At the recent Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh, progressives engaged in a serious reconsideration of the meaning and reach of the Establishment Clause. A program entitled “A New Progressive Vision of Church and State” brought together a diverse group of panelists to debate a proposal (provocatively encapsulated in the subtitle of the program: “How I Learned to Accept ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance and Stop Losing Elections”).
The proposal, which was mine, was that government should be permitted to use religious language in the public square when that language may plausibly be asserted to represent a nonreligious commitment. For example, the word “God” can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective validity of human rights. Arguably, this was the role of the “Creator” language in the Declaration of Independence. The goal of my proposal was to find common ground among nonbelievers, minority religious believers, and monotheists while retaining the core commitment of government religious neutrality.
The leadership of Netroots Nation was aware of how controversial such arguments were likely to be among their largely secular attendees. Thus, it was clear from the start that the panel would have to represent a range of views, including searching criticism of the proposal. This was certainly accomplished.
Of the three panelists who responded to the proposal, Rev. Janet Edwards was basically supportive of the suggestion that religious language and imagery be an available rhetorical resource in American public debate. She was more concerned about private religious speech than in the question of the specific limits on government endorsement of religion. Edwards ended up leading the room in an effective rendition of “Kumbaya,” with the word “Justice” substituted for the phrase “my Lord.”
Fred Clarkson and Vic Walczak were strongly critical of the proposal, for overlapping reasons. For Clarkson, the emphasis on the Declaration of Independence was historically as well as tactically flawed. The Constitution, not the Declaration, is the legal foundation of American public life. The Constitution quite intentionally omitted all reference to God, and its only reference to religion is to bar religious tests for office. That is the model that progressives should follow: a public space without reference to religious imagery. Any other approach adopts the framework of conservatives, who want the government to officially endorse at least monotheism, preferably the Bible and, if possible, Christianity.
Walczak, from his perspective in litigation, reminded the audience of the social division, discrimination, and even violence that occurs when government involves itself in religious matters. This is a story not of just of sixteenth-century Europe, but one that repeats itself in America all the time. Walczak also warned that a government permitted to use God-language in general terms will next use God to promote political positions, such as the hypothetical government slogan, “God opposes abortion.”
Both Clarkson and Walczak suggested that the proposal would be insulting to religious believers. Believers understand “God” to be God, and would certainly object to any suggestion that “God” really means something else.
The exchanges among the panelists were earnest but respectful. This positive tone was continued in the questioning from the audience. Most questions urged the retention of a strict separation of church and state. Toward the end of the allotted time, the issue arose of the proper role of religion in political debate, with some suggestion that some progressives view even private religious speech with wariness.
The entire exchange seemed to me to raise three fundamental questions. First, what is the proper role of history in the interpretation of the Constitution? I was suggesting that history should be basically irrelevant to debate about the Establishment Clause, both because American history on the subject of church and state is inconclusive and because as a general proposition, progressive Constitutionalism should offer the people of the United States a “living” Constitution through the development of currently acceptable Constitutional principles. Clarkson objected to that view as a kind of willful amnesia in which hard won lessons of the past would be forgotten.
Second, it seems to me that proponents of the separation of church and state must openly acknowledge just what their Constitutional ideal is. What is the ultimate goal of the Establishment Clause as they understand it? Since the proposal was being criticized for permitting the use of religious language by government (even though that language would have to be justified on nonreligious grounds), the contrary position must be the absolute ban on government sponsorship of religious language in the public square. This would mean that not only are the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, but so are any new public Ten Commandments displays, as well as the recent decision to add the national motto, “In God We Trust,” to the wall of the Capital Visitor Center. In addition to those changes, religious language would also have to be barred from any government-sponsored occasion, such as a presidential inauguration.
When these details are spelled out, it is clear that not only is this Constitutional vision wildly unpopular, but it really is a change from anything that America has ever practiced. It is a little hard to argue that this new world is one required by a reading of American history, or that it could have been anticipated by the framers of the Constitution.
Sometimes people who favor separation of church and state resist this kind of candor and say that some Constitutional violations are “merely symbolic” or not worth fighting about. But if a ban on government-sponsored religious language is required by the Constitution, these are not minor violations, but go to the heart of the wall of separation. These violations, if such they are, must be fought. And, if they cannot be fought because of the political fallout, then maybe the underlying Constitutional interpretation is wrong.
Finally, there is the question of the place of private religious speech in political debate. If the ban on public references to religious imagery is premised in part on a view of religion as a malevolent force (as is true for a Christopher Hitchens, for example), then suspicion of even private use of religious imagery in the public square naturally follows.
These are some of the questions we sought to explore in this forum.
but also very wrong.
Mr. Ledewitz gets in trouble from the very start with the title of his talk, "How I Learned to Accept ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance and Stop Losing Elections.” Has any major Democratic or liberal politician ever supported removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? I can't think of any. Can Mr. Ledewitz name one? I doubt he can.
Mr. Ledewitz claims that "the word 'God' can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective validity of human rights." Surely this is true for some religious believers, but not for most, since most religious believers respond in surveys done in the US that they think God is very interventionist, for example dealing out divine justice, listening to and answering prayers, performing miracles, etc. It sounds like Mr. Ledewitz would like the government to endorse religous beliefs that he thinks would appeal to everyone, but in reality turn out satisfying very few.
Mr. Ledewitz claims that church/state separationists want a "public space without reference to religious imagery." False! Church/state separations want a government that is neutral with regard to religion, neither hindering it nor helping it. Unless he lives in a cave during Christmas, Easter and other religious occasions, the public square is already awash with religious imagery. There are at least a half dozen houses of worship within a mile radius from where I am sitting, and I live in a small suburb! Furthermore, religious institutions and their leaders are free to make their voices heard on matters of controversy and politics, but not allowed to violate the rules governing 501(c)3 organizations if they would like to keep their tax exempt status. I can't think of any prominent church/state separation proponent who has argued otherwise.
Mr. Ledewitz claims that since church/state separationists oppose public displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious materials set up by the government, then they must agree that "religious language would also have to be barred from any government-sponsored occasion, such as a presidential inauguration." Horsefeathers! The President-elect is free to mention religion as much as he likes during his inaugural speech! What many church/state separationists take issue with is government sanctioned prayers and invocations at the inaugural performed by clergy at taxpayer's expense!
I am sure Mr. Ledewitz's arguments are offered in the utmost sincerity, but they are all wet.
Sorry to be blunt, but this article is idiotic. Why not use "Allah" in a spirit of ecumenicalism? Would you be willing to "plausibly assert" that Allah prepresents the ceaseless creativity of the universe? Probably not. Whatever ethereal and vacuous conception of "God" one personally holds, what it means in the culture at large is religion- the Judeo-Christian Santa Claus, in all its ponderous and endless theological tradition.
Thus allowing the government to invoke such concepts by name is directly involving it in establishing religion, which is why such mottos as "In Allah we trust", and "One nation under Allah" are clearly attempts at establishment and should be eliminated, both in accordance with the constitution and to respect the diversity of belief and non-belief that the State has a fundamental duty to fully encompass.
As far as other instances of government speech, the distinction to be made is between speech by the government (such as mottos on coins and pledges) and speech by government officers. In an inauguration, each speaker may express him or herself as she wishes, invoking deities as they see fit. Yet the program, which is an official function, should not make a special place for Allah-talk, such as scheduling benedictions and invocations other than in the most anodyne way ("opening ceremony", perhaps). The same goes for chaplains in legislative chambers and in the armed forces- no sectarian religious person should, as such, be an officer of the government in any capacity. Nor should such persons be given special venues for their Allah-talk as parts of government functions.
I am a believing Christian (ELCA), and essentially agree with Burk (who I suspect is an atheist, if not an anti-theist).
Some seem to think that removing explicitly religious language - and no matter how you slice it, "God" is explicitly religious and cannot be made to stand, plausibly or otherwise, for anything else - from government will inevitably lead to wide-spread non-belief in God. This possibility is celebrated by some atheists and anti-theists and bemoaned by biblical literalists, Christian fundamentalists, and "scientific" creationists. I think that the evidence shows that the truth is quite the opposite - government that involves itself in the "establishment" of religion is responsible ultimately for the weakening of itself and religion, not to mention the inevitably violent deaths of its people, often at it's own hands, justified religiously.
"Under God" should be removed from the pledge (there probably shouldn't be a pledge at all). "In God We Trust" should be removed especially from our "mammon." And churches should not have flags on their altars. No doubt I will be vilified as "unamerican" or "anti-Christ" for these opinions. But I can't think of anything more American than a government that promotes and protects the right of all its citizens to hold ideas with which not all will agree, and more Christian than to express those ideas responsibly, religious or not, in the public square. On that, I think believers and non-believers ought to be able to agree, while recognizing that we are only human, and there will probably always be those who think the only way is their (God's/no-god's) way.
Hey, if we want to weaken religion to the breaking point, we should adopt a State Religion and make the Head of State the official leader. England has that system, and look what has happened to Christian dominance there!
Just kidding, of course. After all, we can't very well make the President to head of two different national churches with conflicting theology. Not kidding: religions, plural, can do very well without official backing and can well be threatened by government, as you say.
The word God is far too charged to be used as creatively as you suggest. What about "one nation, under peace, with liberty and justice for all"?
Seems to be what Mr. Ledowitz is after. I agree with most posters here, including our fellow American Fitz. Mr. Ledowitz, with your logic and approach, any word could be utilized to mean anything. A tax break would mean relief, only in the mind of the writer mind you, for some and a break, like one in a bone, for some one else. Which we all know is already happening and why politicians share low approval ratings.
It's called lying. Deception.
Let's be honest about it and use plain English to say what we mean, and mean what we say. "Under God" does not belong in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" does not belong on our money, because neither are true.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.