Response from Barry Lynn:
The core of your argument is that government may endorse religion in a "generic" or general sense. You concede that the state may not favor the doctrines of one church over others and assert that there is a "virtual consensus" on this question. (I might dispute that notion, having during my career encountered many in the Religious Right who would be only too happy to have the government endorse their "true" faith since -- but that's another debate.)
But the argument fails because there is no such thing as "generic" religion, nor is there a shared consensus in this country that religion is always a benign and positive force that can and should be promoted by the state, as long as we don't get too serious about it.
We agree that the government may not affirm that Jesus is Lord. Why then, may the state affirm that there is but one God -- an assertion that millions of Americans do not share? The Constitution requires the government to remain neutral on religion. A state affirmation that God exists, and that our nation is ruled by him, is not neutrality; it is an example of the government taking sides on a profound theological question.
Atheists do not believe in God. Buddhists lack belief in a personal God. Wiccans and neo-Pagans see manifestations of the goddess all around us in nature. Polytheists believe in many gods. Agnostics have their doubts about God's existence. For many of these people, a state-sponsored declaration that our nation is "under God" or trusts in God is inaccurate and offensive. The fact that the God appealed to is generic or somehow pan-theistic does not lessen the constitutional offense in their eyes.
The issue goes beyond the mere question of whether the government may make religious statements. Those who disagree with what has been called "ceremonial deism" are left with hard choices: Should their children go along with "under God" in a public school Pledge or ask to be excused -- thus singling themselves out as different? Should an atheist agree to swear on a Bible in court just to get along or ask for an alternative -- again, setting himself apart as somehow different, perhaps "less American" in the eyes of the majority?
It is easy for the believer to dismiss these concerns as overblown or trivial. Yet they are fundamental issues of conscience for many Americans. In my view, the state must bend over backward to make sure that no American is made to feel like a second-class citizen because of what he or she believes or does not believe about God. What the individual thinks about religion should be completely irrelevant to his or her standing before the government.
You assert that an understanding of church-state separation that excluded generic endorsements of faith would be "radically out of synch" with historical practices. Given that the Supreme Court has been ruling against state-supported religion in public schools since the late 1940s, I believe this is a dubious proposition. But even giving it the benefit of the doubt, we must keep in mind that people who are ";radically out of synch" with tradition sometimes challenge a culture in profound and meaningful ways. Would we have had a civil rights movement without some radically out-of-synch people? The radically out-of-synch gay couples currently getting married in San Francisco could spark a backlash -- but they are also forcing society to reexamine some long-held assumptions and prejudices. Many believe they are laying the groundwork for the next great leap in civil rights.
At the end of the day, it is not enough to say that practices are good because we have always done them -- or even that we like them so much that we will threaten to change our Constitution to protect them.
Most Americans may not be ready for a serious examination of the value of the state's continuing promotion of watered-down, one-size-fits-all spirituality. But if the Pledge case has done nothing else, it has opened that debate. I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule in this case, but I suspect that the dialogue will continue.
I welcome that discussion both as an attorney and as a minister. After all, I want to promote a religion I find meaningful -- and that's absolutely not the superficial "faith" offered by the by-rote repetition of phrases like "under God."
Response from Michael Perry:
I applaud much that you say in your opening statement. We agree that:
- Millions of Americans do not believe in the God that religious Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in. Many do not believe in God at all.
- * Many of these Americans (though surely not all of them) are offended by the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge.
- * It is a good thing that some Americans are "radically out of synch with the tradition and/or culture, because that's often the way to a more enlightened tradition and culture. (I myself am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War.) >
- "By-rote, watered-down expressions of religiosity" leave a lot to be desired.
But nothing you've said supports the proposition that having "under God" in the Pledge violates the establishment clause.
The issue at hand is not whether having "under God" in the Pledge is, all things considered, a good idea. The issue, rather, is whether it is unconstitutional -- whether it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This seems to me the fundamental issue at hand.
It is less than clear where the Court stands with respect to this issue. I suspect that most members of the Court would prefer not to have to address the issue at all. Justice Thomas, by contrast, is probably thrilled to have his hands on it.
There are two grounds on which the court could uphold "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" as the national motto.
For one, the Supreme Court could decide that by having "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" as the national motto, government is not affirming any truly religious premises. In his dissenting opinion in Marsh v. Chambers, William Brennan (joined by Thurgood Marshall) wrote: "I frankly do not know what should be the proper disposition of features of our public life such as 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court,' 'In God We Trust,' 'One Nation Under God,' and the like. I might well adhere to the view... that such mottoes are consistent with the Establishment Clause... because they have lost any true religious significance." Following Justice Brennan's lead, one might be tempted to argue that having "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" as the national motto, or the like, is not unconstitutional because the premises that government thereby affirms are not really religious premises; such statements are, instead, merely ceremonial utterances devoid of authentically religious content.
This may be a convenient strategy for concluding that having "under God" in the Pledge (or the like) is not unconstitutional, but it is a palpably disingenuous strategy. There are some citizens, no doubt, for whom the affirmed premises are merely ceremonial, religiously empty utterances; it is simply mistaken, however, to think that the premises are religiously empty for most, or even for many, citizens of the United States -- or that they were religiously empty for the members of Congress who, in 1954, added under God" to the Pledge.
As I previously argued, however, the Supreme Court would not need to deploy this disingenuous strategy in support of a decision that keeps "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Notwithstanding what the Court has sometimes said, they can conclude that the government may affirm some religious premises so long as it neither favors any particular religion nor coerces affirmation of any premises.
Barry Lynn is the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Michael J. Perry teaches law at Emory University and is the author of "Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy." Jeff Dubner is an editorial intern for The American Prospect.
