News
Constitutional Law
Jul. 19, 2002
U.S. Government Needs to Keep Out of God Business
Forum Column - By Edward Tabash - Those of us who do not believe in God are the most unjustly despised minority in the country today. Poll after poll reveals that more people would vote against a candidate just for being a nonbeliever than for any other single reason.
Forum Column
By Edward Tabash
Those of us who do not believe in God are the most unjustly despised minority in the country today. Poll after poll reveals that more people would vote against a candidate just for being a nonbeliever than for any other single reason.
The outcry over the recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow v. United States Congress, 2002 DJDAR 7229 (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), in which the court held unconstitutional that portion of the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God," shows how hostile the general public is toward even the most benevolent neutrality toward matters of faith on the part of government.
Nonbelievers can be atheists (people who believe that the weight of the evidence in our universe demonstrates a natural reality with no supernatural beings), agnostics (people who believe that we humans can never know for sure, either way) or free thinkers (people who maintain that each of us must make an individual decision about what to believe). However, that decision must be based upon our own assessment of the world in which we live, without any coercion from any authority structure claiming to possess some infallible divine revelation.
There are also deists. They believe that some deity may have jump-started the world, but then took an eternal coffee break. This was Thomas Jefferson's belief.
The term "secular humanist" applies to those of us who believe that the godless, natural universe should serve as a springboard for the ascendance of human reason. With reason as the foundation for unfettered free inquiry, this philosophy maintains that all progress in every area of human endeavor can be enhanced by rational discoveries made without the stifling limitations imposed by supernatural belief systems.
We nonbelievers, regardless of the category by which we define ourselves, are responding primarily to the lack of evidence of any legitimate supernatural occurrences. We should be lauded for our intellectual honesty and for our courage to apply the rule of reason to the natural phenomena of the universe.
Instead, we are demonized and shunned. Yet most religious believers are atheistic as to concepts of God other than the one that they believe in. Thus, we nonbelievers just believe in one less God than do most other people.
All we want is for government to stay out of the God business. We want an America in which no branch of government, in the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, can "treat people differently based on the God or gods they worship, or do not worship." Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994).
Acknowledgment of the existence of some deity should not be prescribed by any arm of government. It is for the individual American to decide whether verbalizing faith in a supernatural being is appropriate or not for that individual.
The Newdow case was about no more than keeping government out of the theology business. Dr. Michael Newdow, the plaintiff, is an atheist. In fact, a significant portion of our current church-state law has been established by cases brought by nonbelievers.
In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), an atheist brought an action that succeeded in barring state governments from requiring any religious test for public office.
In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), when the Supreme Court decided that no branch of government could prescribe prayer or Bible reading for the public schools, the companion case was Murray v. Curlett, in which the plaintiff was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the nation's leading atheist activist at the time.
In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), a nonbeliever secured from the Supreme Court a ruling that the opportunity to avoid military service, based on conscientious objection, is available to not just those who ground their objection in traditional deity-centered religious concepts but also to those whose opposition to war is rooted in philosophies that serve the same function of providing a world outlook, as do religious beliefs.
In Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), a nonbeliever obtained a definitive ruling that the Seeger opinion gives equal rights of conscientious objection from military service to those who openly do not believe in a God.
In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), a self-described agnostic persuaded the Supreme Court that Alabama's statute prescribing a moment of silence in public schools was unconstitutional because its legislative history revealed that it was designed to promote religious purposes.
In all of these cases, including Newdow, the dominant theme is that of a nonbeliever striving to secure equality before the law for those who do not believe in a supernatural deity. There is no hint of any attempt to acquire greater rights than those enjoyed by believers.
For government to be neutral in matters of faith is not for government to be hostile to religion. Rather, it is for government to meet its highest obligation of benevolence by treating the believer and nonbeliever the same.
As the Supreme Court said in Torcaso: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to 'profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements that aid all religions against non believers."
Whether the issue is the "under God" phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance or the danger that only those who profess a God-based belief system will be provided conscientious-objector status, we nonbelievers want to secure the fullness of liberty for every American, irrespective of religious views.
In order to accomplish this, we must make sure that no branch of government ever betrays any favoritism for the believer over the nonbeliever. That is, in order to attain the lofty goal of equality for everyone, we must make sure that our government does not promote theology in any way.
