This column was written for my University Newspaper. It addresses the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the problems facing the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm curious to hear what you think....
****************************************************
Alfred T. Goodwin is one of the least popular men in America
right now. If you have been in a coma for the past two weeks,
Goodwin is the judge on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
who ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance is unconstitutional.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical...
to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation
'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no
god'," Goodwin wrote. Consequently, he's been described as "out
of step with . . . America", "just nuts", and "sad and absurd".
He isn?t nuts; he's absolutely correct.
Here?s a brief history lesson about our beloved Pledge of
Allegiance. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, but
the original text made no mention of God or any other deity.
This Pledge seemed to serve America just fine without those
words for several decades. Then, in the 1950's, during the
throes of the Cold War and the now-infamous McCarthy Era,
President Eisenhower decided to make a broad, bold statement
differentiating the United States from the sinister, atheist
Soviets. He wanted to bolster "the transcendence of religious
faith in America?s heritage and future."
The text of the First Amendment is explicitly clear on the
subject: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But in
1954, at Eisenhower?s request, Congress did exactly what the
Amendment says it should never do. They passed a bill adding the
words "under God" to the oath. In other words, they made a law
respecting the establishment of Christianity. From that point
onward, if a person wanted to pledge allegiance to the nation of
his birth, or choice, he had to acknowledge a deity.
Even if the text of the Bill of Rights taken at face value
weren?t enough evidence of unconstitutionality, there is plenty
of legal precedent to draw from. The most unambiguous case is
probably the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, in which the
Supreme Court established a three-part test (now known as the
"Lemon test") to determine whether a law is permissible under
the First Amendment religion clauses. Anything put to the test
must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) its primary effect must
neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) it has to avoid
excessive entanglement of church and state. Anyone can
understand how the bill which added the phrase "under God" to
the Pledge violates these criteria-?its purpose is anything but
secular, it advances Christianity by acknowledging God, and it
interweaves religion into one of our most cherished avowals of
patriotism.
So there?s nothing ridiculous whatsoever about Goodwin?s
decision. He ignored the inevitable public outcry and issued a
ruling based solely on his interpretation of the Constitution,
regardless of popular opinion. That shows integrity, not
insanity.
If anything is "sad and absurd" about the situation, it?s the
reactionary eruption of shock and anger following the news of
the Court's ruling.
The entire Republican party is writhing in ecstasy over the
ruling because it?s a freebie for them. They can literally wave
the flag to their hearts? content, secure in the knowledge that
approximately 80% of Americans experienced a knee-jerk reaction
of horror when the Court?s decision made the news. And because
it?s an election year, the politicians fell over one another in
a mad rush to plant themselves in front of TV cameras so they
could express their shock and indignation to television
audiences nationwide.
The emotionally charged furor is by no means limited to the GOP.
The 99-0 Senate vote to denounce the ruling speaks volumes, and
many Democrats, including former Vice Presidential candidate
Joseph Lieberman, have just as eagerly made it a point to
ridicule Goodwin. No self-respecting politician could pass up a
chance like this. It?s the kind of event that is as fundamental
to the campaign trail as kissing babies and town hall meetings.
Their constituents are eating it up. The Tulsa World?s "Call the
Editor" section (it prints telephone comments from disgruntled
readers who are too lazy or stoned to write letters) offers a
daily dose of stale platitudes, most of which fall along the
lines of "If you hate God, you hate America, so get out and go
elsewhere." The average American apparently believes that the
concept of separation of church and state is "tearing our
country apart", and "putting God back into America" is the only
solution.
These people are advocating fascism. As Freedom From Religion
Foundation president Anne Gaylor put it, "There can be no
religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."
Many worried Christians have said that the supporters of this
decision are trying to banish God and Biblical values from
American. That is certainly not the case. Non-religious
Americans?-there are 40 million of us and we make up about 14%
of the population-?simply don?t want to be pressured into
recognizing a deity we don?t worship. We definitely aren?t
trying to suppress so-called Biblical values. We have principles
jut like anyone else, and they?re very similar to the ones
Christians and other religions uphold. Christians didn?t invent
morality, and Biblical values are by no means unique?you will
find the same concepts in the texts of many other religions.
So what can we do to please both sides? There is a simple,
elegant, and obvious solution. Remove the words "under god", and
restore the original pledge. And while we're at it, we should
change the national motto from "in God we trust" back to our
original, very appropriate motto: "E pluribus unum." Out of
many, one.
