« Dorf on Law NCAA Pool | Main | Obama and the "Elite Economic Consensus" »
Monday, March 17, 2008
Is God Really Just God?
I have been thinking quite a bit lately about what is sometimes referred to as “ceremonial deism” – relatively anodyne or ritualistic invocations of God in contexts like the National Motto on coins, “God save this honorable Court,” etc. Whether nonsectarian but monotheistic invocations of God by the government should be constitutionally permissible is, it seems to me, a valid question. In favor of their constitutionality, some have argued that such invocations are permitted because our history and the original intent of the Framers validate them, or because they simply acknowledge the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of our population who subscribe to one of the great monotheistic faiths – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Now, I personally don’t completely buy these arguments, but more fundamentally, I think there is a point that often gets brushed over when they are debated: namely, whether monotheistic invocations such “in God We Trust” on currency or “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, for example, are truly nondenominational. Those phrases may not be an obvious or direct endorsement of any one religion or group of religions, such as Christianity. But I do think that such phrases are understood by many non-Christians as invoking a particular God, and most likely a Christian God. After all, our currency does not say “In Allah We Trust,” and there would most likely be quite a reaction among the US population if suddenly it did. This is not to suggest that the Muslim God is in some meaningful way a different God from the Christian God. But considering the phrases “In God We Trust” and “In Allah We Trust” side by side demonstrates that even the word “God” cannot be understood as completely neutral among religions – for many, it invokes a specifically Christian God. Or, to take another example, it’s my understanding that orthodox Jews are not to say or write the name of God, so as to avoid the risk of using the name in a disrespectful or improper way – thus, some Jews write the name as G-d. Again, against this backdrop, it is hard to see how using the word God, written g-o-d, is not colored by any particular denominational preference.
Am I wrong?
Posted by Jessie Hill on March 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00e551430d778834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is God Really Just God?:
Comments
Bishop John Shelby Spong, in "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" says:
"...perhaps in the quest for security, they identify their concept of God with God. When that concept is challenged, they think God is being challenged. That is why no concept of God can ever be more than a limited human construct, and personal words about God, we must learn to admit, reveal not God, but our own yearning."
Dick
Posted by: Richard Hanneman | Mar 19, 2008 12:29:48 PM
Not to entirely cop-out on this, but I must go bill hours, and so will entirely cop-out on this.
--Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 18, 2008 2:17:20 PM
Jonathan:
The Constitution functions both to protect democracy by preventing autocracy through a system of checks and balances while also serving to check democracy by creating certain rights guaranteed to individuals to prevent abuse at the hands of the mob. The United States was not created as a pure democracy.
Moreover, while the phrase "a wall of separation" is not in the Constitution directly, it is often found in the letters of Madison and Jefferson, two of the people primarily responsible for the Constitution, in their efforts to explain both the 1st as well as the similar act they were advocating in Virginia. The Court then used this to help them interpret the 1st. Unfortunately, the Court is reluctant to go as far as Madison suggests in his Detached Memoranda and ban congressional chaplains due to a respect for tradition.
Ultimately, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it prevents government endorsement of religion, which those statements mentioned previously represent. The neutral position here would be for the statement to be removed. The absence of a statement does not endorse atheism, that would require the government putting a statement saying God does not exist. By not making a statement, the government remains neutral. It is, in some instances, relatively easy for a democratic government to take a neutral position by not taking a position.
Personally, I'm glad that the Constitution protects certain individual rights, as I'm sure you are in some instances. After all, if we were a pure democracy we would have to cater to the mob and perhaps would debilitate into the sort of state that caused Plato to disparage democracy.
Posted by: Russell | Mar 18, 2008 11:50:41 AM
Patrick and Russell:
There is no completely neutral democratic government - it's impossible. And, secularism is not the "baseline" against which all other statements must be measured - it is just another form of belief. If you argue differently, where is the support in the Constitution? The "wall of separation" phrase is not there.
If, in a democracy, people choose to have their money say, "God," whatever their religious interpretation, then so it shall be. Treatment of minority believers / non-believers as human beings, made in the image and likeness of the Creator, need not be oppressive or negative.
If we are to accede to every small group of people who argue that they are offended by some government statement or action that such needs to be changed, without those people managing to convince enough others to make the change democratically, then we will have chaos.
And that democratic process and change IS in the Constitution.
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 18, 2008 11:28:55 AM
Patrick and Russell:
There is no completely neutral democratic government - it's impossible. And, secularism is not the "baseline" against which all other statements must be measured - it is just another form of belief. If you argue differently, where is the support in the Constitution? The "wall of separation" phrase is not there.
If, in a democracy, people choose to have their money say, "God," whatever their religious interpretation, then so it shall be. Treatment of minority believers / non-believers as human beings, made in the image and likeness of the Creator, need not be oppressive or negative.
If we are to accede to every small group of people who argue that they are offended by some government statement or action that such needs to be changed, without those people managing to convince enough others to make the change democratically, then we will have chaos.
And that democratic process and change IS in the Constitution.
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 18, 2008 11:28:53 AM
Jonathan:
The way in which the word God is interpreted should really be irrelevant. As stated, even if it is a deistic endorsement, it still represents an actual endorsement of a monotheistic world-view and represents government advocacy of a particular religious stance, something government should not be doing.
This is the reason we do not see the sort of deistic concepts used in the Declaration in the Constitution. A complete wall was meant to exist between the federal government and religion, but not at that time between state governments and churches as Bill of Rights did not extend to the states until the 14th.
If we were to actually implement Madison's interpretation of the 1st, we wouldn't have congressional chaplains (see his Detached Memoranda to the Constitution).
The problem with the phrase being printed on money or in the pledge is that these are national and federally backed endorsements of religion, something that would violate the Constitution irrespective of the 14th.
Posted by: Russell | Mar 18, 2008 11:07:47 AM
Again, "deistic phrases" are not innocuous, given the way individuals and groups *today* interpret or understand them: their meaning cannot be divorced from how they are understood in contemporary society; and, again, not all Americans believe in God nor are they deists. Leaving "God talk" out of the picture disallows any possibility that Christians or those subscribing to other religious or non-religious worldviews will confuse or misconstrue such talk with the beliefs and aspirations of any religious denomination or see the government as somehow endorsing those sectarian beliefs.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Mar 18, 2008 10:53:17 AM
Patrick, you noted that:
"In our time and place, "God talk" in any way promulgated by the government would seem to be a vote against the principles and values of pluralism and tolerance."
Which is of course very different than Pat Robertson or any other "zealot" talking about God and their own Christian beliefs. Why is it that there is such an easy leap from Pat Robertson's views of God to assuming that the word "God" as used by any Government document means the same thing? Or even that the usage among documents means the same thing?
If Garry Wills is correct, then they do not mean the same thing, and the God talk in the Declaration concerning the "Law of Nature and Nature's God", the "Supreme Judge of the World," "protection of Divine Providence," are simply deistic phrases, and whatever Pat Robertson may believe, that is all they are.
As to your ideal of an absolute wall of separation between any given Church and State, a number of good historians argue that the idea of a "wall" was never the consideration, and that the phrase was to prevent the establishment of an official state church, such as the Church of England. It sounds like you may have been reading Wills's book "Head and Heart."
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 18, 2008 10:41:43 AM
Jonathan,
It perhaps does not go without saying when one repeatedly hears that followers of the three Semitic religions of Abraham are worshipping the "same God" and that what is significant is their status as monotheistic traditions (truth in all of that of course, but can be misleading, hence the mention of those doctrines). In other words, it's not simply about sameness but difference as well.
"God" cannot and indeed should not be "ignored" by those for whom the term is not personally meaningful in the sense it is for theists when it shows up on our currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and so forth, which is one point of the post by Jessie. It amounts to an endorsement (however indirect or weak) of a belief central and peculiar to particular religious denominations, as the religious and non-religious worldviews of others might thereby be slighted, ignored, dismissed, or diminished, contrary to the fundamental tenets and principles of our liberal, democratic and constitutional society.
These questions have particular salience in our own day if only because Christian evangelical zealots, "'Christian people,' as the televangelist Pat Robertson calls them--believe that the true history of the United States has been stolen and needs to be restored to our textbooks and schools. They believe (or, at least, they claim to believe) that Congress, courts, and schools have been taken over by infidels and turned to such infernal purposes as legalizing abortion and teaching evolution. Therefore, Robertson says, 'Christian people' must win 'back control of the institutions that have been taken from them.'" Ceremonial deism or not, the various invocations of God can be, and have been, cited by these evangelical Christians as evidence of the exclusive truth of *their* particular worldview, of their religious denominations. Of course this is not at all historically accurate, as Gary Wills has reiterated in his latest book, for we know that most of the Founding Fathers "were far from being evangelical Christians, and that the preponderance of what they wrote puts them on the side of pluralism and tolerance." In our time and place, "God talk" in any way promulgated by the government would seem to be a vote against the principles and values of pluralism and tolerance. I have nothing whatsoever against "faith-based politics," but the Rovean idea of "faith-based government" remains an imminent threat to the separation of church and state even if "there is evidence that at least some evangelicals are now in a mood of reflection, if not retreat." (The quoted material is from Andrew Delbanco's review of Wills' Head and Heart: American Christianities in the April 3, 2008 issue of the NYRB.)
