The First Amendment
April 9th, 2007 by 
drunkentune
How, by being an atheist in support of the ACLU and Americans United, I am religion’s greatest friend. (This post is a few days old; I had a few things I had to catch up on, so I delayed publishing this piece. It was meant to be a part of the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm.)
I. A difference in metaphysics
To many social conservatives today (but not all!), there is a notion that there is a fundamental choice one must make on metaphysics: there is either (1) a traditional morality, or (2) a liberal morality. This traditional morality, as Dinesh D’Souza, author of The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, says, ‘is based on the notion that there is a moral order in the universe, which establishes a enduring standard of right and wrong. All the major religions of the world agree on the existence of the moral order. There is also a surprising degree of unanimity about the content of this moral order.’ I’m sure many social conservatives would agree with me when I fairly reduce ‘traditional morality’ to the sacrifice of individual autonomy to the ‘enduring’ moral order.
Liberal morality is then about the rights of the individual. It is, to quote D’Souza again, about ‘autonomy, individuality, and self-fulfillment as moral ideals.’ Yet, if this ‘enduring’ moral order exists, then the government must reflect this moral order, and its citizens must obey. (see former Senator Rick Santorum as a prime example: ‘I don’t want a government that is neutral between virtue and vice.’)
D’Souza, along with other social conservatives laments that Americas has fallen to ’secularism, feminism, homosexuality, prostitution, and pornography,’ America as ‘a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill,’ falling away from this moral code; this is, as many social conservatives today say, the end result of liberal morality. As one political figure has said, America in rebellion from God because ‘[Americans] separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.’ His name?
(Drag your mouse across here to see: Osama bin Laden!)
What many social conservaties see is that government should rest on fundamental moral truths, while liberal morality and autonomy is a simple byproduct of Western culture. As Pope Benedict XVI said in 2004: ‘There exist pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous and that make it necessary to see the divine light of reason as a “controlling organ.” . . . However… there are also pathologies of reason… there is a hubris of reason that is no less dangerous.’ He again said in his most recent visit to Brazil, ‘Where God is absent… these [moral] values fail to show themselves with their full force: nor does a consensus arise concerning them.
I do not mean that nonbelievers cannot live a lofty and exemplary morality; I am only saying that a society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values. (The New York Times)’
These fundamental truths, these values, as the Ayatolla Khomenini writes, is that Allah has ‘laid down injunctions for men extending from before the embryo is formed until after man is placed in the tomb… There is not a single topic in human life for which Islam has not provided instruction and established a norm.’ The state must be an extension of Allah’s will — or… God’s, for that matter. In 1997, when Benedict XVI was still Cardinal Ratzinger, he told German journalist Peter Seewald, ‘Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from [Western culture]; it embraces simply everything… One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of pluralistic society.’
Catholicism, Islam, and modern social conservatives in America all have something in common: a purchase on the truth; a contempt for secularism; a push for censure and conversion. A few minutes of the Christian Broadcasting Network or any other group of the Religious Right will provide ample proof of an agreement on at least one thing with Islamists: The government must follow God’s will; there is an absence of space between the individual and the community; there is no difference between religion and politics.
II. ‘under God’ and the Pledge
Some of the most vocal proponents of ‘God’ on money, in America’s anthems and mottos, say loudly and proudly that they are doing religion a service. Yet, what kind of support for religion is there in saying that ‘under God’ has no religious meaning, no metaphysical connotation? God becomes a political tool, where Theodore B. Olson, the solicitor general, argued before the Court in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow that the word ‘God’ does not mean God; it’s a reference to a reference of God. ‘The Pledge’s reference to “a Nation under God†is a statement about the Nation’s historical origins, its enduring political philosophy centered on the sovereignty of the individual,’ says the solicitor general.
For more than two hundred years, many of our expressions of national identity and patriotism have referenced God. The Supreme Court, which opens each session by saying ‘God save the United States and this honorable Court,’ has affirmed time and again that such official acknowledgments of our Nation’s religious heritage, foundation, and character are constitutional. (Alberto Gonzalez, Press Release, September 15, 2005)
Thus, ‘under God’ isn’t about God, but a reverence towards America’s founders; ‘under God’ isn’t about God, but a ceremonial act of individualism. If ‘under God’ is, to quote the solicitor general once more, ‘a patriotic exercise and a solemnizing ceremony,’ serving ‘the secular values of promoting national unity, patriotism, and an appreciation of the values that defined the nation,’ then religion is reduced to a national set of ethical principals. American morality, what it intrinsically means to be an American, is reduced to religion. Patriotism; nationalism, even, is nothing more than religion.