Edward Tabash, a lawyer in Beverly Hills, chairs the Center for Inquiry West in Hollywood, which is the Los Angeles branch of the Council for Secular Humanism.
By Edward Tabash
Those of us who do not believe in God are the most unjustly despised minority in the country today. Poll after poll reveals that more people would vote against a candidate just for being a nonbeliever than for any other single reason.
The outcry over the recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow v. United States Congress, 2002 DJDAR 7229 (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), in which the court held unconstitutional that portion of the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God," shows how hostile the general public is toward even the most benevolent neutrality toward matters of faith on the part of government.
Nonbelievers can be atheists (people who believe that the weight of the evidence in our universe demonstrates a natural reality with no supernatural beings), agnostics (people who believe that we humans can never know for sure, either way) or free thinkers (people who maintain that each of us must make an individual decision about what to believe). However, that decision must be based upon our own assessment of the world in which we live, without any coercion from any authority structure claiming to possess some infallible divine revelation.
There are also deists. They believe that some deity may have jump-started the world, but then took an eternal coffee break. This was Thomas Jefferson's belief.
The term "secular humanist" applies to those of us who believe that the godless, natural universe should serve as a springboard for the ascendance of human reason. With reason as the foundation for unfettered free inquiry, this philosophy maintains that all progress in every area of human endeavor can be enhanced by rational discoveries made without the stifling limitations imposed by supernatural belief systems.
We nonbelievers, regardless of the category by which we define ourselves, are responding primarily to the lack of evidence of any legitimate supernatural occurrences. We should be lauded for our intellectual honesty and for our courage to apply the rule of reason to the natural phenomena of the universe.
Instead, we are demonized and shunned. Yet most religious believers are atheistic as to concepts of God other than the one that they believe in. Thus, we nonbelievers just believe in one less God than do most other people.
All we want is for government to stay out of the God business. We want an America in which no branch of government, in the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, can "treat people differently based on the God or gods they worship, or do not worship." Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994).
Acknowledgment of the existence of some deity should not be prescribed by any arm of government. It is for the individual American to decide whether verbalizing faith in a supernatural being is appropriate or not for that individual.
The Newdow case was about no more than keeping government out of the theology business. Dr. Michael Newdow, the plaintiff, is an atheist. In fact, a significant portion of our current church-state law has been established by cases brought by nonbelievers.
In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), an atheist brought an action that succeeded in barring state governments from requiring any religious test for public office.
In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), when the Supreme Court decided that no branch of government could prescribe prayer or Bible reading for the public schools, the companion case was Murray v. Curlett, in which the plaintiff was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the nation's leading atheist activist at the time.
In United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), a nonbeliever secured from the Supreme Court a ruling that the opportunity to avoid military service, based on conscientious objection, is available to not just those who ground their objection in traditional deity-centered religious concepts but also to those whose opposition to war is rooted in philosophies that serve the same function of providing a world outlook, as do religious beliefs.
In Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), a nonbeliever obtained a definitive ruling that the Seeger opinion gives equal rights of conscientious objection from military service to those who openly do not believe in a God.
In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), a self-described agnostic persuaded the Supreme Court that Alabama's statute prescribing a moment of silence in public schools was unconstitutional because its legislative history revealed that it was designed to promote religious purposes.
In all of these cases, including Newdow, the dominant theme is that of a nonbeliever striving to secure equality before the law for those who do not believe in a supernatural deity. There is no hint of any attempt to acquire greater rights than those enjoyed by believers.
For government to be neutral in matters of faith is not for government to be hostile to religion. Rather, it is for government to meet its highest obligation of benevolence by treating the believer and nonbeliever the same.
As the Supreme Court said in Torcaso: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to 'profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements that aid all religions against non believers."
Whether the issue is the "under God" phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance or the danger that only those who profess a God-based belief system will be provided conscientious-objector status, we nonbelievers want to secure the fullness of liberty for every American, irrespective of religious views.
In order to accomplish this, we must make sure that no branch of government ever betrays any favoritism for the believer over the nonbeliever. That is, in order to attain the lofty goal of equality for everyone, we must make sure that our government does not promote theology in any way.
Edward Tabash, a lawyer in Beverly Hills, chairs the Center for Inquiry West in Hollywood, which is the Los Angeles branch of the Council for Secular Humanism.
#337239
Columnist
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com