Or is it one nation, under this guy?

by Erik the Cool Cricket

Some of us who don't believe in the whimsical machinations of a higher power feel stricken, day to day, by an atonal, discordant cacophony of superstitious noise. This includes everything from award-winning actresses thanking their maker to pre-game prayers, from Bibles in hotels to the unsettling reassurance that our currency is backed by trust in God. And we find ourselves constantly affronted by ubiquitous symbols: crosses and stars of David everywhere we turn--on hillsides, on shop doors--not to mention all those Buddhas in Chinatown.

So Wednesday's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional was like the sounding of a clear bell. Why has it taken nearly 50 years for someone on the bench to point out that freedom from religion is as important as freedom of religion? Yes, we have free speech, but we also have a Constitution that reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In other words, if people want to pray or worship or believe in fairies, they should have to do it on their own time. What they shouldn't be able to do, as a matter of Constitutional law, is force prayer and religion into the mouths of others.

As an atheist born and raised in middle America who started off exposed to religion but who came to his own conclusions about what is real, I can't help but feel apoplectic when senators call a decision like this "stupid" (Trent Lott) or "nuts" (Tom Daschle). It's insulting to be told that my nation will not include me if I don't believe in something that no one is able to prove exists.

Yet to fight against this kind of inextirpable onslaught is like throwing pebbles at a tsunami. Even a superficial contemplation of the clause raises more than a few questions:

For example, what does the phrase "under God" mean, exactly? Does it refer to the physical location of the deity, which, if above us, will be underneath us in 12 hours? The Earth rotates on an axis, but the Judeo-Christian god ostensibly exists everywhere in every place at every time, making the whole idea of our position beneath Him kind of moot.

Or does "under" actually mean "under the rules of"? In that case, which rules are we talking about? The big ten of the Old Testament? The four noble truths of Buddhism? Those tricky rules in the Koran that have turned against us? Am I allowed to eat a ham sandwich?

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 for an issue of The Youth's Companion in Boston. "Under God" was added in 1954 by people rabidly afraid of communism, and to this day it is a serious nose-thumbing to millions of Americans who do not believe in imaginary deities.

Worse, "under God" gives credit to a supernatural being instead of our own strengths as individuals in a community. This country was formed in part as a response to despots who used their god as a celebrant of their cause. Later the United States went through a civil war to keep itself together, and its toughness without the "under God" clause helped it win two world wars.

Also the phrase detracts from the main vision of the Pledge. How can we be "indivisible" if we leave out a huge chunk of our population? How can we have "liberty and justice for all" if we aren't free to disbelieve or to go with the reincarnation thing?

Congress reacted typically to Wednesday's decision with all-out rancor. Despite the egregious protestations of our so-called leaders, who have ironically sworn to uphold the Constitution, the 9th Circuit was not trying to squash anybody's rights. It was trying to protect a minority of intelligent people who are not superstitious and who are Americans, whether Joseph Leiberman, Lott and Daschle like it or not.

Leiberman, who called the decision "senseless" and "ridiculous," joined others in a promise to forge a Constitutional amendment reinstating "under God" if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the ruling (if it even gets that far). Millions of dollars and countless years will be spent dividing the nation. People will call each other names (that's already happened), beat each other up, and someone might even get killed. But in the end, the country will only be monotheistic on paper, and there will still be some of us not worshipping and not worrying about the afterlife.

Plus while my leaders and fellow countrymen waste all this time and money, I won't be able to help but think, "Who's stupid now?"

c. June, 2002 The Cool Cricket Company (tm)