by guest blogger: Mathew Goldstein
Brian Tubbs, in his New Year's Day article, Dependence on God: An American Tradition, advocates for voters imposing their own religious test on government officials by voting exclusively for theists. In making this argument he depicts himself as a defender of the "desires" and "prerogatives" of the American people, saying "If they want only a President who is left-handed, that is also their right. An individual voter has the unqualified right to vote for whomever he or she pleases, based on whatever criteria he or she sets. That's the heart of democracy. Lose that, and you're in serious trouble!". He comments that "At this point in the discussion, those frustrated by these realities point to the First Amendment's establishment clause or the constitutional prohibition against religious tests." He counters this with the observation that "Challenging the reality of this theme is an exercise in futility." This is a misrepresentation of the goals of advocates for non-establishment of monotheism. While it is true that we are frustrated with widespread prejudice against atheists, we are seeking only equality of opportunities, not equality of results.
Advocates for non-establishment of monotheism want to make the opportunities for participation in our democracy more inclusive by ensuring that governments avoid assuming the role of advising citizens that majority right-handedness is preferred over minority left-handedness or that majority monotheism is preferred over minority atheism. This does not entail requiring anyone to vote for people they don't want or limiting the criteria anyone employs to make their decisions. People can vote for only right-handed candidates without the government declaring "in right-handedness we trust" and that we are "one nation, right-handed, indivisible". Defenders of the establishment of monotheism want government that favors their own monotheistic beliefs while defenders of non-establishment of monotheism want government that doesn't tilt the playing field for or against any one's religious beliefs. To see this lets look at the current EC lawsuits of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
They filed suit in U.S. District Court, Spartanburg Division, Greenville, S.C., on June 17, 2009, challenging the awarding of academic credits for evangelical release-time instruction by a public school district. On December 30, 2008 they filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from adding the religious phrase, "So help me God," to the Presidential oath of office. The Foundation took the County of Manitowoc, Wis., to court in mid-December 2008 over its prominent display every December since 1946 of a nativity scene bearing the words "Glory to God in the Highest" on its courthouse lawn. The Foundation and various regional media were unable to uncover any permit for the display, or approval by the Manitowoc Public Works Committee, or even written guidelines about public displays. They filed suit on Nov. 26, 2008, in federal court against the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., for taking actions which led to the censorship of its "Imagine No Religion" billboard. The Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on Oct. 3, 2008, broadly challenging the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer and requiring a National Day of Prayer Proclamation by the President. They launched a challenge to the religious phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance on Oct. 31, 2007.
As can be seen, the goal of advocates of non-establishment of monotheism is to limit the scope of government actions to the issues of governing in accordance with the rule of law principle. We want to eliminate obstacles to equal participation by non-theistic minorities that are unfairly erected by our government with our government's imprimatur on behalf of monotheists. Government bias for monotheism over atheism interferes with the opportunities for the atheist minority to participate as equals in the civic affairs of the nation. The democratic process itself needs to be uncontaminated by bias between monotheistic and atheistic perspectives to be truly democratic and therefore government, as the sole administrator of that process and, more generally, as the sole administrator of our laws, has a responsibility to exhibit neutrality.
13 comments:
Ray, I agree with some of what you say. Our major difference is, I think, this...
In a democratic society, a government will reflect (at least to some degree) the will of the majority. That's appropriate.
Currently, the Democratic Party is solidly in control of the national government. I therefore expect that their views (to the extent they themselves can rally together and forge a consensus) will prevail in the policy arena and will help shape US history from this point forward. That's the way it works.
Likewise, if an overwhelming majority of Americans want a government that favors monotheism, then - so long as the government doesn't trample on the constitutional rights of those who decline to practice or embrace monotheism - then that is their perogative.
Correction...I see the post was made by Ray, but written by Matthew Goldstein. Just wanted to acknowledge Mr. Goldstein's contribution.
