In a recent viewpoint entitled "Under God Phrase Should Remain" [Tufts Daily, 9/21/05] several arguments were advanced as to why that should be the case. The problem is that the author missed the most important and legally valid one as to why "under God," along with our new motto "In God We Trust" (replacing the original E Pluribus Unum), cannot stand if we are to have true freedom of belief.
Of course it's historically true that the Pilgrims were Christians and that many of the founders were religious. It's also true that religion is intricately woven into the fabric of this country. Those, however, are not the salient points. Historical precedent does not inevitably translate into law or justify a wide spread practice. It's historically true that during the first century of our nation, women had few rights and African Americans none. It is also true that the "majority" of Americans condoned these practices.
Clearly, a majority opinion does not always produce just laws. I believe the Constitution was written based on the ideals of establishing justice and securing liberty, not to promulgate history, but to insure that the lessons of the old world were not repeated in the new. It was written to ensure that certain inalienable rights were not trampled by the tyranny of the majority.
The Constitution is the law of the land. The First Amendment clearly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." In Jefferson's own words, "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." This phrase was used several times by Jefferson and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as an accurate description of the "Establishment Clause," to which first phrase of the First Amendment is referred.
In 1954 Congress passed a bill, and President Eisenhower signed it into law, inserting "under God" in the Pledge. By doing this, our government in effect established and promoted the "opinion" that there exists a singular deity that we are all under. This is a specific belief. It is an opinion. It is in conflict with beliefs that accept multiple deities or none at all. It's the same as saying one Nation under Zeus, or Allah, or Krishna.
What else does the First Amendment prohibit if not Congress placing a specific system of belief above others? By what right did Congress alter the Pledge and our motto to make a specific theological statement? In my opinion, if the First Amendment means anything, it means exactly that Congress cannot pass laws that establish or promote one system of belief over others. How many Americans would answers yes to the question: do you think our government should promote a specific religious belief over others? This is exactly what adding "under God" or "In God We Trust" to national "symbols" does. They are government endorsements of a specific belief.
Americans are free to believe and free not to believe. They are free to exercise their rights at home, in houses of worship, or in the public square. On the other hand, our government and its officials represent all the people, and as such cannot favor one system of beliefs over others. No American should have to sit quietly by while a government official in a governmental process leads others in making a statement containing an affirmation of a religious nature. It is wrong. Government must be a neutral place where we can all gather as equals. A legislative body cannot codify a theological concept and claim that it is not promoting or establishing it.
In its simplest form, the First Amendment means exactly what Jefferson stated - "the separation of church and state" - that religious institutions do not control government, its officials, or require government to enforce their religious codes. Likewise, government and its officials do not interfere with the practices and beliefs of religious institutions or individuals (barring criminal acts), or support, sponsor, or promulgate religious beliefs.
If we are a free and just democracy, where respect of minority rights exists, there can be no "freedom of religion" without freedom from government-promoted religion.
Samuel Kounaves is a Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Associate Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church & State.
