This recent July 4th, our Independence Day, was a strange one for us. For the
first time in history, we had a taste of what it is like to live in many countries around the world, namely Israel. With the notable exception of those of us up here in the forested haven of New Hampshire and other such remote places, the majority of Americans had to think twice before setting out to the public square to holiday. All the news outlets reported that we were in a state of panic.
Ever since Sept. 11, we have had to look over our shoulders and wonder if we were going to be murdered by some crazed fanatic immigrant who doesn't care if he dies because your death is more important than his life. Or by a former inmate who has not repented of his murderous crimes but rather has adopted a new name to use a dirty bomb. On the other hand, even worse yet still, some suburban punk who once fought in the military who thinks it's cool to take out his rage on federal buildings or another one who writes eco-Marxist tracks in some crazed fantasy about saving "nature."
However, to make matters worse, the 9th circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals issued a ruling that for the last 48 years, every American who recited the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Constitution because they said that America lived "under God." The New York Times ran a cartoon (although not in response to this event) belittling Americans who believe with "unwavering faith in an invisible omniscient deity who favors those born in the middle of the North American land mass." Who would have thought? Oh, how we scoff and laugh at the religious, the ones who still take their religion very seriously, to whom the idea of religion-as-social justice have no bearing! We talk about being beyond religion, suggesting that it is primitive at best. "No one believes in that anymore," people snicker, "except for the Taliban or the Christian fundamentalists who still believe in things like Satan." Can you contain your laughter; can you hide your contempt? God, ha, who would have thought! How arcane!
However, the two judges are not the only ones who believe that. A Mr. Kay wrote in "The D": "What would really have been nice was if one senator, just one, would have stood up and spoke the truth instead of caving to the political pressure of the times: the words 'under God' violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. That is, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' I feel that we're scared to see the last vestiges of state sponsored religionfall to the wayside. How about you stand up forwhat James Madison intended when he wrote the Bill of Rights."
What is so irritating about the story of the California court and this op-ed is the ignorance of American history, despite Mr. Kay's invocation of Mr. Madison, by him and these American judges. Nevertheless, Mr. Kay and these judges are not alone in their ignorance of the language of the First Amendment. Many people concurred with their judgment when it comes to things like prayer before a football game or "under God" in the Constitution. The phrase "establishment of religion" does not mean what they think it means because for two centuries there has been a slight, though not uncommon, linguistic shift in our vocabulary.
When one reads the words of the Founding Fathers and the leaders of that time, it is mostly an immensely pleasing experience because: one, they were very well read and two, for the most part, their language and phrases are our own. Reading Shakespeare's original 16th century prose can be rough; even reading the works of English speakers from the 17th century can be extremely tiring. However, by the 18th century, and especially the late 18th century, the words are breathtakingly modern although not 100 percent so. Therefore, when the Founders wrote the Constriction in 1787, what the authors meant by having no "establishment of religion" was that there would be no Office of Religious Affairs or a bureaucracy that deals with religious administration to manage the practice of religion.
At that time in the original 13 colonies, the Anglican, the Methodist and the Dutch Reformed all had offices in their respective states to manage people's religious affairs. In fact, every state had an established religion similar to England today. What the Constitution's Establishment Clause was meant to do was to oppose federal tax revenue establishing a national church and its bureaucracy in America. By mangling the Founding Fathers' intent, beginning in the 1940s, the enlightened post-religionists have managed to create the great and essentially phony controversy between the separation of church and state.
There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the Founders wanted a completely godless "civil society." They were not paving the way for a state sequestration of religion or a nation of atheists. They wanted a religious country without bureaucrats dictating their faith whether they be Deists, like Thomas Jefferson, or Puritans, like John Adams.
It was precisely because these individuals wanted to pray as they chose that they prevented the establishment of any one state church. Therefore, when the American flag was first seen overseas, especially by the Muslims in the Middle East, people were amazed to see that it was unique compared to European flags because there was no cross on it. That's why it was good to see these judges, after the nation howled at their ahistorical asinine idea, fold their tails and put a hold on the order the next day.