One Nation Under War & Peace
In Mike Newdow's own words, he "...started his first religious institution while in junior high school in New Jersey. He finished high school there, and then undertook some university work in assorted locations. In 1977, he became an ordained minister, and has since lived his life according to the tenets of the Universal Life Church, which basically state: "Do what's right." In 1997, he started his second religious institution, the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS). Although that ministry holds a firmly atheistic view of the world, it strongly supports the ideals behind the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution....In 1998, he obtained his Doctor of the Universe Degree."
What exactly constitutes a "Doctor of the Universe Degree", I wonder? And what is the established basis of "right" if there is no Godly standard to base it upon? Is simply doing whatever feels right at the moment the instinct strikes is designated as "right"? I ponder these things...
All of this would be merely fascinating musing about a random member of our society, except that Mike Newdow also happens to be the plaintiff in the lawsuit designed to remove the Pledge of Allegiance from our schools here in California.
Mr. Newdow has declared war, using the sword of our Constitution to slash into, and surgically remove the God which so offends him from being a part of, our Pledge of Allegiance. Because, as he admits below, the concept of one nation under God is "infuriating" to him. He believes in the Constitution, but not in God. This is a particularly fascinating position, since the U.S. Constitution is the instrument conceived of by our Founders to protect and serve our "Creator-endowed unalienable rights" they clearly recognized in our Declaration of Independence. English jurist Sir William Blackstone in 1766, wrote of these Creator-endowed unalienable rights:
"America's written Constitution was to protect and secure God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property. If we ever allow this foundation to be eroded and lose faith that these rights are a gift directly from God to each individual, then we lose the basis of the greatness of the miracle of America."
But Mr. Newdow, in his own words (click HERE to visit his official site), would have us believe the following: (italics in his quotes and comments in parenthesis are mine):
"The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." (Mr. Newdow, Congress has made no law regarding the establishment of a religion. The Pledge of Allegiance is not a Congressional mandate, and nor does it establish a religion of any kind. Rather, it is a voluntary exercise which accompanies another voluntary exercise, the act of saluting the American flag.)
"As I understand it, this resulted from the Framers' awareness of the persecution and animosity that inevitably accompanies state religions. With this in mind, they made the decision to ensure religious freedom by keeping the government out of that sensitive area. (yes! Our government MUST not interfere with our right to freely express our religious faith in God!)...
..."It's worse that that. Not only is this the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is a pledge that is recited in public schools throughout the land. Thus, the government indoctrinates every schoolchild - every school day of the year - with a belief in God, and a belief that our Nation, as an entity, is one "under God." What of those parents who choose not to inculcate their children with such a belief? Where is the religious freedom so precious to our democratic ideals?" (Public schools must carve out a rightful place for ALL of the public children who attend and all parents whose property tax revenues fund the school's operation.
But let's be honest ~ the Pledge of Allegiance fails to meet the standard of a Congressional establishment of a religion. The presence of the flag in the classroom, the cross or yamulke worn by a teacher or student, a unit of study on the Koran or Bible as part of the curricula, the pork served as part of school lunches, or the Pledge of Allegiance being recited by school children who believe so heartily in it, IN NO WAY infringes on your right to believe exactly as you believe and be exactly who you are. No one is forcing you or your daughter to adopt a Congressionally established religion by allowing the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited by those students who choose to participate. It is an offering, not a requirement. And we must be respectful of traditions we do not support being offered to those who DO support them as part of public education. PUBLIC includes us all.
Please tell me why it is to "do the right thing" to compel a lawsuit to force an amendment of a Pledge to suit your belief structure at the expense of others? When, sir, peaceful coexistence is simple to achieve by simply allowing others the same respect your lawsuit demands for yourself.
The Pledge is, as are other activities in schools which can be opted-out-of by parents ~ including sex education, evolution, intelligent design instruction and other such elements which may be deemed inappropriate by parents or students in accordance with their own belief structure ~ a voluntary element of the public school day.
It is your choice not to believe that our nation is One Under God. But you must respect the rights of those of us who do believe that as equal to your own. We have the right to honor the Creator our Founders acknowledged as endowing us with the unalienable rights we are all guaranteed in our Constitution, and which you ironically base your lawsuit upon, by continuing to assert the Pledge's rightful place in public life. There is ample room for your ideology in the public arena as well. But to insist on amendment to your ideals rather than accommodation for them, is wrong.
The Pledge is not a Congressional establishment of religion and it not, therefore, unconstitutional. It requires nothing from you but your tolerance.)
"One Nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is infuriating to me - as much as "one Nation under white people," "one Nation under Jesus," or "one Nation under no god" would be. We are a nation of laws - to be applied equally for every citizen. That a religious belief - the one category of belief that is specifically forbidden by the Constitution - has been inserted by the government into the Nation's Pledge is offensive, unconscionable, unconstitutional and wrong. Since no one else has righted that wrong, I'm doing it. To end the offense. To strengthen the Constitution." (The Constitution does NOT forbid religion. To the contrary, it protects our unalienable freedom of religious expression and belief, free from interference from governmental establishment.
