objection to „under God" that ought to be as
important as any other objection: „under God" is an insult to a First World
nation in Western Culture's 21st century. It's as ridiculous as „under
Santa Claus". Why? Because believing in imaginary supernatural beings is like
believing in Santa Claus, and nothing can change that. It doesn't matter if
the belief in a supernatural entity is held by dozens or hundreds or thousands
or millions or billions. No amount of faith can make true what is not true. It
doesn't matter if the belief is backed up by a politically powerful, wealthy
national or international organization. No amount of money or power can make
true what is not true. It doesn't matter if the belief is enforced by vicious
terrorists willing and eager to murder unbelievers who dare to publicly display
their unbelief. No crime can be atrocious enough to make true what is not true,
and no body count can be high enough to make true what is not true. All the
reasons why Santa Claus doesn't exist are exactly the same reasons why all other supernatural entities do
not exist. This is a fact of life: there does not exist a god for the U.S. to be
under. There it is, and there it shall
in the 2004 May/June issue of the American Rationalist ©
« Prawo (Publikacja: 01-06-2004 )
Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Prawa autorskie tego tekstu należą do autora i/lub serwisu Racjonalista.pl.
Żadna część tego tekstu nie może być przedrukowywana, reprodukowana ani wykorzystywana w jakiejkolwiek formie,
bez zgody właściciela praw autorskich. Wszelkie naruszenia praw autorskich podlegają sankcjom przewidzianym w
kodeksie karnym i ustawie o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych.