Rebuttal to Wild Bill Conant’s “LEAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AS IS (AND HERE’S WHY)”

This is a rebuttal to an essay by Wild Bill Conant that appeared on various sites such as this and citizensinaction.   My main theme is that when congress inserted the phrase “under God” into the pledge, congress unconstitutionally established monotheism as the national religion.  Monotheism, of course, means belief in a single deity.   Prior to the 1954 inclusion of those words in the pledge, congress had passed no laws that acknowledged the alleged existence of a single deity.  In 1954 congress did so.  That established monotheism as the national religion.  Even if 98% of Americans are monotheists of some sort (and that made-up example number is much higher than polls suggest) the constitution is designed to prevent mob rule.  Unless of course the mob changes the constitution by taking away  religious liberty for everyone who is not a monotheist.   For those who don’t know, the main monotheistic religions in the USA are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and (rather minor) B’Hai.   Many other American citizens, American taxpayers, and American servicemen and women are Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Taoist, Pagan, Santerian, Atheist, or followers of a host of other non-monotheistic faiths.  The constitution, the flag, and the very republic belongs to our neighbors who follow all of these traditions as much as it belongs to Bill and his fellow monotheists, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or B’Hai.

========================

Re Bill’s Argument #1:

First, I don’t ascribe to Bill’s argument #1 myself, but it is nonetheless in error.

Bill falsely asserts that in the pledge one does not pledge in part to the flag.  The words of the pledge itself prove Bill  wrong on this minor quibble.  I do agree (of course) that in addition to pledging to the flag we also pledge to the republic for which the flag stands.

My major quibble is that while the Founders may have thought in terms of “Natural Law”, and while many of the Founders who believed in God necessarily thought in God terms about the natural law, nonetheless the political model they created for our new nation was that of a constitutional republic, not a theocracy.  By “republic” I mean by the people for the people.  Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the people are the sole (ie the only) source of governmental authority.  Not god, but the people.

As an aside I am pleased that Bill admits what Christian defenders of “under God” in the pledge rarely admit, i.e., that the phrase “one nation under God” is intended to say we are allegedly a nation under god’s law.  In court to circumvent the Establishment Clause folks like Bill generally make the false claim that the words “under god” are really just about harmless history and theologically meaningless ceremony.  Being so clearly admitted by a constitutionalist such as Bill, it is hard for me to comprehend how he can think the phrase “under God” does not establish the religion of monotheism in our federal law.

As a last aside, I take issue with the ruling Bill cited in Newdow II because in true lawyerly fashion the court tried to change the issue.  The question is not whether a child’s recitation of the pledge is or is not a religious act.  The question is whether the 1954 congressional act that put “under God” into the pledge did or did not establish monotheism as the national religion.

Re Bill’s Argument #2

While I stop short of embracing Bill’s exact reasoning, I do agree with the gist.  The trouble is, Bill says the First Amendment bars congress from establishing a religion but in its 1954 act, congress put “under god” into the pledge.  That is to say, congress acknowledged the (alleged) existence of a single male deity some call “God” and congress further asserted – despite our history as a constitutional republic by and for the people – that the nation is “under” that deity.   Bill and I agree that congress may not establish a religion, but in this act, congress established the religion of monotheism.  That includes, of course several divisions, just as Christianity has several smaller divisions.   Monotheism is still a religion even though its scope is broader than Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam, or B’Hai.

Re Bill’s Argument #3

Well of course elected person’s religious views are reflected in their political discourse.  They nonetheless produced a god-free and religion-free constitution.  It is debatable whether the date at the bottom is actually part of the text of the document or not.  (For those that don’t know, the only place god shows up is in the phrase “year of our Lord” after all the text was concluded.)  However, it is doubtful the constitution would have been ratified without Virginia’s vote, and it is doubtful Virginia would have acceded had Madison not promised Baptist Minister John Leland that religious liberty for ALL should be included in a forthcoming amendment.  Leland later wrote in joy that the First Amendment meant that even pagans – that’s p-a-g-a-n-s PAGANS – would be on an even footing with Christians and stood a shot at office.   I note that the smart guys who wrote this stuff new darn well that “religion” meant “religion” and not just monotheistic religion. As the champion of the Establishment Clause, I should think Leland’s understanding of the scope of the First Amendment holds significant weight.  True, Christians of the day had passionate things to say about how and why government is or at least how they wanted it to be subservient to Jesus Christ, or at least to God.  There were plenty of other viewpoints expressed back then too.  What matters is that in the end, they produced a bar against congress establishing ANY religion.  That includes the broad religion of monotheism.

