544
BRANDEIS LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 41
APPENDIX A
SEPARATING GOD AND COUNTRY*
Arnold H. Loewy
Perceived judicial attacks on God or Country are not taken kindly by the
populace or politicians. This point has been illustrated over and over again by
constant attempts to amend the Constitution to allow school prayer and the
punishment of flag burners. So it should come as no great surprise that when
God and Country appear to be under attack in one fell judicial swoop, the
politicians will indeed become restless. Consequently, the senate's 99-0
rejection of the 9th Circuit's decision invalidating the phrase "under God" in
the flag salute was not unexpected. It was, however, unfortunate.
I know of no more important duties than the support of God and Country.
But they don't mix well. We elect Senators and Congressmen to enact laws
describing reciprocal duties between ourselves and our Country. We do not
elect them to prescribe our duty to God. For that we have Priests, Ministers,
Rabbis, and other clerical or lay church leaders. Roger Williams, one of our
most pious founders, insisted on separation of Church and State because of his
firm belief that civil leaders were unqualified to lead us in the ways of God.
More recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of
Government's neither endorsing nor disapproving one's religious beliefs. Put
differently, one's devotion (or lack thereof) to God is irrelevant to her status as
a citizen. The phrase "under God" in a patriotic pledge certainly disapproves of
Buddhists, Taoists, Ethical Culturalists, Secular Humanists and, of course,
Atheists. One might be tempted to respond: "So what, we're right and they're
wrong. Who cares if a few heathen are offended." That, however, is just the
point. You and I might know that we're right and they're wrong, but the
Government is not permitted to know that. The Government must remain
neutral.
* Originally printed in the Raleigh News and Observer, June 2002.
2003]
A "NEUTRAL" ESTABLISHMENT CLA USE
545
In some ways, the public pledge in school is worse than public prayer.
With prayer, the nonbeliever must identify herself as a nonbeliever by not
participating. But with the pledge, a devoutly patriotic American Atheist may
appear to be unpatriotic when he was merely being ungodly. Compelling the
atheistic patriot to either appear unpatriotic or betray his religious convictions is
precisely the choice that the establishment clause forbids Government to
impose on its citizens.
For those who think that "under God" is merely political and not religious,
imagine a hypothetical future when America is controlled by a majority of
atheists, who decide to substitute "without God" for "under God" in the flag
salute. I would hope that the Supreme Court (even if then also controlled by
Atheists) would hold that phrase to be unconstitutional. I would argue that
however atheistic the majority of the country may be, our fundamental charter
demands that the majority's religious philosophy not be the basis of our
country's politics.
Ironically, it was the Soviet Union's dictatorial infusion of atheism into the
warp and woof of Soviet society that prompted us to add "under God" to the
flag salute in the first place. Perhaps we should have added "with freedom of
religion" instead. That would have properly highlighted the difference between
us and the Soviet Union.
Those who worry that invalidation of "under God" in the pledge of
allegiance might lead to the eventual demise of "In God we trust" on our coins
and currency should recall Jesus' admonition in regard to the propriety of
Caesar's likeness on the coins and currency of the realm. He famously
remarked: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God' s."
God most assuredly deserves our trust, but he doesn't need "Caesar" to provide
it. Our alternative motto, e pluribus unum, from the many one, describes both
our diversity and, in pledge terms, our indivisibility. And, it lacks the
divisiveness of a motto spiritually offensive to some and theoretically offensive
to others.
The love of both God and Country are characteristic of most good
American citizens. It is my fondest hope that this will continue to be the way
we are. But countries that seriously integrate the two are not among those that
we like to emulate. The Shiites of Iran and Islamic Jihad are two recent
examples of the harm that can come from excessive intermixing.
While America would never go down that path, we would do well to
remove ourselves as far as possible from the Theocratic State. As Justice
Robert Jackson, the Nuremberg prosecutor, once observed: "It is possible to
546
BRANDEIS LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 41
hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to
God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar."