Government’s use of “˜God’ not a sin

A lawsuit filed on Dec. 30 demands that the phrase “so help me God” not be added to the end of the president’s oath of office.

Michael Newdow, who filed similar suits over the 2001 and 2005 inauguration ceremonies, is joined by groups advocating atheism and religious freedom. The new lawsuit argues that “there can be no purpose for placing “˜so help me God’ in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists.”

Newdow claims that religious references send a message to nonbelievers that “we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans.”

He goes on to say that it is unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others who hold a different religious point of view are not as good.

This argument strikes me as overblown. It interprets a formality in speech as an attack on personal rights. While Newdow believes that there can be no other purpose to the utterance of “God” but the affirmation of God’s existence, I am inclined to believe that there is a symbolic significance in such an invocation.

Reconciling references to God with the Constitution has never been an easy task.

While the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits institutional preference for a single religious idea, vestiges of America’s religious past, such as those found in currency ““ “In God We Trust” ““ and in national symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance ““ “one Nation under God” ““ have persisted, often causing controversy in their assertion of a divine figure.

In these cases, the same, undying question raises itself over and over again: Is there room for God in the Constitution?

Absolutely.

Since religious references are only unconstitutional if they favor a particular religious point of view or if they prohibit other groups from exercising their religious opinions, mentions of God may then be considered within constitutional bounds if they do not assert a particular religious outlook.

This situation seems paradoxical. Sure, the reference to a general god figure offers a semantic compromise among theistic religions, as it simplifies the notion of divinity to a universal god, but what about those who do not believe in the divine?

Certainly, the outright mention of “God” in any national context would represent an affront to nonbelievers.

Well, not exactly.

In the modern setting, the use of the word “God” seems to lend itself more to formality than to religion. In this sense, “God” just becomes another term devoid of significant religious association.

In 1962, then-dean of the Yale Law School Eugene Rostow coined the term “ceremonial deism” to refer to nominally religious statements that have lost their religious significance and have merely become ritual.

In the following year, the Supreme Court adopted this term to provide certain exceptions to the Establishment Clause.

The case of Lynch v. Donnelly, wherein Christmas displays, particularly nativity scenes, were challenged as a violation of the Establishment Clause, provides a classic example.

The court ruled that “the city has a secular purpose for including the creche in its Christmas display and has not impermissibly advanced religion or created an excessive entanglement between religion and government.”

Moreover, the court cited that the purpose of the displays was to represent the origin of a national tradition, and though it is derived from a religious source, it nevertheless carries a secular objective at present.

In the same vein, references to God in the national context currently carry secular aims rather than religious aims.

Though the infusion and precedence of religion by the Founding Fathers into the groundwork of U.S. government was in reverence to a singular, Christian god, the meaning of divinity in official references has gained a new definition.

No longer does the God in popular reference necessarily suggest a single concept of God, nor does it pointedly affirm the existence of God.

More than anything, much like Lady Liberty and Uncle Sam, God becomes a symbol, not necessarily religious, that aims to unify America under a collective national identity.

God ceases to become a divine figure and becomes a patriotic concept, similar to how “God bless America” aims at nationalism more than religious chauvinism. God is not “your God” or “my God” but an American God that represents one nation.

The removal of God from official references will not make the nation any more or any less a religious state. It will not change the way government is run, nor will it affect how policy is determined.

In fact, since its origins are derived from the rich history of the nation, ceremonial deism should be embraced as a part of the American identity and not sought to be eliminated like a shameful vestige of the past.

E-mail Ong at rong@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *