Pledging Allegiance to the Philosophers’ God
Jonathan Rowe on Jan 6th 2008
To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.
– John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.
The strongest argument for letting the “under God” in the pledge pass constitutional muster is that natural rights Founding era documents invoke such a God, and as such, making a public recitation of the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional would yield perverse results. [And the other side properly notes making a group of people "pledge allegiance" to a God has a coercive element that would be missing from mere government endorsement of the theistic Declaration of Independence.]
This issue is relevant once again. Michael Newdow, now endowed with proper standing, is relitigating the “under God” issue in the pledge, the oral arguments of which have been heard by an appellate panel of the 9th Circuit. I’ve watched some of those performances and Newdow was excellent as usual. I predict they’ll hold as they did; the Supreme Court will grant cert., and assuming we have the same Court, Newdow will lose 5-4.
Kevin Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, made the strongest historical argument contra Newdow et al. And that is the God of natural rights is the God of nature, not the God of the Bible or not necessarily the God of the Bible. America’s Founders believed in granting religious freedom for all. And they reasoned, you couldn’t have religious freedom if the natural rights source for that unalienable right was a sectarian (i.e., “Christian”) deity. Hence the invocation of a generic, non-sectarian deity: Nature’s God.
The term “nature” as was used during America’s Founding era (and still today) meant discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed by scripture and as such, “Nature’s God” is God insofar as we can discern His existence and determine His attributes from reason unassisted by revelation. (See the above Adams’ quotation.)
It’s amusing to see one of Roy Moore’s cronies struggle with this conception. He quotes the New York Sun article:
[T]he God in the pledge is the same God referred to in the Declaration of Independence, but is not the deity in the Bible. “It wasn’t the Christian God. It wasn’t the Jewish God. It was the philosopher’s God,” Mr. Hasson said. He said the “under God” reference refers to a creator early philosophers and scientists like Aristotle concluded “could be known by reason alone.”
And he reacts:
Mr. Hasson has the honor of making an argument that I can unequivocally state I have never heard in any previous Establishment Clause case. He is actually claiming that the God referenced in the Pledge is not the God of the Bible, but rather is some amorphous “philosopher’s God.”
That Mr. Jones has never heard of this argument before simply shows that he hasn’t done his homework. He either hasn’t studied the historical documents on this issue, or if he has, his analysis is confused by the specious arguments put forth by the likes of Roy Moore.
It would be a mistake, however, to try to exclude the Biblical God from this conception. Rather, a prime reason why America’s Founders turned to “nature” and not “scripture” to ground America’s public creed was to be inclusive. Natural theology was a lingua franca (a link language) in which orthodox trinitarians, unitarians, theistic rationalists and deists all could speak.
For good place to learn how the Founding era viewed the concept of “natural religion” (that is what man can discern about God’s universe through reason unassisted by scripture), google the terms “natural religion” and “Dudleian Lectures.” As will be seen, some orthodox trinitarian Christians did promote the concept of “natural religion,” for instance Samuel Langdon, John Witherspoon, and many others. But when they indulged in this theology, note, they stayed true to its method, which was, again, what man discovers from reason unassisted by revelation. When orthodox Christians indulged in natural theology, they found reason and revelation perfectly agreed. Deists, on the other hand, found that natural theology didn’t at all agree with what is revealed in scripture. And theistic rationalist/unitarians found that sometimes reason and revelation agreed, sometimes they didn’t.
But in the end, natural theology is defined as what man discovers from reason, and when it came time to declare independence, America turned to the laws of nature and nature’s God, not what is revealed in scripture.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Buried under the pedantic citations, I find this reasoning:
The philosopher’s god is now dead, so it doesnt count anymore.
“And they reasoned, you couldn’t have religious freedom if the natural rights source for that unalienable right was a sectarian …”
On the contrary they didn’t beleive their God was sectarian. Their God was indeed the God of the Bible, not of the church of England or of Rome. The founders recognized, that the freedom they perceived from the worship of the real God (vs man made institutions who claimed to represent Him) would be the freedom this country would be founded on.
Freedom of religion is not freedom “FROM” religion. Freedom of religion is not a free pass for the atheist’s religion - with the matchless diety of his own flawed reason at its head.
The problem here is that we can also assert “a philosophers Jesus” on the grounds that you couldn’t have religious freedom if the natural rights source for that unalienable right was a sectarian (i.e., “Catholic”) deity. Hence the invocation of a generic, non-sectarian deity: the philosophers Jesus.
In other words, this argument is based on a fallacy: If it isn’t Catholic then it isn’t sectarian. Now replace Jesus with God and Catholic with Christian and we still have the same fallacy: If it isn’t Christian then it isn’t sectarian. But of course god belief, like Jesus belief, is still partisan. God is more inclusive, but it isn’t all inclusive, and this exclusiveness is the very problem that is the at the heart of the plaintiff’s complaint. Non-sectarian defined as all Christians or even all monotheists still doesn’t address the problem of bias, it still isn’t neutral. The legal principle isn’t non-sectarianism defined as any Christian or some non-Christian, the legal principle is neutrality.
Also, Hassan argued that the principle at issue here is that we have unalienable rights only because some generic God exists. This is also a fallacy, its actually just plain silly, its like saying we cannot have unalienable rights without a philosophers Jesus. Now its true, some late 18th century people expressed this sentiment about god and rights, but then the same people sometimes expressed racist, sexist, etc. sentiments. A no rights without god “principle” has no more merit as a basis for secular constitutional interpretation than a no rights without Jesus principle does and anyone who can’t see that isn’t competent to sit on the federal bench in my judgement.
Regarding “And the other side properly notes making a group of people “pledge allegiance” to a God has a coercive element that would be missing from mere government endorsement of the theistic Declaration of Independence.”
The difference is more than that. Government teaching history is not a government endorsement of any religious belief just like government isn’t endorsing atheism when it teaches science. As long as government teaches history and science according to the expert consensus among historians and scientists based on the evidence then government is being nuetral with respect to religion regradless of whether or not the science or the history is itself neutral. Look, the problem is that the harm to atheists of government endorsement of monotheism is not abated by the Declaration of Independence anymore than a similar historical document that was Christian would abate the harm to non-Christians of government endorsement of Christainity. Either we oppose government establishment or we don’t. If we oppose government establishment then no historical document that endorses religious beliefs excuses justifying future government establishment.
Perhaps as an atheist we can come forth with a standard where you/atheists feel comfortable with “under God.” Perhaps “God” can be a metaphor for natural rights or what you value in the American political system?
We could, but its both unrealistic and unfair for government to expect that the American public will interpret it that way and therefore its unfair to ask atheists to unilaterally interpret it that way when, in fact, most Americans don’t.
# Hananielon 06 Jan 2008 at 2:36 pm
“Freedom of religion is not freedom “FROM” religion. Freedom of religion is not a free pass for the atheist’s religion - with the matchless diety of his own flawed reason at its head. ”
This is not about freedom of religion nor freedom from religion (which are two sides of the same coin anyway), this is about a government establishment of religion. Hindus have freedom of religion without our government establishing their polytheism.
Assuming, as Mr Rowe seems to argue that the natural religion writers favoured liberty of conscience for a wide range of beliefs from protestant Christianity to Deism to Hinduism, did they explicitly exclude atheists from this?
It seems to go against the grain to pick one group as not deserving a freedom everyone else does deserve. I can’t help wondering if it simply didn’t occur to them that there were atheists.
If memory serves the 18th century enlightenment was the 1st time anyone actually argued for atheism. The well read intelectuals of the American Revolution may have heard of what Baron D’Holbach(?) was saying but they could have assumed no one would agree and that atheist rights would never be an issue any more than we worry about the rights of Martians.
Jonathan,
I think to equate the god Adams spoke of with that of 1954 is a travesty.
The god of the pledge isn’t the god of nature, but one of religious establishments.
Regards
Ben
“These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
[The modified pledge] 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.”
– http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
In my opinion, neither quote by Eisenhower is consistent with nature, or discovery by reason.
To me the pledge smacks of a nationalistic oath and public prayer. Each of which is inconsistent with the sentiments I have for our nation’s principles and, in my opinion, the sentiments of several founders.
The best we can do is look at what people who supported the Pledge in 1954 said it meant, and what they said, not surprisingly, reflected what the majority of Americans think God refers to, which wasn’t some almost meaningless philosophers god, it was their God, the Christian God. A sponsor of the bill in the House asserted that being an American citizen and being an atheist is a self-contradiction. The sentiment repeatedly expressed publically by a leading advocate of the 1954 under God law was that atheists are “parasites” living off of Amercian Christian culture.
The bottom line is this: It makes a mockery of the EC to define God in any way contrary to the way the majority of the the American public does. Anyone who argues otherwise simply has no concept, none, of what the EC is all about. If the EC is about anything it is about protecting minorities from the blatant government favoritism in the 1954 Pledge for a specific majority religious belief in the 1954 Pledge. Atheists are not “parasite”, less moral, less ethical, less patriotic, etc. lesser citizens, inferior citizens, or non-citizens before the law.
The legal principle isn’t non-sectarianism defined as any Christian or some non-Christian, the legal principle is neutrality.
This legal principle is not self-evident. The sense of “neutrality,” as I believe is your intended use here, can easily be read as agnosticism. America was not founded as a Christian nation, but I believe it’s a stretch to maintain it was founded as an agnostic one.
Some people who are religious have a difficult time with the concept of government neutrality apparantly because a lack of government endorsement of their beliefs implies giving equal weight to all competing beliefs. But that is what government neutrality is, it is government silence.
The concept of neutrality in establishment-clause decisions evolved through the years. Cited first as a guiding principle in Everson, neutrality meant government was neither ally nor adversary of religion. “Neutral aid” referred to the qualitative property of the aid, such as the funding going to the parent for a secular service such as busing. The rationale in Everson looked to the benefit to the parent, not to the religious school relieved of the responsibility of providing busing for its students.
