| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by James N. Markels I’m an
atheist. Right now in America it’s not too popular to be like me.
After all, an atheist, Michael Newdow, took the Pledge of Allegiance to
court because the words “under God” offended his sensibilities. This
caused a huge ruckus when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
the phrase made the Pledge itself unconstitutional as a state
endorsement of religion. It is likely that the ruling won’t get
anywhere—certainly not past the Supreme Court—but the popular view
as a result of it seems to be that we atheists are an unusually touchy
bunch, as if we’re the religious equivalent of vegans. For the
record, we’re not all like Newdow. In fact, I think it is wrong for
atheists to be hypervigilant against every suggestion of religion in the
public sphere. However, much of the legal side of the church-state
discussion assumes that all atheists are like Newdow, and in fact that
we should be treated like him. That perspective will have to change
before the courts are able to properly define the line between religion
and government. Judges, for
example, seem to think that atheists are an especially immature folk.
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, a Catholic, has written in reference to
the Pledge that “it borders on sophistry to suggest that the
‘reasonable’ atheist would not feel less than a ‘full membe[r] of
the political community’ every time his fellow Americans recited, as
part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he
believed to be false.” The Ninth Circuit agrees, arguing, “To an
atheist or a believer in certain non-Judeo-Christian religions or
philosophies, [‘under God’ in the Pledge] may reasonably appear to
be an attempt to enforce a ‘religious orthodoxy’ of monotheism,”
and would therefore be “coercive.” Such statements encourage the
view that atheists are all Newdows, seeing persecution and coercion
everywhere the word “God” pops up. Our delicate minds must
apparently deserve the utmost protection as a result. In truth,
atheists generally are not so thin-skinned. People may believe or
pronounce what they wish around us, and we’ll happily ignore them or
disagree and say our peace. These actions in themselves embody the
essence of what it means to be a member of the political community
Justice Kennedy speaks of. Only when our voice is stifled by
governmental force or threat has our political standing in the community
been degraded—that we might have an unpopular or minority view is not
enough. Otherwise, should we assume that any position the government
takes degrades the standing of all who oppose it? That is folly. Similarly,
the Ninth Circuit’s idea that the Pledge could be interpreted by
atheists as enforcing monotheism implies that we’re so touchy as to
view divergent beliefs as an invasion of our own. So long as no one is
forced to recite the Pledge, there is no remaining aspect of force that
doesn’t already permissibly exist in any case where ideas are
exchanged. Courts
don’t need to treat atheists like crybabies. One whiff of God isn’t
persecution. Atheists know that the vast majority of Americans believe
in a divine power of some kind. We’re in the minority. The voice of
the majority is going to be louder and will enjoy more favor in
government. That’s just reality. What is important is that atheists
are allowed to believe and say what they wish without fear of government
reprisal, and that the government is not attempting to influence people
to become religious or join a particular religion. This requires an
approach from the individual perspective that is generally lacking in
church-state jurisprudence, which currently focuses more on the
state’s actions (via “endorsement” or “entanglement”) to
determine where the line should be. To put it
another way, how the individual is affected is more to the point than
what the government does. If a given government act does not materially
promote religion or limit the free exercise thereof, then it should be
constitutional even if it employs religious concepts. Take the
inscription “In God We Trust” on our money for example; does it
really convince anyone to change their mind concerning religion or
prevent them from believing and acting as they wish? Of course not. We
atheists are not under religious assault every time we reach for our
wallets. This is common sense. There are
many instances of where the government has involved itself in religion,
from chapels in the Capitol to chaplains in each house of Congress to
the invocation of God to announce the beginning of each Supreme Court
session. The Founding Fathers from the beginning would pray regularly in
Congress. None of these acts have converted the nonreligious or
inhibited the practice of belief. The First Amendment was not intended
to force the government to pretend that religion doesn’t exist; it was
to prevent religious persecution. Not every public use of religious
ideas persecutes the nonreligious. A government that acknowledges via
formality the beliefs of the vast majority of people it represents is
not always attacking the minority. |
||
