An excellent piece by Celery Blink on the subject (with permission):
- - - - - - -
I was recently asked to make the argument against having “under God” in the Pledge. This is an excerpt from the full argument for anyone interested....
Separation of Church and State and the potential for a “tyranny of the majority” in a Democratic-Republican form of government.
Our founders significantly formed the first government in the history of the world that did not establish religion. They threw off the tyranny of rule by kings and churches—which had existed for centuries--and successfully established a form of government by and for the People instead.....
The only reference to religion in the body of the U.S. Constitution is in the negative...
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
- U.S. Constitution: Article VI
...and the First Amendment is mainly focused on the rights of the individual to have freedom of conscience. This includes the right of the individual to express their conscience through speech, through religion, through the press, in assemblies with other individuals, and by petition to the government for redress of grievances. It also attempts to prevent government from imposing on the freedom of conscience of the individual by establishing religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
- U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
James Madison, our 4th President and “Father of our Constitution,” worried that the biggest threat to this Democratic-Republican form of government would be from a “tyranny of the majority.” He wrote to Jefferson in October 1787 asking when “a majority... united by a common interest or passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?” He predicted that “If [one] sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will sure to be depressed.”
He went on to say that he hoped that the new nation would be large and diverse enough, with enough “different interests and parties... that no common interest or passion to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit.”
In another letter to Jefferson, he wrote, “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”
In Federalist Paper 51 he wrote, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
Without going into the long story, he eventually became convinced that it might be necessary to amend the Constitution to further protect the rights of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” This is why in addition to being known as the “Father of the Constitution,” he is also known as the “Architect of the Bill of Rights.”
I understand that some may quibble over the fact that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that there should be a separation between Church and State, but let’s hear what Madison, the “Architect of the Bill of Rights” had to say...
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"Who does not see that the same authority, which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"
"The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State."
Madison had much to say on this subject that I will pass over here for brevity’s sake, but he hoped that separating church from state would "keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (which the First Amendment is partially based), wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state."
Later, quoting himself from an earlier letter, he would write:
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Jefferson also had concerns over the “tyranny of the majority.” In his First Inaugural Address, he said:
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”
This was also something George Washington, our first president was concerned about when he said,
"Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others."
In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
Note that not establishing "religion" is different than not establishing "a religion." The latter addresses merely not preferring one religion over the other (which certainly still applies to most of this and is still an aspect in the former), while the former goes further by addressing religion entirely.
Also for brevity’s sake, I will not go into all the Supreme Court and other judicial rulings which determined how the First Amendment should be interpreted in various cases, but I will cite this one as it directly relates to what I just said above:
“First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.... Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids ONLY governmental preference of one religion over another” (Justice Tom C. Clark, majority opinion, U. S. Supreme Court, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 – 1963)
[The emphasis above is mine.]
The Pledge, the National Motto, and the McCarthy Era
Madison worried that "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
He was right to be worried....
The original Pledge, as written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892, read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
At a National Flag Conference in 1924, the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution changed the words "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America."
So, from 1924 through 1954, the Pledge read:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, during the McCarthy era and Cold War "red scare" of communism, a bill was passed by Congress, and was signed into law, adding the words "under God" to the Pledge:
The Pledge currently reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Thus, a secular and all-inclusive Pledge was replaced by a religious and exclusive Pledge, dividing the "indivisible" and not providing "justice for all."
The inspiring words "one nation indivisible" is the way the original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It defined the nation as a melting pot to which people from all backgrounds and beliefs could contribute. No American was excluded in that statement.
When the phrase "under God" was inserted into the Pledge in 1954, it was a direct and deliberate insult to all Americans who do not believe in a monotheistic God and all Americans who believe in the founding ideals of this country not to establish religion.
It is ironic -- and sad -- that the words "under God" were used to divide the supposedly “indivisible.” Adding “under God” in the Pledge between “one Nation” and “indivisible” makes a lie out of these words.
On July 4, 1776, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by the Continental Congress to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. Although this first design was rejected, the motto it contained-"E Pluribus Unum"-was retained in the final design that was approved in 1782. As a result, "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) became our de facto National Motto.
During the Civil War Era, eleven Protestant denominations began a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Their efforts resulted in the phrase "In God We Trust" being added to some Union coins. Later, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed his disapproval, writing: "...it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements." He thought it came "dangerously close to sacrilege."
In 1956, again during the McCarthy era and Cold War "red scare" of communism, Congress passed a joint resolution making "In God We Trust" our National Motto.
Thus, our secular and all-inclusive de facto National Motto was superseded by a religious and exclusive National Motto.
So, within a couple of short years in the 1950s, the founding ideals of this country were undermined. Anyone who didn’t believe in a monotheistic “God” was made to feel like a second-class citizen in their own country, marginalizing them to an even greater extent than they already were marginalized socially.
How can we have "liberty for all"? How can we be "one nation"? How can we be "indivisible," if the changed Pledge and new national motto excludes some of the people?