Later cases recognized that all aid is in some way fungible, i.e. if a religious school receives free math texts from the state, then the money the school would have spent on secular texts can now be spent on religious material. This refocused the Court’s attention not on the kind of aid that was provided, but who received and controlled the aid. Decisions involving vocational training scholarships and providing activity-fee monies to a college religious newspaper on the same basis as other student groups showed the Court focused on the individual’s control over the funds and equal treatment between religious and non-religious groups.
In the 2002 case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the plurality decision clearly defines neutrality as evenhandedness in terms of who may receive aid. A majority of the Court continues to find direct aid to religious institutions for use in religious activities unconstitutional, but indirect aid to a religious group appears constitutional, as long as it is part of a neutrally applied program that directs the money through a parent or other third party who ultimately controls the destination of the funds.
While many find this approach intuitively fair, others are dissatisfied. Various conservative religious groups raise concerns over diminishing the special place religion has historically played in constitutional law by treating religious freedom the same as every other kind of speech or discrimination claim. Strict separationist groups argue that providing government funds to religious groups violates the consciences of taxpayers whose faith may conflict with the religious missions of some groups who are eligible to receive funding using an “even-handed” approach.
What sort of makes me sad is that I can imagine the decisions written by the majority rejecting Newdow’s claim.
They will not be good arguments. They will not be convincing, or really even intended to convince. What they will be will be some words placed down to fill space on a paper that merely confirms a trivial, but very real prejudice.
What you could argue is that we are misapplying the neutrality concept to government expression when the court has applied that concept primarily to government funding. It is true that expressive neutrality can be complicted or difficult in some contexts, as it can be in some government funding contexts also, as applying almost any EC criteria can be complicated or difficult in some contexts. But at least in the public school Pledge ritual in context its relatively straightforward which way is more neutral.
One more comment. Just because we can’t have absolute, uncompromised, yell fire in a crowded theatre, free speech and other rights doesn’t mean the rights are meaningless or impractical. We can pursue government neutrality like we can pursue respect for free speech without claiming the outcome must be absolute and complete free speech or government neutrality to be justified.
Badon wrote
“What sort of makes me sad is that I can imagine the decisions written by the majority rejecting Newdow’s claim.”
That would make me sad also. They have to find common ground so both the best and worst arguments usually remain outside the official majority opinion.
I agree, the founders were certainly not agnostic toward religion. The majority held *their* religious beliefs in high regard, and wished to ensure that their new experiment would not interfere with their religious liberty to believe as they liked.
I think this debate needs to be taken to a slightly higher vantage point, a vantage point that I find mirrored in many instances by Jefferson and Madison (in particular).
By supporting individual liberty, the issue of defending religion becomes moot.
Their constitution is one of non interference regarding religion. It neither supports or suppresses the religion of individuals. The founders chose to directly support *liberty*, and in doing so ensured that religion would flourish or perish … on its own merits, without the support of corrupting politics.
God (and no God also) is not a fact like the fact the earth circles a star. You may call this distinction between beliefs and facts agnosticism, but if thats agnosticism then agnosticism is just recognizing a genuine distinction between beliefs and facts. Actually, religionists imply this distinction when they acknowledge religion is faith based, but that is another discussion.
We know that our liberties reaches their limits when they begin to compromise the liberties of others. So I guess the liberty perspective here depends on whether government favoritism for the majorities monotheism infringes the liberty of those who don’t share that belief. The Pledge ritual in public schools does look like an imposition on the liberty of others that doesn’t have sufficient secular justification from where I stand, which is no doubt partly because the “our rights, ethics, etc.” depends on these government establishments of monotheism sounds silly and prejudiced to me. The assertions that our civil rights or ethics will be undermined if government doesn’t uphold “Under God” in 1954 or “In God We Trust” laws are similar in this respect to assertions that our society would be undermined if women voted or blacks mixed with whites. No quotes from any founding father is going to convince me otherwise just like no quotes from any founding father is going to convince me that sexism or racism is justified.
Thanks for the conversation. I know much more about 1776 than 1954, so it may well be the case that the “under God” added to the pledge was NOT to the God of the Declaration.
[...] A reader asked whether any of America’s Founders thought atheists ought to have rights. Yes, generally speaking they took Locke’s notions of unalienable rights and extended them beyond Locke’s initial conception which excluded atheists and Roman Catholics. Men of all religions or no religion at all had a right to freely practice their faith (consistent with the secular law). And unalienable rights further extended to some kind of substantive notion of equality. From my reading of the primary sources, it was an equal right to government benefits or to be free from religious establishments that hurt them in the pocketbook or in some tangible way. For this reason, Madison and Jefferson thought Patrick Henry’s Virginia bill to provide financial aid to the “Christian religion” generally violated natural rights. They believed government could not aid one religion over another, or even aid “religion” over secular interests. [...]