Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 25, 2003 0:16:55 GMT -5
'Civic' God disturbs more than atheists
Click here to read the article on the original site
By: Frank L. Pasquale
Published: November 20, 2003
Publication: The Oregonian
In the essay, "Erasing God at our peril" (Nov. 16) associate editor Mary Pitman Kitch proposes that deleting "under God" from the "Pledge of Allegiance," thus restoring pre-1954 wording, would be an act of "symbolic vandalism." But why should a congressionally ordained national pledge contain a symbolic monument of religious faith? A similar reflection of what the essay describes as a "faith so formative of our nation's character," the act of placing one's hand on a Christian Bible as an oath before giving testimony, has rightly been erased as a uniform requirement in courts of law.
Should children be protected from a "patriotic ritual that contains a single echo of . . . faith?" the essay asks. But a more important question is whether public schoolchildren should be required to link a pledge of national allegiance with religious faith, whether or not they or their families endorse this. The U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the requirement of religious oaths for public office; why should it be otherwise with respect to national pledges of political allegiance?
It is indeed unreasonable to seek to purge every historical religious reference. References to God on our money or in our national anthem are fairly deemed "civil" in nature and scarcely worthy of public dispute. But political pledges are hardly minimal. They are conscious expressions with serious intent. As the essay notes, many civil references to God are not at all minimal to those who believe in them. Why, then, should such references in pledges or oaths be considered negligible by citizens who do not endorse them or their connection with patriotism or truthfulness?
It is not only "atheists and others who loathe" so-called civil religious expressions who object to "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance." Many religious citizens hold that those things that are Caesar's and things that are God's should not be conjoined. Both religious and nonreligious citizens can object, even as they look tolerantly on all voluntary personal expressions of religion in the "public square."
The essay criticizes Jefferson's "wall of separation" as "shot full of holes." It is an inapt metaphor for the complex relationship and judicious institutional separation of church and state. But there is perhaps a better metaphor: an international border -- not straight or neat or always clearly marked. James Madison's hope of "a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters" is unattainable. This is a notably imperfect institutional border but one worth guarding vigilantly for the protection of church, state and all citizens.
In this particular border dispute, I differ with Kitch. Every citizen enjoys the right to infuse his or her religious beliefs into any patriotic utterance in any venue. But I question the justice, constitutionality and purported triviality of a congressionally established expression of theism in a national pledge of political allegiance.
Removing a theistic insertion that never should have been made in the first place may indeed "spark a red-white-and-blue revolt." But does any religious group -- even a majority -- have the right to force its religious expressions or beliefs on all citizens through public policy? The answer to this question given by the framers in our Constitution was an explicit "No" -- historical holdovers, minimal exceptions and personal beliefs about civil religion, notwithstanding.
The essay suggests that trying to remove "under God" could be "sadly polarizing."
But the seed of polarization was planted in 1954 with the phrase's insertion. While the personal expression of religious freedom was an appropriate rebuttal to the suppression of religious liberty in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the violation of such liberty by congressional fiat here at home was not. For while millions of citizens may endorse such a linkage, millions of other religious and nonreligious citizens do not.
Frank L. Pasquale, Ph.D., is a Southwest Portland resident and cultural anthropologist doing research on church-state relations, religion, morality and ethics.
Click here to read the article on the original site
By: Frank L. Pasquale
Published: November 20, 2003
Publication: The Oregonian
In the essay, "Erasing God at our peril" (Nov. 16) associate editor Mary Pitman Kitch proposes that deleting "under God" from the "Pledge of Allegiance," thus restoring pre-1954 wording, would be an act of "symbolic vandalism." But why should a congressionally ordained national pledge contain a symbolic monument of religious faith? A similar reflection of what the essay describes as a "faith so formative of our nation's character," the act of placing one's hand on a Christian Bible as an oath before giving testimony, has rightly been erased as a uniform requirement in courts of law.
Should children be protected from a "patriotic ritual that contains a single echo of . . . faith?" the essay asks. But a more important question is whether public schoolchildren should be required to link a pledge of national allegiance with religious faith, whether or not they or their families endorse this. The U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the requirement of religious oaths for public office; why should it be otherwise with respect to national pledges of political allegiance?
It is indeed unreasonable to seek to purge every historical religious reference. References to God on our money or in our national anthem are fairly deemed "civil" in nature and scarcely worthy of public dispute. But political pledges are hardly minimal. They are conscious expressions with serious intent. As the essay notes, many civil references to God are not at all minimal to those who believe in them. Why, then, should such references in pledges or oaths be considered negligible by citizens who do not endorse them or their connection with patriotism or truthfulness?
It is not only "atheists and others who loathe" so-called civil religious expressions who object to "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance." Many religious citizens hold that those things that are Caesar's and things that are God's should not be conjoined. Both religious and nonreligious citizens can object, even as they look tolerantly on all voluntary personal expressions of religion in the "public square."
The essay criticizes Jefferson's "wall of separation" as "shot full of holes." It is an inapt metaphor for the complex relationship and judicious institutional separation of church and state. But there is perhaps a better metaphor: an international border -- not straight or neat or always clearly marked. James Madison's hope of "a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters" is unattainable. This is a notably imperfect institutional border but one worth guarding vigilantly for the protection of church, state and all citizens.
In this particular border dispute, I differ with Kitch. Every citizen enjoys the right to infuse his or her religious beliefs into any patriotic utterance in any venue. But I question the justice, constitutionality and purported triviality of a congressionally established expression of theism in a national pledge of political allegiance.
Removing a theistic insertion that never should have been made in the first place may indeed "spark a red-white-and-blue revolt." But does any religious group -- even a majority -- have the right to force its religious expressions or beliefs on all citizens through public policy? The answer to this question given by the framers in our Constitution was an explicit "No" -- historical holdovers, minimal exceptions and personal beliefs about civil religion, notwithstanding.
The essay suggests that trying to remove "under God" could be "sadly polarizing."
But the seed of polarization was planted in 1954 with the phrase's insertion. While the personal expression of religious freedom was an appropriate rebuttal to the suppression of religious liberty in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the violation of such liberty by congressional fiat here at home was not. For while millions of citizens may endorse such a linkage, millions of other religious and nonreligious citizens do not.
Frank L. Pasquale, Ph.D., is a Southwest Portland resident and cultural anthropologist doing research on church-state relations, religion, morality and ethics.
