In his column today, New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that we should appreciate that the phrase “one nation under God” (which is, after 50 years, finally being challenged in the Supreme Court) is “not proselytizing; it’s citizenship.” To help us understand this, he offers the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. (via David L. Chappell’s book “A Stone of Hope”), who believed that the goals of the civil rights movement “would take something as strong as a religious upsurge.” Brooks leaps from this choice made by King (only one of the Civil Rights leaders) to the conclusion that, “If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.”
Forget the ocean of other options in between his example and his conclusion, look at his twisted path to this conculsion: let’s take it one main phrase at a time:
If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics
Remember that the backdrop for this column is the phrase “under God,” which was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, although the Pledge had served the nation well for 62 years before then without it. But this was not the bringing of “religious values into politics”; this was the bringing of politics via religion into Patriotism, which should transcend politics as much as possible.
So we’re already off course here.
Next he adds
then, if Chappell is right,
By which he refers to Chappell’s conclusion that “the civil rights movement was not a political movement with a religious element. It was a religious movement with a political element.”
OK, he’s asking us to consider that. Fine.
Next he adds
you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement.
I won’t quibble too much by noting that his argument actually suggests “you have to say goodbye to the successes of the civil rights movement” (there’s no reason to believe that the movement would never have occurred without its being formed as a religious movement, but rather only that it was perhaps more successful because it was).
What he’s really leaping to (in this context…and via a logical platform made of popsicle sticks and bubble gum) is that only by sharing religious values do we facilitate progress on human rights issues (presumedly by appealing to the religious beliefs of potential supporters of the movement as a rallying cry and by arguing through religion against the objections of the opposistion). This ignores two facts: one, other human rights movements, such as the women’s movement and gay rights movement, have made great strides without a religious framework (mostly despite it, actually), and two, the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic is also a human rights issue.
You could argue that Brooks is arguing that only the Civil Rights Movement needed a religious framework (not other movements), but that’s contradicted by his later conclusion that
Whether you believe in God or not, the Bible and commentaries on the Bible can be read as instructions about what human beings are like and how they are likely to behave. Moreover, this biblical wisdom is deeper and more accurate than the wisdom offered by the secular social sciences, which often treat human beings as soulless utility-maximizers, or as members of this or that demographic group or class.
If we followed the Bible’s wisdom and/or instructions about human beings, the women’s movement and gay rights movement would arguably be much less further along than they are.
I personally believe in God, and I like to think that belief informs my actions and decisions on a daily basis, as well as how I vote. I don’t believe, however, it’s necessary to bring religion into our shared texts, procedures, or practices in order for our individual religions or religious communities to thrive.
A history of the Pledge explains that “In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, ‘under God,’ to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.”
Not that this should convince anyone, but ironically, the granddaughter of Francis Bellamy (1855 – 1931), the Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge, “said he also would have resented this…change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.”
The Pledge belongs to the nation now, though, so we can update it as we see fit. It would best honor the Republic, for which the flag stands, however if the Pledge reflected the values the nation was built upon. The separation of church and state, being one of them.
UDPATED: to correct a few typos and clarify one sentence.
I think the Bible is ok. As literature of wisdom, you can ignore the stuff about shellfish and still get something from the Saul-David-Jonathan tragedy. Of course, just as you can’t really understand Sophocles after subtracting the religion, religion is important in studying the Bible.
As for the Pledge, I am an unbeliever, but I can’t seem to get worked up about it. Yes, there are principles, but in practice if I concede a little to the majority, I may be more likely to receive concessions in return.
Oh I forgot. Very good post. Outstanding.
religion is important in studying the Bible
This reminded me of an exchange on the “Enough” thread where I had asked Robert Spencer about his religion. We both agreed that not praticising a religion can provide a more objective avenue through which to study one (not more clarity, perhaps, but less need to defend irrationally).
if I concede a little to the majority, I may be more likely to receive concessions in return.
I’ve never minded it personally (by which I mean I’m happy to acknowledge that I believe in God in public pronouncements), but I have a good number of atheist friends whom it makes uncomfortable. Obviously, as it’s taken 50 years to get the Supreme Court, it’s not a burning issue, but I do hope the Supreme Court has a convincing rationale for keeping it in that doesn’t simply dismiss that discomfort, if they don’t rule it unconstitutional, that is…which would be fine by me as well.
A fine post.
And that Dave Chapelle sure is funny.
And that Dave Chapelle sure is funny.
LOL
Yeah, and for a moment I confused him with David Lachapelle, as well.*
*WARNING: you may not want to click that link at work. It contains “fine art” of a mature nature.
The Bible is certainly a fund of ethical advice (some good, some less so, in my opinion), but I don’t think it’s necessarily more so than modern social sciences – or even hard biological sciences. I’m a psychology student, and thus far my professors and texts have taken a lot of care to make sure it’s clear that individual humans are motivated by much more than some sort of straight trigger-hormone-action sequence, and that biology doesn’t trump cultural mores. Maybe this is a modern trend in these sciences, but I get the impression that my classes are trying to teach me to approach other human beings as *people*, not “soulless utility-maximizers”. Brooks may be a bit out of date – or maybe just took the wrong sociology course.
or maybe just took the right sociology course.
On the legal merits, I think this challenge a crock.
(Recall, though, that I spent a good part of two days arguing with Steve Malynn on Tacitus about whether the Ten Commandments should be removed from Ray Moore’s Courthouse — and I was the one who wanted them gone.)
Safire agrees with you von, although there’s something about this topic that makes the pundits grasp at logical straws to defend their position. Safire’s column is unusually full of utter rubbish…even for him.
Me, I won’t lose sleep over it either way, so long as there’s a plausible reason for keeping it in that goes beyond the meaningless fact (to me anyway) that Newdow didn’t marry his daughter’s mother.
The Supreme Court back in ’43 or so ruled that saying the pledge is voluntary. And as far as the ‘under God’ part goes, exactly which religion is being established?
And as far as the ‘under God’ part goes, exactly which religion is being established?
There’s a number of ways to answer this, including the point that atheists should not be asked to pray to even a pan-denominational “God,” but none of them offer a productive or construtive approach.
My biggest beef with the phrase is that it was added during the Cold War, when US fears about Communism led to McCarthyism and other abuses, and the Pledge had served the nation perfectly well without “under God” until then, so it does seem to be politically loaded. And given that it’s young children who are asked to say it, it’s a bit much to stand on the ’43 ruling that they don’t have to as the only compensation for nonbelievers.