And so, once again, the public and our judiciary have misunderstood the establishment clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution. With its recent opinion in Newdon v. United States Congress, 00-16423 (26 June 2002), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated, as it has done so often in the past, that political correctness is more important than common sense to those august justices who preside over that bench.
On 26 June, the 9th Circuit ruled, with one justice dissenting, that the inclusion of the words, "under God" in America's Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The facts that led to this opinion are really quite simple. Mister Newdon is an atheist. His daughter attends public school in California. California law states that public school students will begin their school days by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge states:
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.
As you can imagine, Mister Newdon is not comfortable with the presence of the phrase, "under God." Congress added that phrase in 1954. Mister Newdon was so uncomfortable with it that he sued the United States Congress. He also sued the United States of America, then-President Clinton (in my opinion, one of the few times when Mister Clinton's actions in the White House did not merit complaint), the State of California, two different school districts, and their respective superintendents. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Califonria dismissed Mister Newdon's lawsuit, and he appealed to the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit, in turn, overruled the dismissal, holding that Mister Newdon's daughter was being coerced into expressing a religious belief she does not hold. Or at least, he does not want her to hold. Nowhere in the opinion do we learn what Mister Newdon's daughter's beliefs are, probably because no one bothered to ask her. After all, the spiritual foundation of a child's life isn't really her business is it? What she believes isn't nearly as important as what her litigious parent thinks she should believe, right?
What is wrong with the 9th Circuit's opinion, as I see it? Several things. First, the opinion is logically unsound. The court openly acknowledges in the majority opinion that Mister Newdon's daughter is not required to recite the Pledge. Apparently, notwithstanding the fact that California law states they should, students do not have to recite it. All Mister Newdon's daughter must endure is hearing other students recite--presumably because they, too, wish to do so. Having to listen to someone else's expression of belief is not the same as being coerced into expressing that belief one's self. It is not even the same as being coerced to endorse that belief.
Second, the court clearly misunderstands just what the establishment clause really says, and really means--as so many people have misunderstood it for decades. The First Amendment says this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You may note that the Amendment does not state, "Congress shall permit not expression of religion in public." What does "no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Well, the men who drew up the Bill of Rights did not just write it, drop it on the desk, and leave it for us to puzzle over. They also wrote, extensively, about what the ten amendments meant, and they did so about the establishment clause in particular. That clause means three things:
That there will be no state-mandated religion. The Founding Fathers did not want the United States to be like many nations at the time, whose subjects were required to belong to a particular sect.
That there will be no state-prohibited religion. If religious freedom meant that the United States could not compel you to be of a particular faith, it also had to mean that the United States could not punish you for electing to be of that faith.
That the government will not act in preference to one religion over another. The two foregoing concepts work together. If the United States will not require, and will not prohibit, any religious membership, then it must, of necessity, treat all religious views with equal respect.
Nowhere in the clause, nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in any of the formative or subsequent documents that are the foundation of our Republic, did anyone ever say that religious expression in governmental matters was improper. Nowhere did our founder ever intend the United States to muddle along as an "officially godless" country.
The dissenting opinion in the Newdon case acknowledges this, and correctly so. It notes that the government's responsibility under the establishment clause is to prevent discrimination based on religious belief, not to foreclose all expressions of it. The Pledge is not a coercive thing, it is an affirmation of our individual loyalty to this country and to the principles upon which it was founded. It is an acknowledgement of those principles.
I would agree that if Mister Newdon's daughter really were being coerced into reciting the Pledge, then that act might violate the Constitution. But the unchallenged evidence was that she was not. He simply does not like the fact that she has to hear those two little words.
"But I don't believe in God!" Mister Newdon claims. True enough, I suppose. I do not know Mister Newdon. I cannot see into his mind or heart or soul and determine what he truly believes, nor is it my place nor my intent to debate with him or attempt to compel him to change his mind. That is the strength of our Republic. He has a right not to believe in God, as ridiculous and contrary to the overwhelming proof of God's reality as I or others might think his opinion to be. He has the right to believe whatever he wishes--even to believe in nothing at all.