Re Bill’s Argument #4

Bill’s Argument #4 had something to do with compelled speech but it was too poorly developed for me to follow. Among other things since the words “under God” were only added in 1954, it is unclear what point Bill was trying to make by citing a case from 1943.

===============
NubisPertusus, ready to defend Bill’s right to pray his way at his expense on his time to whatever god(s) and/or goddess(es) he may wish, if any, provided he doesn’t unreasonably interfere with others

Not all those against “under God” in the pledge are against religion in society

When I speak up against “under God” in the pledge people keep assuming I am against all religion throughout society.   One blogger, “Miss Szymanski” at defendchristianfaith.blogspot.com writes “WHY? Why would they remove God from the Pledge?  * * * They want a nation WITHOUT God; they want to rid our society of God.”

This is rude and it is false.

It is rude because this is an example of leaping to conclusions and judgments about others without so much as a single word of dialogue beforehand.  Not very Christian behavior on the part of these folks.  We’ll see if this particular blogger corrects this oversight by posting the polite comment I left on her site and having some follow up discussion or not.

It is false because it is false. I don’t seek to rid society of religion or else I would not be prepared to die, if necessary, to defend this woman’s right to profess her version of Christianity her way at her expense on her time, in any way that does not unreasonably intrude on others.  The same goes for the same right to religious liberty enjoyed by my Hindu friends, my Buddhist friends, my Taoist friends, my pagan friends, my atheist friends, and my Christian friends which span the gamut from Jehova witness, Mormon, and Catholic, to Quaker and non-denominational.

Want to proselytize?  No problem, provided you aren’t overly invasive and your audience can walk away.  Want to stand about and pray in public on public property?  No problem, so long as its on your own time at your expense and you’re not causing disruption or safety problems regarding other people’s equal access and use of the public space.

In fact, in my view it is the duty of every patriot to defend everyone’s right to practice their religion their way, within these parameters.  That duty is no greater if we are of the same faith, and it is no less if we are of different faiths.  The right to religious liberty is of equal magnitude for all citizens, regardless of creed.

That said about your PRIVATE right to religious liberty, I am equally opposed to government expressing or even appearing to express opinions on the existence of “God” or any other deities and related subjects.

This is what the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is all about.

Thus, when those who oppose the over-Christianization of government by defending religious liberty under the First Amendment are accused of trying to purge “God”  from all aspects of society, that is sometimes true and sometimes false.  It depends on who we are talking about.  It is true that some activists do indeed want to purge society of all expressions of religion.  I don’t, and neither do many of my colleagues.   Accusing us of this ultimate goal without so much as a single word of inquiry is a perfect example of fear mongering by the ultra-right christians among us.   The same sort of fear-mongering was one of the tools Hitler used to gradually cajole the German people into thinking less and condemning others more.   I doubt the true Christians in the audience so dearly want political power that they are willing to be associated with that political strategy -  which is what fear mongering is, after all.  A tool for political power.

The antidote (or maybe the vaccine) is respectful dialogue with those of differing views.  Again, we’ll see if the blogger referenced above wishes to censor my views or post my polite comments for followup discussion on her site.

==========================

Nubis Pertusus, ready to defend your right to pray at your expense, on your time, in your way, to whatever god(s) and/or goddess(es) you like, provided you don’t unreasonably intrude on others.

Flag-folding symbolism: Religious lies masquerading as fact, aided by VFW!

It fills me with joy that on some national holidays many Americans pull out their American flags and fly them carefully and with dignity, pulling them down when it rains or gets dark.  I fly the flag myself.  However, when it comes time to fold the flag, a pernicious lie invariably crops up on the internet and at public ceremonies.        According to the lie, when the US flag is folded into that neat little triangle, each of the various folds has a particular official meaning.  That is FALSE FALSE FALSE.