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Mar 18, 2008 10:07:23 AM
That neither Jews nor Muslims countenance the doctrinces of the Incarnation or the Trinity found in, and essential to, Christianity, nearly goes without saying, for if they did countenance those doctrines, would they not be sects of Christianity?
Denomination may be defined as "a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith." So, it would indeed seem that the word "God" would be cognizable to groups who recognize an entity fitting that description. Of course, for those people that do not recognize "God", it is simply a meaningless phrase, which they may ignore.
Of course, if such people proceed to ascribe meaning to the term "God," then it is no longer meaningless, and as such, then cognizable.
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 18, 2008 9:01:50 AM
Russell might have added non-monotheistic yet also non-polytheistic religions to the mix, like Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism (there may be 'gods' of a kind on occasion in the latter two, but they are unlike the gods of either monotheism or polytheism). There are, after all, adherents to all three traditions in this country, although their numbers are quite small (but certainly that fact only highlights Constitutional issues, does it not?). And where to fit Advaita Vedanta, which acknowledges the necessity of a deity (saguna Brahman: Ishvara) until such time one has a realization of "Ultimate Reality" (nirguna Brahman)....
Incidentally, neither Jews nor Muslims can countenance the doctrines of the Incarnation or the Trinity found in Christianity and essential to its understanding of God.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Mar 17, 2008 7:56:26 PM
It seems ludicrous to suggest that either phrase, "in God We Trust" or "under God," is non-denominational. It certainly illustrates a favoritism towards monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions, as well as a favoritism towards religion over a lack of religion.
Accepting Jonathan's criticism, that the word "God" can be perceived to be inclusive of the "God" of the three different Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), it still clearly endorses monotheism. After all, the phrase is not "in God(s) We Trust." So even accepting Chris' notion that the phrase only creates a perceived endorsement of Christianity and not an actual one, it still creates an actual endorsement of monotheism over polytheism and atheism.
In all honesty, the phrases should never have been added to the coins and the pledge and the courts really should order a return to the original secular versions (e.g. the pledge without the phrase and simply "E Pluribus Unum" on money).
Posted by: Russell | Mar 17, 2008 6:38:07 PM
From a Jewish perspective: The name of the almighty is not "God;" that is his title ("I am the Lord, THY GOD; thou shalt have no OTHER GODS before me). The Hebrew word for God ("elohay" or "elohaynu"--forgive the awful transliteration) can be written. The almighty's name in Hebrew prayers, spoken as "Adonai," cannot be written (by any Jews of any denomination).
From a strictly religious perspective for Jews, "In God We Trust" does not refer to any particular individual by name. That perhaps suggests the slogan is more about the identity or name of the Christian God (even if that is the same being by a different name).
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Mar 17, 2008 1:48:58 PM
Looking more closely at your thoughts, I note these in reply:
1. Allah is an Arabic word which translates in English to "God" though it is often used in the Arabic even by English speakers. So, unless we were to start using Arabic on our money, the phrase "In Allah We Trust" would be illogical and unlikely to be seen. In addition, as one website noted, "Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean 'God'."
2. Though it is forbidden for Orthodox Jews to write God, is this a reflection that Orthodox Jews had no great hand in the founding or running of the country? As Christians will note, they believe that their God is the same God of the Orthodox Jews, though the reverse may not obtain.
3. I would note that the founding principles of this country are quite denominational - namely, the separation of Church and state, the concept of voting for a leader, the idea of innocence before proven guilt. How would one separate these ideas from denomination?
-Jonathan
--Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 17, 2008 1:05:43 PM
The big issue is what we're looking for. If we're looking for a purpose to endorse something narrower than monotheism, that's one thing, but if we're looking for an effect of perceived endorsement, that's quite another. Judge Easterbrook has a nice example of someone walking down the street in an Uncle Sam outfit saying the U.S. is a Christian country. That might create the perception of an endorsement, even if the guy had nothing at all to do with the government. If the term God is only "understood by many non-Christians as invoking a ... Christian God," there presumably isn't any purpose to endorse on the part of the Christians using the term.
Under the 14A, we might also be looking for an abridgement of religious dissenters' privileges or immunities, in which case a coercion test might be the way to go. As Scalia noted in the Allegheny oral argument, though, upholding "In God We Trust" on the basis of a lack of coercion would also allow putting even "In Jesus Christ we trust" on coins.
Also recall the conclusion to the Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." Not a denominational preference, but surely a Christian one.
Posted by: Chris | Mar 17, 2008 12:17:21 PM
yes.
Posted by: well | Mar 17, 2008 11:45:49 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.