I moved from Puerto Rico to Florida as I started the fifth grade. I attended a bilingual classroom in an otherwise English-speaking elementary school. Students from all grades filled that classroom; I sat next to other students with a kaleidoscope of accents from other Latin American regions. I was lucky to land in that classroom, since I failed English when I studied it in Puerto Rico.
Moving to Florida overwhelmed me with all the cultural differences, especially in school. I no longer wore a uniform to school. I spoke an entirely different language. We took a break during the middle of our lessons, in a bizarre ritual called ‘recess’. I mingled with other kids during recess, and I started to learn English in a conversational setting.
I learned another subtle ritual upon reaching the states. Each morning, I now recited the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ in our homeroom. I’ll remind you that I had only recently started learning English. They outfitted each classroom with a US flag. Upon reaching that moment each morning, we all collectively turned to it and recited these words that we committed to memory. Did they really expect this pledge to be legally binding?!
The Pledge didn’t always include ‘Under God’
For most who recited it, we only remember the version with the phrase, “one nation under God.” The original pledge, established in 1945, did not have these two words. They added that clause nearly a decade later in 1954 to address the Communist threat. If you can imagine, these were remnants of fear of communism thanks to McCarthyism.
I’m not sure if reciting these words were expected to deter the youth from communism. Perhaps when Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the “under God” clause, he believed those who were Communist would not recite the pledge, much like an implicit Joseph McCarthy interrogation. Was it prevention, or was it detection?
I distinctly remember a friend who abstained from reciting the pledge. Specifically, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not recite the pledge, and in practicing his religion he abstained from it. No one questioned his patriotism (or his disposition towards communism). Effectively, this great scheme by the president and subsequent act of Congress to address communism by adding the “under God” was derailed by a Jehovah’s Witness and freedom of religion. The irony is palpable.
Zero is still a number
To put it in perspective, the first section of the first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Our founding fathers penned this long before the scare of communism. Naturally, this extended from having been a British colony and the Church of England. However, in their wisdom, they understood that they could not establish a religion and integrate it into government. Therefore, they asserted that our government will not establish a religion.
Some assert that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values; it was not. The first amendment clearly states that our country refrains from establishing a religion at all; there’s no ambiguity. While most founding fathers almost certainly practiced some sort of religion; they explicitly stated that it shall not be established in government.
Though if we understand that 1, 2, 3 and π are numbers because they have values. Is zero (the lack of any value) still a number? Most won’t debate that zero is a number. As such, if we honestly practiced freedom of religion, that must, in principle, include freedom of lack of religion. In other words, under the eyes of the government, Agnostics and Atheists have equal standing to Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
Therefore, are references to God in government unconstitutional? Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? In fact, when we asked Americans for their religious affiliation, the largest group (at 28%) was “none”. In a country where the first verse on the first amendment was to establish freedom of religion, are we forcing theism onto those who do not want it? Should our currency even have the words “In God we trust” on it?
The dilemma between patriotism and faith
Different faiths practice different rituals. For example, Catholics practice confession and take communion; many of them do not believe in divorce. Additionally, Muslims and Jews abstain from eating pork. Muslims abstain from eating during daylight hours during Ramadan. We may live in harmony provided that we allow each other the freedom to practice our faith (or lack thereof).
However, imagine that you are so secure in your own faith that you feel compelled to share your practices and rituals with everyone. Furthermore, you believe that in order for you to practice your faith, you must evangelize it. Finally, you are so absolutely secure in your conviction, that you lobby for everyone to abide by those standards, even those who do not practice your faith.
What would that look like? They would disallow divorce to everyone. For about a month every year, all restaurants would close during daylight hours. No one could ever again eat bacon because it’s pork. The country would operate by cryptic, esoteric rules imposed by a different vocal minority. It all seems profoundly chaotic. Though somehow some believe that our government should disallow gay marriage. Or should require the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in all classrooms. The list goes on.
Except that’s different, “it’s permissible to pass legislation that supports the standards of my particular faith”. My response will take us back to the first amendment and that pesky “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” clause.
You can lobby for government to pass laws that hold your faith in higher esteem than other faiths or you can be patriotic. You can’t do both.
Separating the two
How do we reconcile this conflict? How do we resolve the practice of our faith and the dedication to our country? The answer is surprisingly simple. You practice your faith within the confines of your house of worship but contain it there. Catholics do not expect everyone to abstain from divorce. Jews do not expect everyone to give up bacon. If your faith stipulates that homosexuality is a sin, then don’t engage in homosexual behavior.
Though the very notion that homosexuality should be outlawed (or impeded) because it is considered a sin by your faith, is much like outlawing bacon. In fact, churches, as organizations, enjoy tax exempt status as long as they refrain from political activity. However, it’s not that difficult. While I’m not versed in the practices of every religion, I know of no religion that stipulates that you must lobby the government to outlaw certain behavior. You can be a member of your church in good standing, and not impinge on the rights of those not of your faith.
To expect the government to hold your faith in higher standing than others is, by definition, unpatriotic.
However, what if your faith does expect you to amend the government to align with your values? First, I genuinely doubt that your faith stipulates this. Second, you still don’t lobby to amend the government, or at least you wouldn’t if you genuinely loved our country. Your faith may allow (even encourage) polygamy, but it still doesn’t mean that you may practice it here in the states.
Our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian values; it was literally founded on religion neutrality. It is the very first sentence on the first amendment; as such, it is beyond contestation.