Under who?

As you have no doubt now heard, a 9th Circuit District judge in California has found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words “under God.”

Just what do these words mean?

To the rabidly atheist Newdow, they mean a state endorsement of religion, and that is a no-no under the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Notice I didn’t say “under the Constitution” or “under the First Amendment.”  Why?  Because the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.  And because the First Amendment also has a “free exercise” clause alongside that “establishment clause.”

But I am not here to debate the Constitution.  I am here to talk about the meaning of the words “under God.”

Why are these words important?

As you hopefully recognize, you have rights.  You have the rights like the right to Life, the right to Liberty, and the right to Property.  But where did they come from?

Most of us ignorantly believe our rights come to us from the Constitution.  This is a mistake.  The Constitution is an inanimate object (contrary to the beliefs of the “living Constitution” crowd).  It cannot bestow anything.  All the Constitution can do is state that you have rights, not give them to you.  It is merely a written account of the rights you have.

Why is this important?

Remember, the Constitution can be amended.  Today, the First Amendment of the Constitution acknowledges that you have a right to Freedom of Association.  You can determine who your friends are, and you can meet with them.  But what happens if, under the provisions for amendment, two-thirds of the Legislature and three-fourths of the States all get together and agree to repeal this right?  Could the government then forbid you from associating with certain “undesirable” political groups?  Could the government ban the Green Party?

If you believe that such a basic human right as the freedom of association comes from the government itself, then yes.

But what if that right comes from something higher than the government?  What if that right comes from… God?

No, I am talking about the Judeo-Christian God.  And it doesn’t matter if I capitalize the word or not.  “God” or “god,” either way, the word does not mean the Judeo-Christian God.  For one thing, His name isn’t “God,” but the unpronounceable YHWH.  For another, the capitalization of the word “god” to “God” is merely a grammatical method of assigning identity in the form of a proper noun.  But I digress.

Who is God?

That depends on whom you ask.  God could be YHWH.  God could be Allah.  God could be Buddha.  God could be Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.  God could be the Greek Pantheon.  God could be the Collective Jungian Ubersoul.  God could be Nature.  God could be Humanity.  God could be the spirit of your late Aunt Matilda, or the Thing That Makes Socks Disappear.

The answer to “who is God” is unimportant in the context of the “under God” issue.

As far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, God is that which grants your rights and that which, alone, has authority over the nation.

Think about this: “one nation, under God…”

It doesn’t say “one nation, worshipping God…”  It doesn’t say “one nation, following Jesus…”  It says “one nation, UNDER God…”  Under.  As in, “falling under the authority of.”

Your rights are granted to you as a human by God.  Assign whatever value you want to the word “God.”  The identity of God is irrelevant, so long as God is not “the government.”

If your rights were granted by the government, they could be taken away by it.  But, if your rights are granted by the one thing that stands above the government, then no actions of our political leaders can take your rights away.  Take away the higher power, and all power falls to the State.

Didn’t we break free from England because we didn’t want to be under the control of an all-powerful state?  Because we knew that all mankind had rights above and beyond the mere words of the King?

If the day ever comes when the government changes, the Constitution is re-written or abandoned, and the “rights” we enjoy today are no longer recognized (and since forever is a pretty long time, the odds of this happening “some day” are pretty high, even if happens long after our deaths), we will still have basic rights as human beings because God, some God, any God, has made it so.

That is why we must say “under God.”

That is why those who would make the power of government supreme must erase God from our society.

Comments

[Adam]

Hi, I've got two points:

First, we can't just assign whatever value we want to the word "God", any more than we can assign whatever value we want to the word "five". Words have meanings. In the USA, "God" means the Judeo-Christian God. A philosopher may recognize the vagueness of the word and the wildly varying definitions given to it, but the ten-year old child reciting the pledge in public school will interpret "God" to mean "the great father in the sky."

Otherwise, for the record, I disagree with your interpretation of rights as god-given. If the word "rights" has any real meaning, then rights originate in ourselves (as individuals and a society). If I have the "right to walk down the street", that means that I can walk down the street and no-one will interfere with me. Maybe they don't interfere because they recognize my right to walk down the street. Maybe they don't interfere because they are afraid of messing with me. Maybe they don't interfere because I move in stealth and they aren't even aware that I am walking down the street. Any way, they don't prevent me from walking down that street, and that's the only real meaning of a "right". Everything else is just a fantasy, just an idea in some person's head.

I only mention you seemed to assume that there is no other interpretation of rights besides the "natural law" interpretation. If we create our own rights, there is no reason to confuse the issue with vague words like "God".

[Tyler D.]

Great Post Gully.

[foxtrot13]

I'm not the most competent student of the law, but correct me if I'm wrong.

The Declaration of Independence stands firmly upon Jefferson's reasoning that we the American people are instilled with "Rights" by our "Creator".

My quote may not be completely accurate as its taken out of context and I'm to lazy to research right now. The American experiment (as liberal political scienctist love to call it) is founded firmly upon the concept of "Under God"!!! Our justification to the world of why we could leave the British Empire.

[sarahk]

well said.

[Rivrdog]

Hmmm. excellent argument, Counselor, but would it win in a Roberts Court?

I think not, because you have only gotten down one level into the fabric of Constitutional thought. Yes, Jefferson said that all rights flowed from actions of the Creator, but for him to be able to say that, an aggregation of men put their minds, wills and purses together to make it happen, so the rights actually come from MEN, WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CREATOR.

The final analysis then, is that rights come from men.

Whether they are men of democratic nature, or statist ambition is an auxilliary matter, not germane to the "Under God" discussion.

[JayBoz]

Gully,

Let us remember who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance and why it was written. Then tell me if you think a government should require children attending government schools to recite it daily.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm

The Pledge was written by a socialist as a tool to indoctrinate children into believing in the State above the individual. Even with the insertion of the phrase "under God" during the Cold War, the Pledge is still placing the individual inferior to the State. Unlike the Constitution that clearly puts power in the correct order, that the government derives power from the governed, not the other way around.

For this reason, the Pledge should be banned and become a historical footnote. It would be better if children were required to swear to protect and defend the Constitution as individuals that the document was created to protect.

[Gullyborg]

The argument that because the Pledge was "orignially" created by a "socialist" to turn people on the power of "the state," we should not have it now lacks merit.

As a conservative, I care about results, not process. If something started out as a mistake, but in the end has a benefit, I don't care that it was a mistake.

Take Post-It Notes: one of the best money makers in history, a useful product people all over use all the time, and a mistake. Should we all stop using them?

More to the point, and sure to cause more controversy:

The AK-47 assault rifle was originally created by a Soviet communist engineer, for the express purpose of killing enemies of the Soviet Union.

Does that mean that I shouldn't favor the AK-47 as a practical tool for civil defense in America today?

If you are opposed to the AK-47, be opposed because:

A) you are opposed to guns in general, or;

B) you think it is an outdated or inferior firearm.

Don't oppose it because the intent of the designers was to harm us.

Here is another one for you:

How many lives are saved each year due to organ transplants? I have no idea. But I'll bet it's a bunch. And how glad do you think the people whose lives are saved are? I'm guessing most people who get to live a longer, healthier life are pretty damn eager about it. But to whom do we owe much of our medical success relating to organ transplants?

NAZI SCIENTISTS, UNDER DOCTOR MENGELA, WHO EXPERMINETED ON JEWS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO BIOLOGICALLY ENGINEER A MASTER RACE.

So... let's throw all the medical advances we have today that might have benefited from this sick barbaric practice out the window, eh?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But the worst intentions often lead to greatness and prosperity.

Move past the ideas and process behind the results and look at the results. If the Pledge of Allegiance started out as a socialist propaganda tool, so what? The end result of it is teaching American children about Patriotism and respect for our Nation.

If Patriotism and respect for our Nation offend you, then by all means, continue to protest the Pledge.

[JayBoz]

Gully,

You did not address that the Pledge STILL makes the individual inferior to the State. "I pledge allegiance to..." what? A flag and a Republic for which it stands. As you say, the Republic and the flag are not what grant us rights. "We the people" are what grant our government power and we can take it away. (Provided we have enough AK-47's, a far better weapon than the M-16.) But now I drift into the next amendment...

[Ted Shepherd]

Rivrdog said "Then tell me if you think a government should require children attending government schools to recite it daily." The United States Supreme Court settled that issue in 1943. The case was West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (I venture to guess that you were not yet born at that time. Of course, Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954.) Here is part of that decision:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

"We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."

In short, no level of government in the United States has the power to require anyone to recite the pledge of allegiance or any other prayer. The issue Newdow raises is whether government can require school children to LISTEN to the pledge as currently written. That pledge shows governmental support for God which is contrary to some parents' teachings.

[Kaos]

Actually Yhwh is easily pronounceable. Its pronounced Yahweh. The reason it is often shown as Yhwh, is that the origionally Hebrew had no vowels.

[Gullyborg]

Except the word "Yahweh" is still NOT the actual Name of God. It is the way we have come to pronounce the Word represented by the letters YHWH.

It's like, imagine you asked me my name, and I responded with sounds that transcend the ability of mortals to comprehend, so you say, "so... I'll just call you Bob then."

YHWH, or "Yahweh," is like "Bob."

(Wow, I'll bet THAT analogy ticks off some fundies...)