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

Advertisement

Tags: allegiance, god, one nation under god, pledge of allegiance, Politics, religion, under god