|
|
One nation under democracyJul 10 '02 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line Let's strengthen our patriotism with knowledge and reason!
Ever since the court unveiled its decision that state-sponsored recitation of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitional, the public hue and cry has been of great magnitude. Ignorant theocrats everywhere have been launching all sorts of ad-hominem attacks, pundits have compromised principles of journalistic integrity, and even our "President" has referred to the decision, with his usual eloquence, as "stupid". This decision, like few others in recent years, has invoked a whole spectrum of significant issues, many of which divide people widely. It's not often that such pure and blatant emotion dictates public discourse. Usually, there's at least a modicum of reason, logic, and decency in the way people in general conduct themselves with regard to controversies - even such polarizing issues as capital punishment and abortion. Funny, isn't it, how two little words have divided this one nation, indivisible? But on second thought, the nation hasn't really been divided at all - if you forget those who haven't had the courage to speak out against the illogic that so many people are demonstrating about the ruling. What few people realize about "under God" is that these words were not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance. These words were added in 1954, at the height of the Communist scares. They were nothing more than an act of inveighing against "godless Communism". It was unconstitutional then, and it's unconstitutional now. The court ruled properly, regardless of the rantings and agitprop of those who believe differently. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This tells us all we need to know, making it very clear that for government to co-opt religious beliefs is wrong. Some have said that "God" is not the same as "an establishment of religion", but they're essentially equivalent - both are expressions of religious belief. Specifically, the Lemon test of Establishment Clause issues states that not to violate the Establishment Clause - the principle of church-state-separation put forth by the First Amendment - an act of government conduct must pass the "three-prong test"; as the official court decision puts it, "the government conduct in question (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." The words "under God" in state-sponsored recitations of the Pledge, thus are unconstitutional. Q.E.D. If anybody wants to argue otherwise, let's hear it! I certainly haven't seen any detractors of the decision who've been willing to do so! The simple fact that the decision was thoroughly proper and reasonable, and restricts nobody's freedoms, has been overlooked by opportunists who go on about how "our rights are restricted because we can't say the Pledge!" In all honesty, I question whether those who say such things have even read the Court's decision. The decision does not say that nobody can say the Pledge in private life or public, and it doesn't say that schoolchildren can't say the Pledge - all it says is that teachers and schools, as agents of the state, cannot lead recitations of the Pledge in public schools because it's unconstitional. Michael Newdow, an atheist, brought the case to court after his daughter witnessed recitations of the Pledge at her school. There have been all kinds of smears against Newdow, which as a whole show the level of maturity of those who are protesting the decision. Many people have been saying, in essence, "If Newdow doesn't believe in God, what difference do the words 'under God' make to him in the first place?" - but the issue is simply the fact that Christians railroaded their sectarian beliefs into government-sponsored public life. A question for anybody who protests the ruling on these grounds: would you object to "one nation under Allah"? "One nation under Zeus?" "One nation under Satan?" "One nation under Shiva?" The reference to "God" that the Pledge contains is obviously not a vague, miscellaneous statement of general religious belief for these reasons; by saying that the US is "one nation under God", groups as diverse as Muslims (who believe in Allah), Buddhists (many of whom are pantheists or atheists), Hindus (who believe in multiple Gods), Unitarian-Universalists (who have no doctrine on the existence of deities), and atheists/agnostics/secularists (who lack god-belief, or who think that the question can't be answered at all) are left out altogether. "Indivisible", indeed! But bigger philosophical issues are at work here. Many conservatives have lamented, basically, that "if we remove God from our lives, things will get even worse than they are already". This is a disingenuous argument; it seems to deliberately misinterpret the nature of the ruling. Again, students are free to say the pledge among themselves when class is not in session. They're also free to pray, or meditate, or what-have-you. Even lawmakers are free to waste their time reciting it on the steps of the Capitol. These freedoms are all protected by law, and this has been established beyond question over the years. But the idea that "removing God from our lives will lead to further harm" should be considered fully as well. The Judeo-Christian God, clearly the one referred to in the Pledge, is thought to be omnipotent - surely, the legalistic decisions of humans couldn't govern it! If this Judeo-Christian god actually exists, the way its followers describe it, then it needs no help from the government to reaffirm its existence. The idea of the Pledge itself, is also questionable. When I was in second grade, I realized that I was reciting the Pledge by rote, without ever thinking about its meaning. Nobody had ever explained what it meant; they'd simply hammered the words into us until we knew them. Later on, I realized what a revolting travesty it was to make children say a Pledge of Allegiance that they didn't understand, for the purposes of mindless, numb patriotism. One of my favorite catchphrases is "What schools need most is a moment of science"; likewise, the place of schools is to defend students from anti-rational dogmatism - not to steep them in it until they're thoroughly indoctrinated! It's time to put a stop to all governmental God-mongering. Nobody is saying that government members, or schoolchildren, or Americans, or anybody, lacks the freedom to assert their belief in their gods. All that the laws say is that such assertions shouldn't take place under the aegis of the government. In our democracy, where people hold such a diverse multiplicity of religious beliefs, religious belief has no trouble flourishing without the help of the government designed to protect the minorities. The best solution to the problem of this particular instance of religion twisting its insidious way into government is to change the wording of the pledge to its original form, sans the divisive two words, and to stop saying the pledge altogether in schools. There's nothing wrong with loving your country, or defending its principles - in fact, to do these things (tempered, of course, with a healthy dose of rationality and questioning of authority) is altogether admirable. But to indoctrinate children in declarations that they can't understand is completely repugnant, and against the American spirit - whether these declarations are religious in nature, or secular.  |
| Read all comments (2)|Write your own comment |