****************************************************
Alfred T. Goodwin is one of the least popular men in America
right now. If you have been in a coma for the past two weeks,
Goodwin is the judge on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
who ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance is unconstitutional.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical...
to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation
'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no
god'," Goodwin wrote. Consequently, he's been described as "out
of step with . . . America", "just nuts", and "sad and absurd".
He isn?t nuts; he's absolutely correct.
Here?s a brief history lesson about our beloved Pledge of
Allegiance. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, but
the original text made no mention of God or any other deity.
This Pledge seemed to serve America just fine without those
words for several decades. Then, in the 1950's, during the
throes of the Cold War and the now-infamous McCarthy Era,
President Eisenhower decided to make a broad, bold statement
differentiating the United States from the sinister, atheist
Soviets. He wanted to bolster "the transcendence of religious
faith in America?s heritage and future."
The text of the First Amendment is explicitly clear on the
subject: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But in
1954, at Eisenhower?s request, Congress did exactly what the
Amendment says it should never do. They passed a bill adding the
words "under God" to the oath. In other words, they made a law
respecting the establishment of Christianity. From that point
onward, if a person wanted to pledge allegiance to the nation of
his birth, or choice, he had to acknowledge a deity.
Even if the text of the Bill of Rights taken at face value
weren?t enough evidence of unconstitutionality, there is plenty
of legal precedent to draw from. The most unambiguous case is
probably the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, in which the
Supreme Court established a three-part test (now known as the
"Lemon test") to determine whether a law is permissible under
the First Amendment religion clauses. Anything put to the test
must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) its primary effect must
neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) it has to avoid
excessive entanglement of church and state. Anyone can
understand how the bill which added the phrase "under God" to
the Pledge violates these criteria-?its purpose is anything but
secular, it advances Christianity by acknowledging God, and it
interweaves religion into one of our most cherished avowals of
patriotism.
So there?s nothing ridiculous whatsoever about Goodwin?s
decision. He ignored the inevitable public outcry and issued a
ruling based solely on his interpretation of the Constitution,
regardless of popular opinion. That shows integrity, not
insanity.
If anything is "sad and absurd" about the situation, it?s the
reactionary eruption of shock and anger following the news of
the Court's ruling.
The entire Republican party is writhing in ecstasy over the
ruling because it?s a freebie for them. They can literally wave
the flag to their hearts? content, secure in the knowledge that
approximately 80% of Americans experienced a knee-jerk reaction
of horror when the Court?s decision made the news. And because
it?s an election year, the politicians fell over one another in
a mad rush to plant themselves in front of TV cameras so they
could express their shock and indignation to television
audiences nationwide.
The emotionally charged furor is by no means limited to the GOP.
The 99-0 Senate vote to denounce the ruling speaks volumes, and
many Democrats, including former Vice Presidential candidate
Joseph Lieberman, have just as eagerly made it a point to
ridicule Goodwin. No self-respecting politician could pass up a
chance like this. It?s the kind of event that is as fundamental
to the campaign trail as kissing babies and town hall meetings.
Their constituents are eating it up. The Tulsa World?s "Call the
Editor" section (it prints telephone comments from disgruntled
readers who are too lazy or stoned to write letters) offers a
daily dose of stale platitudes, most of which fall along the
lines of "If you hate God, you hate America, so get out and go
elsewhere." The average American apparently believes that the
concept of separation of church and state is "tearing our
country apart", and "putting God back into America" is the only
solution.
These people are advocating fascism. As Freedom From Religion
Foundation president Anne Gaylor put it, "There can be no
religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."
Many worried Christians have said that the supporters of this
decision are trying to banish God and Biblical values from
American. That is certainly not the case. Non-religious
Americans?-there are 40 million of us and we make up about 14%
of the population-?simply don?t want to be pressured into
recognizing a deity we don?t worship. We definitely aren?t
trying to suppress so-called Biblical values. We have principles
jut like anyone else, and they?re very similar to the ones
Christians and other religions uphold. Christians didn?t invent
morality, and Biblical values are by no means unique?you will
find the same concepts in the texts of many other religions.
So what can we do to please both sides? There is a simple,
elegant, and obvious solution. Remove the words "under god", and
restore the original pledge. And while we're at it, we should
change the national motto from "in God we trust" back to our
original, very appropriate motto: "E pluribus unum." Out of
many, one.