There is nothing more American than the Pledge of Allegiance and an acknowledgement of God is at the heart of our founding principles and is our nation’s motto… [It provides] our ability as a nation to encourage civic pride, respect for our heritage, and much-needed patriotism in our public square. (Sam Brownback (R-KS), Press Release, September 16, 2005)
Far from it! Patriotism is a secular value. Patriotism is not bound to any religion. Many on the Religious Right do not mind, but if they are genuinely concerned about religion, to cherish religion because it unites many of us under an umbrella is to debase religion as consequentially a tool for accomplishing the most secular of tasks: politics; Jesus would vote for X.
If we focus our eye on the consequences of ideas, the real-world political implications of metaphysics, we are not focused in the ideas themselves. If ‘under God’ is about patriotism, then God is reduced to a practicality, without theoretical implication. Religion is then neglected for secular outcomes, nothing more than a means of politics.
Then, God becomes little more than an idol, and with all things made in man’s image, can easily be used for any political agenda. Imagine the infighting taking place, both sides of the debate on the Senate floor positive, assured that they have God on their side. Imagine the Catholics and Baptists and Jews clamoring for control, because all religious leaders can see that the first to the top of the mountain, the first to pay off enough Congressmen, gets to be King of the Mountain, ruler for the day.
Where is God in that?
These political figures, as I see it, do not seem especially interested in God. Their interest is not on the metaphysics of mysteries of religion, which they rarely harp on unless it’s about a political issue, but as religion as social control. In the goal of maintaining patriarchy, banning divorce, outlawing homosexual behavior and eliminating blasphemy, religious piety is transformed into a way to reliably garner votes.
Why is it then, that these opponents of separation of church and state then reject God in favor of a not-God? When does God not mean God? Political expediency? Clearly the Republican Party has gained many votes in past elections harping on such issues. Who cares for the meaning of a word when your party can pick up a few more votes –- itself the ultimate of cynical materialism?
Isn’t that the antithesis of religious devotion? Isn’t God lost somewhere along the way when the culture wars come light-years before our own internal conflicts? Isn’t pledging allegiance to a God that is simply ‘our Nation’s religious heritage, foundation, and character’ itself blasphemy, a crossing of the fingers in the hopes no one will notice, a gross violation of the 10 Commandments? The surest way to devalue religion, to debase the meaning – and therefore remove its power, is to hand it on a silver platter to the political dogs, to enslave it to public life. The mystery is gone.
Christians shouldn’t want that.
Posted in atheism, current issues, philosophical issues | 
April 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
One of the funniest pieces on the comedy shows lately was when Colbert or maybe Stewart had Congressman Westmoreland on. The Congressman was advocating for the Ten Commandments being posted on government buildings. When asked about naming them, he stuttered about and finally was able to come up with 3. I wonder if those were the ones he hadn’t yet broken….
Anyway, I think a lot of this is similar to propaganda as we saw in Communist countries. Simple folks with simplified beliefs see only the surface of the politician’s manipulations. Goodness, even Saddam Hussein called upon his people to “defend Islam” when he was actually a Baathist!
The fundamentalist Christians are currently discovering the foolishness of being duped by the War Party (GOP) and in the next election, many will stay home, especially if a Mormon or flip-flopper is on their Presidential ticket. Go ACLU, it does protect my right to freedom to worship as I choose. I don’t want any government interference with that, ever.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
ed
RE: “Go ACLU, it does protect my right to freedom to worship as I choose. I don’t want any government interference with that, ever.”
Something we agree upon. I might think that religion and god belief is a load of old dingoes’ kidneys, but I respect people’s rights to worship. (As long as the worship isn’t compulsory through law.)
April 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
One of my concerns is the history of officially atheist governments regarding religious freedom. Have any done a great job of protecting the rights of those who were religious to worship as they saw fit? I’m not referring to secular governments, that are brought about by compromise between various religious and non-religious people. Some religious governments have become exclusivist and persecuted non-adherents to the state religion, but that usually leads to disaster. I doubt the French would have decended into their monstrosity of a revolution if not for the Edict of Nantes.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Sorry, I meant the revoking of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:17 am
drunkentune:
This is one of the best arguements for separation of church and state I’ve seen, especially concerning implications for religious people. You’ve probably seen my position from my posts: I do not think religion can remain solely in the private sphere of life. As much as it offers a teleology, it must be open to public participation, scrutiny, and conversation. On the other hand, politics is not the place to make it public. Like you point out, mixing religion with human systems of power management usually doesn’t work for the good (even Jesus said my Kingdom is not of this world, if it was my followers would fight [John 18:36]). So if I think religion should be public, but not political, where should it be? 1) Central in interpersonal conversations like this one that remain human and promote understanding, and 2) in the missional-activist sector of society that is working for a better future in every area of life.
