T 7/19/02

Work Diary, 7/19/02

The latest brouhaha in the States concerning the Pledge of Allegiance
being unconstitutional is pretty amusing. I'm not sure what all the
fuss is about. We're a nation that pays a lot of lip service to the
separation of church and state; the pledge contains the phrase "one
nation under God"; enough said. Yes, the pledge is an American
institution - despite sporadic protests that correctly find the phrase
a violation of the minority's (i.e., non-religious citizens') rights -
but there is a huge difference between tradition and remaining
static.

Other countries must find us laughable at times. We are so young and
yet so serious, like a child watching the conversation of adults and
hoping not to be sent to bed. Only, unlike the child (who will remain
as quiet as possible to avoid attention and the subsequent bedtime
order), we can be loud, petulant, and rarely stop to think before the
words leave our mouths. This is not a question of the will of the
majority, which from all reports would like God to remain in the Pledge
of Allegiance (and, for that matter, the national anthem, "God Bless
America"). The idea of separation of church and state is, in fact,
specific to the will of the majority, and how that same will can
sometimes result in some pretty nasty treatment of the minority.
Witness the death threats to the attorney who pressed his case, and won
the court battle to find the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional; the
establishment of the Protestant religions; the Inquisition. The list
may seem endless, but it's not, and it would be a mistake to find fault
with religion just for the sake of finding fault. But the authors of
the Constitution knew what they were doing. They were closer to and
certainly more knowledgeable about the events which prompted the idea
of separation of church and state in the first place, unlike the
formidable and - dare I say it? - largely uneducated modern Americans
who believe, "If God is good enough for me, He's good enough for
everybody."

I feel fortunate that I myself am not a religious person. I may not be
an atheist?well, maybe I am. I'm not sure. I do have opinions about
religion, which, as my partner says, is just big business disguised
under spirituality. He has a point, particularly about the spirituality
part. In fact, it is somewhat astounding that we do not tax churches,
which often stray so far into politics that whatever spiritual message
the churches subscribe to becomes lost in the scramble to get votes.
This is not a new development, of course, but it is interesting that
American churches hide behind the separation of church and state to
avoid paying taxes when they themselves are so involved in the state.
Notice I said "interesting" and not "surprising"; indeed, it is no
surprise that a church picks and chooses whatever scripture or law that
suits its purpose best.

My point is not to offend the religious, though it seems almost
impossible to address this issue without doing so. I do not even mind
that God has found His way into our songs and pledges. We seem,
however, to be skirting around the real issue here, which is this: Why
are Americans so afraid of God being removed from public view? Should
God, or at least the concept of God, not be a private experience, even
in a congregation of fellow worshipers? Or has God lost His personal
edge with his followers?