Ceremonial Deism, Public Religion

PART II

GENERIC GOD?
A more accurate description of the concept might be "ceremonial god
assertion." In other words, references to a generic god are
constitutionally valid so long as they are so trivial as to be meaningless
in a religious sense. The Pledge of Allegiance, however, does not refer to
a generic god. Rather, it refers to a very specific God, a god with a
capital "G." Thus, whatever ceremonial god assertion might be, it certainly
is not represented by the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in a daily
teacher led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school
elementary students. Including the phrase "under God" in such a daily
recitation does not qualify as mere ceremonial deism because it contains
significant religious content, it is unquestionably controversial, and it
does not have an established history.
SOURCE: Brief of Amici Curiae, Seattle Atheists, (and others) in support
of respondent, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, p. 11
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/SeattleAtheists.pdf

************************************************
CEREMONIAL DEISM AND PUBLIC RELIGION
A body of scholarship exists that is so closely connected to
ceremonial deism that I would be remiss if I did not at least briefly
address it in this Article. That scholarship relates to what has been
described as the American "civil religion" or "Public Religion" Indeed,
some courts have used this concept to justify the constitutionality of
practices I have included under the rubric of ceremonial deism. . .
Much more has been written about civil religion than ceremonial
deism. The most widely cited work in the area is Robert Bellah's Beyond
Belief. Bellah wrote of "certain common elements of religious orientation
that the great majority of Americans share" which have played a "crucial
role" in the development of our political institutions and continue to
"provide a religious dimension for the whole fabric of American life,
including the political sphere," and which are "expressed in a set of
beliefs, symbols, and rituals" Bellah labeled "the American civil
religion." The tenets of this civil religion include "the existence of
God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and
the exclusion of religious intolerance." To Bellah, the national motto "In
God We Trust," the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance,
the oath of office, and references to the deity in inaugural addresses
signify that the ultimate political sovereignty is attributed not to the
people or its leaders, but to God
A more recent book by Sanford Levinson, entitled Constitutional
Faith, contemplates a radically different civil religion. Levinson's civil
religion consists of the "web of understandings, myths, symbols, and
documents" that justified the new American nation following the Revolution.
To Levinson, civil religion is secular, but consists of items of worship
analogous to traditional religion: the flag, the Declaration of
Independence, and the Constitution. Much as parents teach their children to
revere the Bible, they teach them to revere the Constitution. The worship
of the Constitution replaced the need for a national church, an institution
the Framers had rejected.
Neither Bellah's nor Levinson's definition of civil religion
closely resembles the definition of ceremonial deism articulated above.
Levinson's civil religion involves religion metaphorically, not actually. .
..
In sharp contrast, Bellah's version of civil religion does involve
core elements of true sacral religion, though in a watered-down sense. . .
SOURCE: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism, Steven B.
Epstein, 96 Colum L. Rev. 2096-97 (1996)

************************************************
PUBLIC RELIGION
MOTIVES
POWER, ITS ABOUT POWER

[EMPHASIS ADDED]

**************************************
.. . . Wherever one stands with respect to belief in God, it can hardly give
comfort or satisfaction to have the Deity subjected to empty, nonreligious
uses "of a patriotic or ceremonial character." The bland amalgamation of
God and the state, while it may meet the test of the Establishment Clause,
leads at best to a kind of cant that all of us may find embarrassing.
In the same class, though perhaps more debatably, I'd put the
improvement on the Pledge of Allegiance fashioned by Congress in 1954. That
was a year, it will be recalled, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was still
exploring how low we might be sunk in his ersatz but grimly destructive
crusade against "subversives." It was also a year McCarthy's colleagues
found it meet to insert the words "under God" after the reference to this
"one nation" in the pledge. The House Report on the bill that became this
law said that "it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic
concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.
"17 Some very brief remarks on the floor reaffirmed that inserting the
words "under God" would "strengthen the national resistance to
communism."18 The only cerebration manifested on the subject of the bill
had to do with the number and placement of commas in the revised pledge
-i.e., whether it should be simply "one nation under God" or "one Nation,
under God," as the legislative judgment finally determined. The short
debate on this subject was suitably placid. There was no debate at all on
the merits of the revision and no vote against it. Who, after all, would be
caught in the open excluding God?
The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go
forward steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent
demand to have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present
tough questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers
mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a
continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases
-where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public
park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of
those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the
symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized.
Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure
with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the
very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might
wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to
"put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say--plants the religious
flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien, infidel
intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are a
kindred but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.) Both
are joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at the
heart of religious freedom in a pluralist society.
PP 58-60

The gist of the demand is that THE MUSCLE OF YOUR RELIGION be
displayed in the public space. THE SUBJECT as is usual with facile shows of
patriotism, IS POWER. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free expression
by the creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud or
self-delusion.. There are ample private spaces in every community, amply
visible, for displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public
space, the space that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the
nonadherents. The distinction is readily, if not always malevolently,
blurred. . .
P 60

Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet
atheism, there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar
confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on
public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They
are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said,
POWER OVER the nonbelievers. This was underscored fot me in a fleeting
moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division
(Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village
of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a
place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding,
one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing
it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas
season. To my surprise as the questioner, it turned out that he never
bothered to go look at the creche at all, let alone to admire or draw
inspiration from it. But on reflection that should not have been so
surprising. The creche was not there for him to see or appreciate for its
intrinsic spiritual value in his religious universe. It was there for
others, who professed other religions or none, so that the clout of his
religious group should be made manifest-above all to any in the sharply
divided village who would have preferred that it not be there: This is the
low road., followed by at least a good number of those who seek for. their
religion and its symbols the imprimatur of government. If it is religious
at all, this stance betokens a weak and self-doubting species of faith.
P. 61
SOURCE: Excerpts from FAITH AND FREEDOM, religious libeerty in America,
Marvin E. Frankel (retired U S Federal District Court judge) Hill and Wang,
N Y (1994) pp. 55-64

******************************************
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and
Why the Department of Justice Is Wrong To Support It
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040325.html
[EXCERPT]
One would have thought that conservatives would have sided with the
parent's right to raise one's child according to one's own religious
beliefs, but as the Framers understood only too well, one should never
underestimate the powerful temptation to extend one's power when one can.

If anyone thinks that this case is not about the power of the entrenched
religious versus the powerlessness of nonbelievers in this society, today's
oral argument proves them wrong. Chief Justice Rehnquist floated several
proposals to defend "under God." First, he stated that the two words were
not really a "prayer," a distinction without a difference.

************************************************
.. . . The result is a tyranny of principles (including the emotivist's
principle of deference to "objective expertise"), as well as a concomitant
response in favor of a tyranny of individuals (anarchy). These twin aspects
of emotivism are evident, for example, in the rise of efforts, under the
rubrics of free speech and free exercise, to place formal Christian prayers
sanctioned by school authority back into the public schools. The free
exercise right is asserted here in terms of anarchical, radical individual
rights: "my" individual rights, "my" absolute right to free exercise,
without regard to the disestablishment principle or to competing interests
of the community. Interestingly, where they are able, religious adherents
(also or instead) argue the authoritarian side of emotivism: They reject
any court's interpretations of the first amendment which recognize civil
liberties contrary to their beliefs because these interpretations are based
upon nothing more than the justices' personal opinions and subjective
feelings.13 Their majority status and legislative influence are the hard
facts which objectively, and thus conclusively, should decide the issue.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Regulating Religion, The Courts and the Free
Exercise Clause. Catharine Cookson, Oxford University Press, (2001) p
(Preface) IX

****************************************
If Alabama's Chief Justice Moore weren't a judicial demagogue and if he
really wanted to "do it right," he wouldn't have done it the way he did.
He'd have talked it over with his colleagues, he'd have done some research,
and he'd have solicited input from legal scholars and historians -- and
there wouldn't be any "Ten Commandments controversy" whatever. Moore would
have had his Moses, and more.... But, in my opinion, politicians like Moore
aren't as much about Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition as they
are about using Moses and the great Judeo-Christian tradition to create
controversy and get votes. (11.04.2001)
SOURCE: BurtLaw's Court Gazing II BurtLaw.Com- LawAndEverythingElse.Com
- Copyright (c) 2001 Burton Randall Hanson
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id50.htm
[Scroll down to: The "Ten Commandments movement" revisited.

*********************************************
The entire argument rests on wanting the govt. to acknowledge God in
various forms and fashions. To create at the very least perceived unions
between church (religion) and state (govt.) It's about power, in some
instances money, politics, and in your face to all non-believers and/or
"incorrect" believers.

Let's look at that word:
ACKNOWLEDGE: (ak not/ij), vt., -edged -edg-ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact
of; confess to: to acknowledge belief in God.
2. to show or express recognition or realization of: to
an acknowledge an acquaintance by bowing.
3. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of: The member nations
acknowledged the powers of the President.
4. to show or express appreciation or gratitude for: to acknowledge a
favor
5. to indicate or make known the receipt of: to acknowledge a letter
6. to take notice of or reply to: to acknowledge a greeting
7. Law. to confirm as binding or of legal force: to acknowledge a deed.
[late :NlE acknow- leche, equiv. to acknow (OE acndwan to recognize; see
A-3,
Ib acid!- -ac-

-Syn. 1. concede, grant. ACKNOWLEDGE, ADMIT, CONFESS agree in the idea of
declaring something to be true. ACKNOWLEDGE implies making a statement
reluctantly, often about something previously denied: to acknowledge a
fault. ADMIT especially implies acknowledging something under pressure: to
admit a charge. CONFESS usually means stating somewhat formally an
admission of wrongdoing, crime, or shortcoming: to confess guilt; to
confess an inability to understand. -Ant. 1. deny.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT (ak no1Hj mant), n.
1. act of and an acknowledging or admitting.
2. recognition of the existence or truth of anything: the acknowledgment of
a sovereign power.
3. an expression of appreciation.
4. a . a thing done or given in appreciation or gratitude.
5.Law:
a. declaration by a person before an official that be executed a legal
document.
b. an official certificate of a formal acknowledging.
c. public recognition by a man of an illegitimate child as his own. Also.
esp. Brit. wteria) ac•knowliedge•ment. [ACKNOWLEDGE + -MENT]
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary,
Barnes & Noble Books, (1994) p. 12

******************************
It has always been about power. Going back to the First Century A
D it was about power.
Church and state unions have always been about power. Maintain the status
quo has always been about power mainlining the existing power balance and
structure
Recognize minorities and give them the equality they are entitled to is
about power, The disenfranchised have little power, they want some, those
that have it don't want to give it up
Same sex marriages, again power. Gays are demanding equality and those who
have the power currently feel threatened and don't want them to be equal
power wise.

****************************