The folding ceremony is very old.   In some rather recent year some unknown Christian poet belatedly penned these supposedly official meanings to conform to the already-old traditional folding ceremony.   As a private profession of meaning, I congratulate that poet for expressing their personal views so eloquently!  I have no problem with people either (a) belonging to any given religion if they find meaning in it, or (b) doing the same sort of thing by privately embracing this poet’s ascribed meanings for the flag folding ceremony.  Fine, whatever works for you.

The LIE creeps in when people who know the recently penned poem is just that – a private person’s recent poetry – but they nonetheless assert the meanings as being some sort of official expression.    The supposed meanings are overtly religious in the Christian vision.  For example some of the poetry goes like this:   “The second fold is a symbol of our belief in eternal life…. The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn, in times of peace as well as in times of war, for His divine guidance.”

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment prohibits government from adopting any such “meaning”.    So while it was perfectly fine for for this unknown Christian to belatedly ascribe some personal meanings to the folds,   their work is being unconscionably spread around as though it is an official statement by the government about who we are as a people, but that is NOT true!   The US Flag Code is spelled out in federal law.  There are no meanings included in the act.   These meanings have never been adopted by any legislative body as an official part of how we honor the flag.

Innocently forwarding these meanings or using them in a flag ceremony as though they are official when they are not is a forgivable oversight to check the facts first.  Forwarding or using them as though they are official when you KNOW they are not official (which many chapters of the VFW are now doing) is an attack on our constitution and the very republic for which the flag itself is a symbol.

While I value the service of our armed forces, I value the republic and the constitution they are defending more.  Unbelievably, one of the most auspicious organizations that is propagating this attack on our constitution  is none other than the congressionally-chartered Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).   My most recent review of the VFW’s central website did not find these supposed meanings, but various chapters are still asserting them.  For example this and this.  Shame on those chapters of the VFW and others who have seized this solemn occasion to advance their own political and religious agendas.

I submit that meanings were assigned to the flag-folding ceremony by a Christian to further indoctrinate and perpetuate the myth that America is a Christian culture and a Christian society, instead of a constitutional republic that respects all faiths equally. It is fine to report that some folks like this imagery. It is simply untrue to report it as official policy, and an attack on one of our founding pillars to promote its use.   Doing so when you know otherwise…. that is what we call a “lie”, and it is a lie calculated to deny equal religious liberty to every American regardless of faith.  That is not the idealistic vision we inherited from our Founders.

I suppose I should repeat – again – that I think this private person’s poetry is just fine.  I support the reading of the “meanings” at any private and voluntary ceremony, provided the program states that these meanings are not official, and provided that any other dignified text could be read instead.   That protects religious freedom for everyone, including Christians.

Here is what some others have had to say about it:

==========
Here is an excerpt from the Sons of the Conneticut Society of the American Revolution
http://www.connecticutsar.org/flag_etiquette….
“A properly proportioned flag will fold 13 times on the triangles, representing the 13 Original Colonies. When finally complete the triangular folded flag is emblematic of the tri-corner hat worn by the Patriots of the American Revolution. When folded no red or white stripe is to be evident leaving only the honor field of blue and stars.”
==========
Here is an excerpt from Snopes (famous for hoax busting and fact checking on the internet)
http://www.snopes.com/military/flagfold.asp
“The American flag isn’t folded in this manner because each of the folds has a special symbolic meaning; the flag is folded this way because it provides a dignified ceremonial touch that distinguishes folding a flag from folding an
ordinary object such as a bedsheet, and because it results a visually pleasing, easy-to-handle shape. This thirteen-fold procedure was a common practice long before the creation of a ceremonial assignation of “meaning” to each of the steps.”
==========
Here is an excerpt from USHistory.org , sponsored by the Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia
“[This]is an unofficial, but popular script for folding the flag. It does not appear in the Flag Code and would appear to be in violation of military guidelines, in violation of the Establishment Clause [found in the First Amendment of the US Constitution]. The Establishment Clause requires that expression not create the reasonable impression that the government is sponsoring, endorsing, or inhibiting religion generally, or favoring or disfavoring a particular religion.”