As can be seen, the goal of advocates of non-establishment of monotheism is to limit the scope of government actions to the issues of governing in accordance with the rule of law principle.
Well, perhaps. It depends on how the law is interpreted, and if some hybrid of the First and Fourteenth Amendments requires excising God.
In the meantime, there's little in the historical record, at least, to justify the "non-theist" argument wrapping itself in Founding principles.
As for the challenge to Mr. Tubbs, that he
advocates for voters imposing their own religious test on government officials by voting exclusively for theists. In making this argument he depicts himself as a defender of the "desires" and "prerogatives" of the American people, saying "If they want only a President who is left-handed, that is also their right...
there's plenty of Founding era evidence for that sentiment, and the legal challenge of Mr. Newdow, et al., can't stop people from voting by whatever criteria they choose, which is all Mr. Tubbs was saying.
According to the OnLine Merriam-Webster dictionary the etymology for the word pre·rog·a·tive is:
"Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin praerogativa, Roman century voting first in the comitia, privilege, from feminine of praerogativus voting first, from praerogatus, past participle of praerogare to ask for an opinion before another, from prae- + rogare to ask.
Date: 15th century"
In simpler terms, the prefix pre means "coming before" as in the word pre·judice. The root for the word, prerogative, means "to ask" as in the word inter·rogative.
prejudice n. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
"Prejudice" is a pejorative, of course
pejorative adj. Tending to make or become worse. Disparaging; belittling. n. A disparaging or belittling word or expression.
and especially in 2009, is a barrier to principled discussion.
In this case, taking a candidate's worldview into account isn't "without knowledge or examination of the facts." It's quite cognizant of the facts.
And it's not as if both sides of the culture war don't judge worldviews: a candidate might be "right to life" or into the "social Gospel," and be qualified or disqualified on that basis.
Neither is religion an arbitrary standard: for the theist, God's existence is a reality, and that carries certain duties and obligations that affect real life. This is what non-theists don't exactly get, preferring to consign religion to irrelevance. But if it's irrelevant, it's not exactly true religion.
Ray, did Matthew Goldstein write the original post here to Brian Tubbs? It's hard to tell, although it looks that way as posted.
If he did, then Mr. Goldstein is obliged to respond to Brian Tubbs, since he called him out.
If this was largely your own work, Ray, you're likewise obliged to respond, or at least clarify the matter. I don't know who Matthew Goldstein is, or why he's appearing on our mainpage.
Matthew Goldstein, whoever you are, please reveal yourself. Even Brian Tubbs' God did, according to Brian Tubbs. Surely the internet requires no less.
Mathew Goldstein, aka Explicit Atheist, has already commented several times on the American Creation blog. The title has a link to his home page, but it's not apparent. I've added the same link to his name that appears in the next line. Tom, everything following that line was written by Mathew Goldstein. (I apologize to Matt for having mispelled his name for the tenth time.)
Matt and I have collaboated together while doing the research into the available primary sources describing presidential inaugurations (see So help me God in presidential oaths), and Tom FYI I checked with Brad & Jonathan before I posted Matt's article.
I, personally, think that Brian missed the main point of Matt's article, which, if Im not wrong, is challenging the proposition that the federal government has some incontestable extra-legal authority to build and maintain a playing field that is designed to exclude atheists (and in my view "cultic" religionists) from full participation in government affairs at the federal level.
From my perspective, Jonathan's last two posts, which discusses GW's and TJ's activities regarding "private religious tests" is pertinent when combined with Matt's article. I also see that a complete reading of Washington's farewell address and Lincoln's Lyceum address advocates that the duty to support the Constitution of the United Staes extends to every citizen and not just those who occupy positions of the federal government.
Other than that, I especially hope the reader will explore the links that are available in the article. Confession,I did provide the links.
I don't see the post on Mr. Goldstein's blog. If he wrote it expressly for this blog, it would have been nice if he followed here and appeared in its comments section, is all.
As for that he's
challenging the proposition that the federal government has some incontestable extra-legal authority to build and maintain a playing field that is designed to exclude atheists (and in my view "cultic" religionists) from full participation in government affairs at the federal level.
I don't know what that means. It hasn't been proven, at any rate. Neither would I expect Mr. Goldstein [or likely yourself] to ever vote for a holy roller like Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee or Coburn or Brownback, for the very same reasons Mr. Tubbs might vote for them.
The 1950's were full of rhetoric about the Godless commies. The words "under God" were added to the pledge to contrast our nation's religious culture against communism's atheism. "One Nation Under God" was universally added to all our currency during the same period for the same reason.
In my opinion, such encourages a false equivocation at best. However, in my opinion it encourages wide spread prejudice with no foundation in fact.
Ben, to really know what you're talking about you had to have been there. I was. I was in my second year of high school when "one nation, under God" was plugged into the pledge. I objected to it then, and I still do. The proposal to add "under God" to the pledge had been mostly neglected in Congress untill Ike sat in on a February 7, 1954 sermon by Rev. George Docherty. You can read the sermon here. Skip down to to where it says, "There is no religious examination upon entering the United States of America ... " and continue reading. Docherty, arguably, did not tramble on any atheist's constutional rights, but the concept of this nation being under a Judaea-Christian god of Docherty's mindset is a total anathema to me.
When Ike heard Docherty's sermon, he was mesmerized by the way the "living word of God for the world," the American way of life, and Lincoln's Gettysburg address had all been woven together, and then, presto change-o, two new words were plugged into the pledge of allegiance. It didn't matter to anyone that a street-loose, Bronx kid objected, because he couldn't understand how an adulterated pledge would promote a stronger feeling of unity in a country that consisted of so many different national cultures and religious opinions. (My whole grade school learning experience featured the theme that New York City was the "melting pot" of the world.)
Ray,
I agree, having been there would add some additional context. However, the focus of my comment was on the intent of these formal religious invocations, as well as what they have come to imply in the minds of the public.
The Religious Tolerance web site includes a good essay on the subject of "under God" and the pledge.
--------------------------------------
In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - 2008) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part:
"Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow."
After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time:
"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change."
The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as communism.
Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are probably many Atheist and Humanist legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against persons holding these belief systems.
--------------------------------------
To be clear, it is not the added words to the pledge that I find troubling. What troubles me is that those children who object to being instructed to recite the pledge, with the words included, are asked to exclude themselves from this patriotic exercise.
In my opinion, this practice is not accommodating, unless the child (or the child's parents) desires non-participation, and exclusion from observing others participate.
If children who wished to drop the words were permitted to do so, and encouraged to participate as equals in the classroom, then I don't see there being a legal basis for objection.
Ben,
Thanks for the additional context, but regarding your statement:
If children who wished to drop the words were permitted to do so, and encouraged to participate as equals in the classroom, then I don't see there being a legal basis for objection.
How so? Where in the Consitution is there an enumerated power saying that the federal government should sponsor religious instruction to children?
In my book, the matter of explaining whether God exists, or how God interacts with the world is a parental responsiblity, and the federal government has no legal authority to usurp that responsibility. Even if a child is either not in attendance or remains silent during recitation of the pledge, the child can't help being aware of the lesson being taught.
Ray,
I apologize for not being more clear on my context. I'm entirely in agreement with your opinion.
However, I don't expect the court to agree that the government has not power over the religious instruction of it citizens ... unless the constitution explicitly forbids it, the court has failed in every opportunity to constrain the power of either the legislative or executive branch.
I see the best arguments today being (1) the gov should equally encourage all its citizens to be patriots, with out regard to their religious affiliation, (2) the government should communicate an equal expectation of all its citizens that they will conduct themselves as patriots and live up to the values and principles of our nation ... and (3) that those values and principles are secular ... even if they may also be (should also be) sectarian.
Post a Comment