Incidentially, Ed and beepbeep, this is where I think freedom to worship could do the most good. In my opinion, little good can come from domesticated pew-sitting which seems to engender an insecurity that becomes antagonistic to everything outside. Such in-focused “worship” leads to a deep pychological self-condemnation of inactivity because it violates the central priciples of the faith and it generates an inner violence that is expressed in all forms of judgement and hatred towards the world it is called rather to rebuild. But an active lifestyle of worship through service to mankind will pull down such barriers and insecurities. It might actually do the world some good to redefine worship in terms of the prophets who cried for justice, caring for the marginalized, and taking up the case of the oppressed as the heart of faith-practice [Isaiah 1:10-20].
April 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Here’s a link to a YouTube video put together by First Freedom First that I think we can all agree upon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTbTR3g2Ojo
April 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Thanks for the link Infidel. It fits well with this topic. Here’s the video to make easy on our readers:
April 12th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
The woman who had trouble getting employment because she would not define her religious belief should not have that problem in Australia.
Section 116 [Freedom of Religion, Secular State]
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
By the way, I also made a video for Blog Against Theocracy Day, but I am almost sure that everyone won’t agree with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtPwljfA4xw
April 13th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
It is illegal for employers in America as well to not hire someone because of religious affiliation, unless the job is a position related to the exercise of a particular religion (see Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The problem seems to be that people are involved in the process and sometimes ask illegal questions and make illegal choices that are only correctable through difficult, expensive, and messy legal action.
Watched your video. I like this quote in particular:
Orgnaized Christianity has probably done more to retard the ideals that were its founder’s than any other agency in the world — Richard Le Gallienne
Incidentally, my similar sentiments explain why I am not a fan of typical “organized Christianity” and especially “Christianity” that has ties to temporal powers which seems to nearly always lead to a subversion of the faith for the sake of propaganda. My understanding of Jesus is as a subverter of human power, especially when it serves the interest of self or in-group. While you point out that the Catholic church and other well organized sectors of Christendom have a better ability to control thought and theology in another post, I would tend to discount their thought as compromised due to political and personal agendas, an ends-justify-the-means worldview, and syncretism.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
soulster
There are, however, some US states, if my understanding is correct, where atheists are not allowed by law to hold public office.
RE: “While you point out that the Catholic church and other well organized sectors of Christendom have a better ability to control thought and theology in another post, I would tend to discount their thought as compromised due to political and personal agendas, an ends-justify-the-means worldview, and syncretism.”
my comment about catholicism and its corporate hierarchy was not made in order to be an example as to how religions should be organized; but as an example of how it allows them to make decisions regarding religious belief and faith much more easily than others.
I suspect that all religions, (they are by the qualification of being called a religion - organized), have at their philosphical core an “the end justifies the means” mentality.
I would also suggest that religions are syncretic as a means to survival.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Some states do have out-dated clauses in their charters, constitutions, and original documents preventing atheists from holding office and testifying in court. These clauses are no longer in effect since they have been ruled un-Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court [see here]. Even though atheists are not legally prevented from office, I would say that it might not do much for their election campaigns which demonstrates that legality can be trumped by culture when it comes to equality.
Just to clairfy, I did not take your comments about Catholicism as an endorsement. I think I got your point as written and was agreeing with you for the most part.
I probably don’t need to say that I do not see myself following a ends-justify-the-means faith.
In my opinion, syncretism is an error but contextualization is an imperative. The distinction between these two is sometimes difficult.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
A good friend of mine from the Maryland chapter of the ACLU told me of a story: One day a lawyer came into his office in a rage. The man said that he had been looking through some bylaws, and it so happened that the Governor of Maryland was also the head of the Episcopal Church. It was some arcane law passed before the Constitution was ratified, and remained unenforced on the books for a few hundred years. The lawyer was practically pulling his hair out over this. My friend couldn’t stop laughing: it was in the mid-60s; the Governor of Maryland was Marvin Mandel!
A Jew as the leader of the Episcopal Church!
April 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
soulster
RE: “In my opinion, syncretism is an error but contextualization is an imperative. The distinction between these two is sometimes difficult.”
In my opinion I see religious syncretism as the process of evolving beliefs.