=========

Another blog with good points.  http://wp.me/p1dDS-jy Among other things this poster asks why not just use the script that US Air Force has been using for a long time?   He also points out that for a time the Dept of Veteran Affairs had been using these meanings for funeral ceremonies, but when the unofficial poetic and very recent nature of these meanings was pointed out, the department ceased using the meanings as an automatic thing and now invites families to request any comparable script, whether religious or otherwise, to be read during the folding of the flag.  The department’s current policy is here:  http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1406

In case you’re interested, yes, I fly the US flag on national holidays.  I learned to respect it on my way to becoming an Eagle Scout a long long time ago.   I also learned to respect my neighbors who have different faiths, the union of the states,  and the US Constitution which makes it possible.

Or at least, used to.   How long before we have religious wars in this country if we turn our back on the Establishment Clause?   Is the VFW ready to shoulder its part of the blame?

Nubis Pertusus

Mike Huckabee’s Nazi-like rant about the flag and religion

Check this out:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/11/06/mike_huckabees_flag_fetish.php

Home Depot says no ‘One nation under God’ on store aprons

A story from Florida dated October 23 2009 reports how a man, Trevor Keezer, was fired from his Home Depot job for a conflict surrounding a personal button.   Rumors in the blogosphere report that he was not asked to hide the button or leave it at home but merely to move the button from his Home Depot apron to his own personal shirt.   Whether that is true or not, you might wonder why there is such a fuss over a button?  The message on the button was a quote from the Pledge of Allegiance, “One Nation Under God”, and so he’s quickly getting attention – undeserved attention – as an American patriot.   The only way anyone can think that phrase in the pledge is patriotic is if they are ignorant of its history.

If the pin were Trevor’s words it would be one thing, but it’s presented as a quote from the Pledge of Allegiance.  Unfortunately genuine patriotism in a democracy requires truth about the facts no matter how painful.  The truth is that the 1954 congress inserted the phrase “under God” into the pledge NOT merely to acknowledge history and NOT merely as a meaningless act of “Ceremonial deism” as some supreme court justices call it.  No, the 1954 congress made a religious statement about God and the purpose of contrasting the USA to atheist USSR was just the pretext to ignore the constitution at the time.

Mr. Keezer’s personal faith (and mine)  is a glorious thing, but for congress to take a position on the subject is not.

I’d like to note we fought WWII without “under God” in the pledge, and things turned OK.  Apparently, God did not object to our secular government during that conflict.

Ironically, if  “under God” really is a theologically meaningless expression of “ceremonial deism”, then those meaningless words take His name in vain, which is a sin.   Meanwhile, Christians who devoutly believe those words are a reference to the Lord Almighty try to defend them in court by arguing “it’s just a nod to history” or “it’s just meaningless ceremonial deism”.   That’s the sin called bearing false witness as well as a denial of the Lord.

We all know the phrase is about religion, and religion is about Truth.   So what are we teaching our kids by getting them to mouth the words which appear in the pledge for reasons that we lie about?    Does that teach them Truth or bring them closer to God?     Personally, I think our kids learn that it is OK to lie and to dodge responsibility for their actions, and if cheap lawyer tricks help them do that, so be it.  They learn by example not by words, you know.

The only solution – if this were about either Truth or a genuine patriotism for our constitutional republic – is for Christians to joyfully undo this deceit by removing those words from the pledge and instead pursuing  an upfront honest process to amend the constitution by declaring this a Christian nation.  Of course that would mean an end to over 200 years of religious liberty.  Oops.

There is another bizarre irony in this story.  Christians who wish to pass such an amendment here – or flaunt buttons that trumpet deceitful words on their Home Depot aprons – also tend to advocate our military actions overseas, which in part are supposedly trying to teach religious liberty to the warring factions of Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims over there.   Maybe we should learn to value religious liberty for all faiths – even the one’s that are not about God – here first, before trying to preach those values over there? I mean, didn’t the Son of God say something about first getting the plank out of your own eye?

