SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI :

Newdow v. U.S. Congress

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. 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. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

This is the most disturbing part of the court's opinion, because it reflects a complete failure to understand that the American Republic is in fact grounded on not just monotheism but Judeo-Christianity and that without that grounding it will perish. A hundred years of liberal domination of academia have managed to convince many people that the Founders held no strong religious beliefs or, at best, acknowledged some kind of watchmaker version of God. This is antihistorical and is contradicted even by the Founding documents.

As the Declaration makes clear, the very basis of our assertion of political rights flows from the idea that we were Created with such rights. Unpleasant as it may be for the irreligious to contemplate, in the absence of God (and by that we do mean the God of Abraham) there simply is no coherent basis for human rights (nor for morality, for that matter). Adding the phrase "under Vishnu" to the Pledge would not be unconstitutional--it would just be wrong. Whereas this truly is, or was, a nation "under God". We've addressed these issues more fully in this review, and can't recommend the book under review highly enough.

But setting even this fundamental question aside, there is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits such a voluntary pledge. The language of the text could not possibly be clearer : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... . Given that several states actually had established religions at the time the Constitution was adopted and were allowed to keep them, it seems obvious that all the provision was meant to do was to prevent the establishment of a single national religion. All of the drivel about separation of church and state is merely the opinion of unelected judges and its application to our laws is antidemocratic.

It will be argued that the First is at least applicable, in whatever form, to the States because of the doctrine of incorporation. This too is judge-made twaddle and antidemocratic. Are we such inartful drafters that we couldn't explicitly incorporate States under the Bill of Rights if we so chose and give them an opportunity to determine whether they choose to be bound ?

Finally, no matter how many judges believe something to be unconstitutional, that which 280+ million American citizens believe to be constitutional and which belief they have by long tradition and practice demonstrated, is, therefore, constitutional. Two hundred years of praying in public schools and reciting the pledge is not a tradition to be lightly discarded. It is some sense must be considered to be part of the structure that undergirds our nation. One should kick at such structural supports only with great trepidation. When the courts intervene in these kinds of quintessentially moral matters they have in almost every instance done our society harm. Such interventions represent nothing more than the desire of intellectual elites to circumvent democratic processes in order to impose their will. It is this tendency that makes the judiciary the most dangerous branch of government. This ruling should simply be ignored. As Andrew Jackson said of Justice Marshall, and as we all should have said many times since : they've made their ruling, now let them enforce it, if they can.

A few folks over the last few days have said that this ruling, though annoying, pales in importance in comparison to the war on terrorism--this is precisely backwards. Al Qaeda poses no threat to our republic. They are a temporary phenomenon, associated with a failing civilization, destined to be little more than a footnote in the history books. The far greater threat to our society is that we continue to distance ourselves and our political system from the religious beliefs that are required for a healthy democracy and a decent culture.

Perhaps that's just our inevitable destiny. Maybe the conservative critique is right and a political system that is structured to gratify the debased desires of mass men is doomed to a kind of cultural suicide, as we see occurring throughout post-Christian Europe.
Perhaps, as Albert Jay Nock believed, we will simply grow bored with our own hideousness and seek annihilation. When the bell tolls for American democracy, it won't be rung by crazed Arabs, but by a people who have become so detached from the Judeo-Christian morality that once supported the republic that death will appear preferable to a continued deracinated existence.

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a citizen approached Benjamin Franklin and asked him : "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" He responded : "A republic if you can keep it". Maybe we can't.

UPDATE :
On the other hand, Patrick Ruffini says it's good for Republicans!

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 27, 2002 11:06 AM