The Staton Jones Report

I urge you to read this article in the New Republic covering the Newdow case before the Supreme Court. Michael Newdow is defending his 9th Circuit Court win in his "crusade" to remove the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegance. The article shows how defenders of God in the Pledge are undermining their own religious beliefs.

But the conservatives were not the only ones at the Supreme Court who denied religion by the manner in which they defended it. Justice Breyer wondered, in a challenge to Newdow, whether the words "under God" referred only to a "supreme being." Citing United States v. Seeger from 1965, though he might have illustrated his speculation more vividly with the historical precedent of the Cult of the Supreme Being in revolutionary Paris, Breyer proposed that such a faith "in any ordinary person's life fills the same place as belief in God fills in the life of an orthodox religionist," and so "it's reaching out to be inclusive"--so inclusive, in fact, that it may satisfy a non-believer such as Newdow. Breyer suggested that the God in "under God" is "this kind of very comprehensive supreme being, Seeger-type thing." And he posed an extraordinary question to Newdow: "So do you think that God is so generic in this context that it could be that inclusive, and if it is, then does your objection disappear?"

Needless to say, Newdow's objection did not disappear, because it is one of the admirable features of atheism to take God seriously. Newdow's reply was unforgettable: "I don't think that I can include 'under God' to mean 'no God,' which is exactly what I think. I deny the existence of God." The sound of those words in that room gave me what I can only call a constitutional thrill. This is freedom. And he continued: "For someone to tell me that 'under God' should mean some broad thing that even encompasses my religious beliefs sounds a little, you know, it seems like the government is imposing what it wants me to think in terms of religion, which it may not do. Government needs to stay out of this business altogether."

Amen to that.

Besides, the argument that Olson makes implies that we only added the phrase "Under God" to counter the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Well, look around. We won that conflict. The fifty year clock has run out ... let's drop the line now. If your religious belief is so fragile that it will only be sustained by forcing millions of American children to repeat the token phrase, which is exactly what I think the religious leaders who politicize religion are doing, it's not very strong now is it?