Our Declaration of Independence itself speficially acknowledges our Creator who has endowed us with our unalienable rights. To acknowledge God in a Pledge is not, therefore, unconstitutional, but in harmony with our Founders understanding of the genesis of our rights we are guaranteed free expression of. However, if it so infuriates you, consider why that might be. As Thomas Jefferson so wisely stated, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.")
On a personal note, Mr. Newdow, I have begun to pray for you today. Not out of disrespect or an affront to your atheism, but from an authentic hope, caring, and love, and abiding faith in God who can reach all hearts and transform all lives - even those dedicated to publicly denying Him. Nothing is impossible for God, as His love endures forever. I hope that my prayers for you and your precious child effect an undeniable impact in your life and an epiphany in your soul. Clearly, this issue has overtaken you and so many of us. Sadly and predictably, it seems to be creating a bitterly divided set of parents and everyday Americans, hurling arguments at one another as though that were the most powerful action we can take.
Sharply astute as they may be, arguments may persuade ~ but only two-dimensionally ~ they do not address the heart of the matter. I don't wish to stop at mere words, but will also commit to continued prayer that the God of the Universe, who exists whether our Pledge contains Him or not, becomes real in your life.
Because only then will you taste true freedom.
Peace, Mr. Newdow.
posted by lachen at 12:34 PM
3 Comments:
Excellent post. This topic just drives me crackers, in no small degree. I'm by no means a religious person, and in fact when I was being "indoctrinated" by the pledge, I was assertively agnostic as opposed to now, when I'm just sort of amorphously agnostic. :)
Mr. Newdow is a first-class flake, imho. And frankly, I resent that he's giving us non-religous folk a black eye.
I didn't grow up scarred by having to say the pledge, in fact, I was capable of seeing through the words for the true meaning and develop a pretty strong love of nation, man and the flag.
This is a topic that means a lot to me, for a number of reasons. Foremost, as a journalist, I got a pretty thorough schooling in the First Amendment, and agnosticism aside, I just get sick when people try to twist "freedom of religion" into meaning freedom FROM same. It's appalling to me. You're exactly right that what makes for a peacable society is everyone respecting everyone else's space. So 3 people in a class of 30 don't want to say the pledge? Fine. They don't have to.
Second, it's more than just a religious issue. It's a vocal minority trying to push a movement that nobody else wants. I went to a PUBLIC high school that had more than 1,000 students, and the biggest school-sanctioned club was Teens for Christ. Easily 9/10 of the school was in this club. There were several prayers before every sports event -- one for the band, one for the players, one for the cheerleaders, one for the game. Did I feel put out? I thought it was a bit excessive, but I recognized that I was outvoted -- democracy being another principle of this nation that I cherished even more than the First Amendment. (And this was in the late 1980s, after most schools had caved to Madeleine Murray O'Hair.)
Third, I doubt Mr. Newdow realizes this, or maybe he just doesn't care, but there are plenty of religions that profess, regardless of the words used, that pledging to the flag is idol worship. I don't recall Jehovah's Witnesses suing over the pledge -- only when their right to opt out without punishment was infringed upon. Which I absolutely support.
(Waves flag and steps off soapbox.)
The only place where Newdow has any valid complaint is with the 1954 Congress and with Eisenhower, who were involved in a resolution officially adding that phrase to the pledge. (And that history and source text is some fascinating reading, believe me.)
But again ... Congress voted. The majority voted in favor of including it. If he wants to write his congressman and lobby to get that law changed, spiffy. I wish him luck. Eesh. Meanwhile, I'll be happy to relieve him of all that nasty U.S. currency that also mentions God. I'm sure his fingers must sting every time he touches it. :)
Arwen, I wish you lived closer. We would have SUCH a great time mulling things over together (with ample supplies of Dr. Pepper!).
I love your comment and value your prespective. I agree with everything you have written and find most of it falls into the category of "common sense". Only I have become increasingly convinced that common sense is an endangered species in American vernacular and societal interraction these days.
Thanks SO much for adding your musings to mine. It forever fascinates me how some are erroneously echanging tolerance for amendment.
Why must beloved institutions, so cherished by vast people, be under constant attack by those seeking to amend them at whim and at will? If reciting the Pledge bothers you, don't recite it.
I find it well outside reasonable boundaries of law and reason to assert that something which offends your religious sensibilities must be censored and removed from the experience of others, for whom it has a deep and abiding history and rightful place.
Like I said, the Pledge inflicts nothing upon Mr. Newdow and requires nothing of him beyond his tolerance.
Blessings and thanks for posting, Arwen!
Oh, la, Dr. Pepper chats sounds delightful! Though at this moment in time it would have to be that cherry vanilla diet version for me. I hate austerity, but I like when my pants fit!
As an alternative, we could take the discussions offline, if you want -- you can write me any time at shopbick@comcast.net and I'm reasonably good about writing back. :)
I'm unclear on where you are specifically in the Golden State, but if it's not Orange County, I can only imagine how outnumbered you must feel! (My parents are in Anaheim, my uncle is in Glendale, and it's just breathtaking how very different their demographically similar neighborhoods are.) I will cling to that geographic disadvantage as making it possible that common sense is not quite so dead as it probably looks from your front porch.
Post a Comment
<< Home