Etc., etc.
- - - - - - -
I was recently asked to make the argument against having “under God” in the Pledge. This is an excerpt from the full argument for anyone interested....
Separation of Church and State and the potential for a “tyranny of the majority” in a Democratic-Republican form of government.
Our founders significantly formed the first government in the history of the world that did not establish religion. They threw off the tyranny of rule by kings and churches—which had existed for centuries--and successfully established a form of government by and for the People instead.....
The only reference to religion in the body of the U.S. Constitution is in the negative...
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
- U.S. Constitution: Article VI
...and the First Amendment is mainly focused on the rights of the individual to have freedom of conscience. This includes the right of the individual to express their conscience through speech, through religion, through the press, in assemblies with other individuals, and by petition to the government for redress of grievances. It also attempts to prevent government from imposing on the freedom of conscience of the individual by establishing religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
- U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
James Madison, our 4th President and “Father of our Constitution,” worried that the biggest threat to this Democratic-Republican form of government would be from a “tyranny of the majority.” He wrote to Jefferson in October 1787 asking when “a majority... united by a common interest or passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?” He predicted that “If [one] sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will sure to be depressed.”
He went on to say that he hoped that the new nation would be large and diverse enough, with enough “different interests and parties... that no common interest or passion to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit.”
In another letter to Jefferson, he wrote, “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”
In Federalist Paper 51 he wrote, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
Without going into the long story, he eventually became convinced that it might be necessary to amend the Constitution to further protect the rights of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” This is why in addition to being known as the “Father of the Constitution,” he is also known as the “Architect of the Bill of Rights.”
I understand that some may quibble over the fact that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say that there should be a separation between Church and State, but let’s hear what Madison, the “Architect of the Bill of Rights” had to say...
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"Who does not see that the same authority, which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"
"The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State."
Madison had much to say on this subject that I will pass over here for brevity’s sake, but he hoped that separating church from state would "keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
Thomas Jefferson, our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (which the First Amendment is partially based), wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state."
Later, quoting himself from an earlier letter, he would write:
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Jefferson also had concerns over the “tyranny of the majority.” In his First Inaugural Address, he said:
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”
This was also something George Washington, our first president was concerned about when he said,
"Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others."
In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
Note that not establishing "religion" is different than not establishing "a religion." The latter addresses merely not preferring one religion over the other (which certainly still applies to most of this and is still an aspect in the former), while the former goes further by addressing religion entirely.
Also for brevity’s sake, I will not go into all the Supreme Court and other judicial rulings which determined how the First Amendment should be interpreted in various cases, but I will cite this one as it directly relates to what I just said above:
“First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.... Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids ONLY governmental preference of one religion over another” (Justice Tom C. Clark, majority opinion, U. S. Supreme Court, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 – 1963)
[The emphasis above is mine.]
The Pledge, the National Motto, and the McCarthy Era
Madison worried that "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
He was right to be worried....
The original Pledge, as written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892, read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
At a National Flag Conference in 1924, the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution changed the words "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America."
So, from 1924 through 1954, the Pledge read:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, during the McCarthy era and Cold War "red scare" of communism, a bill was passed by Congress, and was signed into law, adding the words "under God" to the Pledge:
The Pledge currently reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Thus, a secular and all-inclusive Pledge was replaced by a religious and exclusive Pledge, dividing the "indivisible" and not providing "justice for all."
The inspiring words "one nation indivisible" is the way the original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It defined the nation as a melting pot to which people from all backgrounds and beliefs could contribute. No American was excluded in that statement.
When the phrase "under God" was inserted into the Pledge in 1954, it was a direct and deliberate insult to all Americans who do not believe in a monotheistic God and all Americans who believe in the founding ideals of this country not to establish religion.
It is ironic -- and sad -- that the words "under God" were used to divide the supposedly “indivisible.” Adding “under God” in the Pledge between “one Nation” and “indivisible” makes a lie out of these words.
On July 4, 1776, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by the Continental Congress to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. Although this first design was rejected, the motto it contained-"E Pluribus Unum"-was retained in the final design that was approved in 1782. As a result, "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) became our de facto National Motto.
During the Civil War Era, eleven Protestant denominations began a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Their efforts resulted in the phrase "In God We Trust" being added to some Union coins. Later, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed his disapproval, writing: "...it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements." He thought it came "dangerously close to sacrilege."
In 1956, again during the McCarthy era and Cold War "red scare" of communism, Congress passed a joint resolution making "In God We Trust" our National Motto.
Thus, our secular and all-inclusive de facto National Motto was superseded by a religious and exclusive National Motto.
So, within a couple of short years in the 1950s, the founding ideals of this country were undermined. Anyone who didn’t believe in a monotheistic “God” was made to feel like a second-class citizen in their own country, marginalizing them to an even greater extent than they already were marginalized socially.
How can we have "liberty for all"? How can we be "one nation"? How can we be "indivisible," if the changed Pledge and new national motto excludes some of the people?
Etc., etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment