“Under God” and “In God we Trust”

Here we go again. Michael Newdow, a doctor AND a Lawyer from California, is continuing his crusade to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” off of U.S. currency.

Twice now Newdow has gotten Federal courts to acknowledge that “Under God” in the pledge in unconstitutional because it violates a child’s right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The case stalled the first time around when the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.

On “In God we Trust,” a Federal court has ruled that it does not violate Newdow’s right to be an atheist and Newdow has appealed. A Federal appeals court will hear both cases and regardless of the decisions, both questions will probably end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This question is not that obvious. Who is this “God” that the phrases refer to? It could be the Christian God; it could be the Islamic Allah; it could even be Zeus, Odin or the Universe I guess.

It could be, but we really know that isn’t how it’s intended.

The intent is that it’s the Christian God. In a pinch Christians will allow Jews to share that God and they may even allow Muslims to join the party but polytheists such as Wiccans, Hindus and followers of Asatru probably need not apply.

One might be able to argue that the phrases do not apply to a given religion, but they clearly apply to a class of religions and they certainly acknowledge a belief in God over a non-belief in God.

Now here’s where it gets tricky. Does the establishment clause require strict neutrality between belief in God and non-belief in God? There is a difference between religion and a belief in God. One can believe in what I call the secular God. Basically a belief that we’re more than a cosmic accident and there is some reason for our existence beyond the vague genetic imperative implied by natural selection, but that rejects all religions as false.

Some folks call this philosophy Deism. But Deism also attempts to define the nature of God. Deism believes God wants humans to act “morally” but leaves the definition of “morally” somewhat open. To my mind then Deism is a religion, a somewhat fuzzy and vaguely defined religion perhaps but a religion nonetheless.

Personally I always fall back upon a militant agnostic outlook. I don’t know if there’s a God, but if there is, he hasn’t given me any revelations so why should I believe he’s provided them to anyone else?

But I digress. I think this is a case where intent matters and the intent was, I believe in both cases, clearly intended to honor the Christian concept of God. That being the case, I believe that “Under God” and “In God we Trust” both do in fact violate the first amendment. I also think the case is far stronger with “Under God” due to the coercive argument.

That being the case, both should be declared unconstitutional, but, given the current Supreme Court membership, they won’t be.

The entire attempt is ill considered and is just going to end up giving those who would like to staple the label “Christian Country” onto the U.S. another argument in their favor and an opportunity to declare victory. Besides, we have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about like a war in Iraq, universal Health Care and an educational system that has American teens lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in science and math.