In short, we can either drop “under God” from the pledge to give all Americans equal religious liberty today, or we can lose both religious liberty and the constitution tomorrow.

One nation under God = One nation under Zeus

At least two federal judges on the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agree that “under God” should not be in the pledge.  Granted, a procedural problem with the case caused the supreme court to void this opinion.   The important thing is that this is not a frivolous issue or silly argument.  Two federal judges agree that the constitution prohibited Congress from inserting “under God” in the pledge.   The court said:

“‘In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God‘. . . is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. . . .To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – monotheism.   The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God.  A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus’, a nation ‘under Vishnu’, a nation ‘under Zeus’, or a nation ‘under no god’, because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”

If people want “under God” to remain in the pledge even though it is unconstitutional, then – obviously – those folks should be fighting for a constitutional amendment which would kill religious liberty, because if these two federal judges are correct, that’s what it will take to keep God in the pledge.   Somehow, I don’t think the founders would be pleased if the nation tosses religious liberty.

Pledge of Allegiance and “one nation under God”

One would think that the 1954 acts which wrote “under God” and “in God we Trust” into federal law would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.   After all these phrases, with their capital G, appear to establish an official preference for the deity at the heart of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and B’Hai faiths.   Let’s set aside the fact Muslims prefer to use the name “Allah” or that some Jews have relied on “Yahweh”.   The fact remains that many US citizens – and even some soldiers – are Hindu and worship many gods, Buddhist who seek spiritual growth without any gods, Wiccan and pray to a female (”The Goddess”), and so on.  None of these other citizens have a relationship with “God” (capital G) unless they translate that proper noun in their own mind to something else dear to their hearts.  Many are persons of integrity and admirable devotion to their respective faiths, and believe that relying on the Christian name of “God” would be a denial of their own faith.  Thousands of Christians have become martyrs for less.  Why should anyone have less respect for these non-Christians who can not in good conscience translate”God” into something more palatable?

Some folks argue that “under God” is a generic term, which people are free to translate in their minds.   At least two  federal circuit judges cast a skeptical eye on that argument, suggesting that folks try for size “one nation under Zeus”, implying that Christians could then contemplate how they would feel if  THEY were expected to do the translation.  This exercise clearly demonstrates that “one nation under God” (capital G) stands for the deity worshipped by some folks and not by others.   Regardless what I think about that supernatural deity in my private life, Congress had no business establishing an official preference for Him (capital H) in federal law.

When put on the spot some justices have opined that the phrase “under God”  (capital G) is nothing more than a theologically empty expression of “ceremonial deism”.    If so, then these phrases take the Lord’s name in vain, which is a sin.  Further, those folks who disagree with the court by finding the Lord in these phrases must not rely on the court’s ruling of theological emptiness, because doing so would be a way of bearing false witness, which is also a sin.

Defenders of those words – usually overtly Christian – typically argue in court that the words are about history and about ceremony, but not about God and religion.  Well, of COURSE the words are about God and religion.  We all know they are about God and religion.   “One nation under God” describes a nation that officially believes in monotheism, i.e., that a single god does in fact exist, whom many call “God”.  Nobody thinks the words “under God”, with its capital G, is the equivalent of  mere ceremony or a paragraph of history.   It is about monotheism and the monotheistic family of Judeo-Christian-Islamic-B’hai religions.   Isn’t it ironic that Christian defenders of the words emphatically say they are about history and ceremonial deism but not God and religion?  As if God can’t stand on His own simply relying on telling the truth!   As if God needs disingenuous lawyering to pass judicial muster!   This strikes me as a terrible bit of human arrogance.

In my view, the pledge should be restored to its pre-1954 version, which was the same as today but without the words “under God”.  We fought WWII with that version of the pledge.  God apparently didn’t mind, since the war turned out OK.  Would it be such a bad thing to go back?  Why are SO MANY people opposed to removing those words?  I mean, if they are just about history and ceremony, who would really care?  No, the words are about the single male god called “God” and the many forms of monotheism.   It will take a brave, brave court to say this simple truth and then let the constitutional chips fall where they may.

No doubt a constitutional amendment would be proposed to declare us a Christian nation.  The resulting public discourse would do everyone a world of good.