Archive
Subscribe
Weather
 |
|
 |
A big mission for the smallest people: Kids
pitch in to help Newberg F.I.S.H.
|
Weighing in on a simple turn of words: `Under God' |
Issue includes discussion of civil religion, the
need for national leadership and religious symbolism |
By Schellene Clendenin, Newberg
Graphic reporter
E-mail Schellene at sclendenin@eaglenewspapers.com
|
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court was asked
whether the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was
offensive to the U.S. Constitution.
Its answer, which came down June 15, was a decision to not
make a decision.
“They ruled not to rule,” said George Hemingway, interim vicar at
St. Michael’s Episcopal Church.
The court questioned whether a non-custodial parent has the
right to file suit on behalf of his or her child.
Atheist Michael Newdow, who is currently in the middle of a long
custody fight with his ex-wife over his 10-year-old daughter, sued
to have the wording “under God” removed from the Pledge of
Allegiance. However, judges in the case felt
Newdow did not have sufficient custody of his daughter to be her
legal representative.
“(The Supreme Court) got out of ruling on the merits of the case,”
Hemingway said. “They pick and choose what they will rule on.”
Hemingway pointed to two matters surrounding the decision. First,
he argued, is the fact that civil religion is well-rooted in the
American political dialogue.
Second, Hemingway asked, “how does the committed Christian live
within a civil society with liberty and justice for all? To what
extent is the state permitted to show signs of particular religions
on its public face? To what extent should I as a Christian and
especially as a Christian pastor be concerned about lobbying for
those signs to be permitted in a public space?”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in an opinion rendered last week,
appeared to agree.
“Reciting the pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a
patriotic exercise, not a religious one,” Rehnquist wrote.
“Participants promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to
any particular God, faith or church.”
“Civil religion was well rooted in American political
dialogue since early on,” Hemingway said. Religion in civil language
has included such benign examples as the phrase “In God we trust,”
on currency and the all seeing deist eye in the pyramid located on
the back of a dollar bill.
“Notice it doesn’t say ‘In Christ we trust’ or ‘In Buddha we
trust.’ It says ‘In God we trust,’” he said, adding that when the
nation was born the “God we trusted” was a God acceptable to all in
those days — Anglicans, Protestants, Quakers.
Several of the founders were deists, which means they believed in a
divine being but didn’t want to get too technical about Christ in
public.
“That’s been the tendency. We talk about a kind of polymorphic God
without getting too specific as part of our civil religion,” he
said. “Americans begin to get a little creepy crawly when you get
too specific in the civil arena. They want specifics to be private
or on Sunday in the church, because my failure to respect your God
space could turn into your failure to respect my God space.”
Hemingway doesn’t think its any different today. He asked how could
all groups live in one space if they got too particular about the
details of religion? The question remains pertinent today.
On the other side of the coin, Hemingway said his opinion, since
the Episcopal church has yet to release one of its own, is that his
lobbying the state to permit a cross to stay on a public mountain is
a waste of his time and energies.
“It will not create more Christians. It will just tick off a lot of
people,” he said. “My time and energies are best spent working
one-on-one, working with people who are hungry and thirsty for the
depths of Christian life and not policing symbolism.”
For example, he insisted, if the discussion were not signs,
symbols and phrases referring to God and were instead a discussion
of sexual harassment, definitions would be different. In sexual
harassment cases, Hemingway pointed out, the person who is offended
by gestures or words is the determining factor of whether there is a
case for sexual harassment. In cases like the one most recently
before the high court, where if translated to religious symbolism,
the offended party is the father, the courts rule differently.
“I think it demonstrates how confused we are as a society,” he
said. “What we value and don’t value is highly subjective. Until the
court rules otherwise, it is OK for non-deists to be offended by
signs and symbols of deism in the public square.
“We seem to use different standards in terms of personal
relationships and how we perceive those and how we adjudge those
than we do with person to state relations on values. In other words
we are not consistent in how we express values in this country.”
But it’s not just about the issue of symbolism or civil religion;
it’s also about making a decision on how to proceed.
“When the constitution was written it was presupposed that
members of this society had a Judeo-Christian outlook on life,” said
Pastor Peter Blank of First Presbyterian Church. “It’s a historic
document. Shall we go back and rewrite a historic document?”
The question of whether the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of
Allegiance stems from an acknowledgment that some don’t call their
higher power God or believe there is a God at all, Blank said.
During an election year controversial issues can become a political
hot potato. Some say the Supreme Court is sidestepping these issues
to keep from dividing the country.
“The (Supreme) Court should weigh in somewhere,” Blank said. “We
have a need for leadership now.” |
|
From
July 3, 2004,
Newberg Graphic
Click Here to Subscribe |
|
|
|
 |
|