But I have the same right, to believe in what I wish to believe in. And neither Mister Newdon, nor the 9th Circuit, nor anyone on this planet has the right or authority to attempt to compel me to accept their position, or to attempt to restrain me from expressing my belief . . . or to preclude its expression when it is an integral part of our national character.
This is not about some little school girl being "coerced." This is about how far the inanity of political correctness has gone in our society. This is about the truth being smothered for the sake of one person's ultra-sensitivity to being exposed to ideas he is not comfortable with. This is a case of the wants--not the needs, the wants--of the one being placed superior to the rights of the many.
Because, you see, that is the third and most important thing that is wrong with the 9th Circuit's opinion: It ignores the truth.
The truth is that the United States came into being by the monumental efforts of men and women who from the very beginning did believe in God, did ask His guidance in their endeavors, and did believe, to the cores of their souls, that this nation was and is and, we hope, shall continue to be blessed by Providence when its people and its government act righteously. The great majority of people in this country believe in some spiritual anchor in their lives. They may call it "God" and be referring to the God of the Old and New Testaments. They may call it "Allah" or "Buddha" or "Wicca" or "Gaia"--they may worship the gods of Olympus or of Teotihuacan, the Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Force, some nebulous cosmic power contained in a pyramid or a crystal . . . or, their spiritual focus may be that there is no spiritual force. Yes, Mister Newdon, like it or not, your atheism is itself a religious expression. It is, quite simply, a religion. For a religion is a faith about some spiritual focus, and yours simply happens to be a spiritual non-existence.
How far shall we go with this asinine worry over individual sensitivities? The Declaration of Independence states, in part, "When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Nature's God. Their Creator. Hardly the expressions of people who felt, or who believed that the majority of us would feel, that we are alone in the spiritual universe.
Do we now prohibit the display of the Declaration of Independence in public places? Shall we contact the Exchange Club and tell it to remove all of those Freedom Walls it has put in schools, in airports, in bus terminals, in businesses? Yes, businesses--private property. For if our government permits the carrying on of public commerce, and if in order to do business you must pass through a place where a governmental instrument proclaims the potential for the existence of the Almighty, is that not a coercion akin to what Mister Newdon's daughter is suffering (even if, as everyone acknowledged, she wasn't really suffering it at all)?
On the walls of the Supreme Court's courtroom, you will find the Ten Commandments. Do we now outlaw the recitation of any code or principle that includes any of those? Should we proscribe the singing of "God Bless America"? Or of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
Most of our courts begin their sessions with some proclamation by the bailiff or some other court official to the effect, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." Do we now affirmatively recant that position, and say we hope God does not do so?
Finally, I pose a question to Mister Newdon and to the 9th Circuit--and to all who seriously argue that those two little words pose such a terrible danger to our liberties. The question is a simple one: What's wrong with having those expressions? I'm not being argumentative. I am completely serious.
". . . one Nation, under God . . . ." Is that such a terrible concept? If you are right, Mister Newdon, and there truly is no God, then what harm does anyone suffer by believing in a being and a force of goodness, of justice, of mercy, of compassion, of integrity, and of truth? If you are right and God is a myth, then I live my life in belief of a myth. I guess I face some great disappointment at the end of that life, but in the meantime, I shall try to live my life by principles that any rational man would have to admit are admirable even if he does not agree with their source.
Likewise the Ten Commandments. Can someone please tell me just how anyone's life is made worse by living in obedience to those simple, paramount moral codes?
Freedom is not a guarantee that one will never face ideas that one does not like. Quite the contrary; it guarantees that one will face those ideas. That is the essential strength of liberty; that we can disagree and still remain one people. Frankly, Mister Newdon, and Your Honors, the fact that some people do not believe in God troubles most of us not one bit. We are far too busy living our lives and taking care of our concerns to stick our noses into their lack of faith. What a pity you cannot show the overwhelming majority of us the same courtesy and respect.
Red Skelton did a monologue concerning the Pledge of Allegiance many years ago. The button below will enable you to download and play that audio file. I hope you enjoy it, and I hope you think about it.