From the Las Vegas Review-Journal July 7, 2002 Sunday

SECTION: E; Pg. 3E

 

An American theocracy?

By MEL LIPMAN

SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL

 

I am a humanist. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic divine presence

that created or controls my life. I believe that I can live my life

ethically and morally without any 'divine' guidance.

 

Like religionists, (and to quote from dissenting Judge Fernandez in the 9th

Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance case) I also feel 'awe at the immenseness of

the universe and our own small place within it, as well as the wonder we

must feel at the good fortune of our country.' But unlike Judge Fernandez,

my 'awe' and 'wonder' are combined with rationality. I do not conclude that

God or the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny are the cause of our country's

good fortune.

 

When the words 'under God' were added to our Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I

continued to be proud to pledge allegiance to my flag and my country. I

cannot, however, be honest if I pledge allegiance to a nation 'under God.'

The United States is not a theocracy. We are not a nation under God. I will

not pledge allegiance to a theocracy.

 

For the past 48 years, I have been pledging allegiance to 'one nation under

the Constitution' and I will continue to do so regardless of the ultimate

judicial disposition of the pledge case. I am not coerced by the strange

looks of those around me when I recite the pledge. I am secure in my

patriotic feelings about this country and am not intimidated by those

deluded individuals who assert that I cannot be patriotic without a belief

in their God. But I am not a second grade student undergoing subtle coercive

pressure from peers when I am forced to participate or protest an oath I

would be dishonest in uttering.

 

I ask the God-believers how they would feel if their tax dollars were used

to endorse a 'prayer' which pledged allegiance to 'one nation which does not

believe in God.' How would they feel if their children were subjected to

such a prayer each day in school? Of course that could not happen because

our Constitution prohibits such words -- just as it prohibits the words,

'under God.'

 

In the past few days, I have frequently heard that references to God in

public places are appropriate because a majority of our country believes in

God. Does that mean we can ignore the 14 percent -- or 30 million

Americans -- who do not profess a belief in God?

 

In the 1943 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Barnette (involving

the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to not pledge allegiance to the flag),

Justice Jackson stated that the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to

place certain subjects beyond the reach of majorities. He said, 'One's right

to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of

worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights, may not be submitted to

vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'

 

The decision of June 26 will not have any major impact on my life.

Nevertheless, it is an important decision. It may stop one small intrusion

of religion into my life. James Madison noted that the refusal of the

Bostonians to pay a three cents a pound tax on tea was a minor amount. But

he wrote, 'The people of the United states owe their independence and their

liberty to the wisdom of discerning in the minute tax ... the magnitude of

the evil comprised in the precedent.'

 

In the Pledge case decision, Judge Alfred Goodwin noted that 'the purpose of

the 1954 Act (adding 'under God' to the pledge) was to take a position on

the question of theism, namely to support the existence and moral authority

of God while denying Atheistic concepts. Such a purpose runs counter to the

Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government's endorsement or

advancement not only of one particular religion at the expense of other

religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism ... Forestalling

intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects -- or even

intolerance among religions -- to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever

and the uncertain.'

 

The comments and responses of our elected officials and others to Judge

Goodwin's courageous decision raise serious concerns for me. Am I really

safe in this country from discrimination and abuse because of my minority

beliefs?

 

Webster's defines 'theocracy' as 'a state governed by divine guidance.' When

President Eisenhower signed the bill adding 'under God' to the Pledge of

Allegiance, he said, '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.'

 

I guess we are a theocracy and will remain so until we get more courageous

court decisions.

 

Mel Lipman is vice-president of the Humanist Association of Las Vegas and

national board member of the American Humanist Association.