Home » Academics » Truth Lab

One Nation Under God?

God and the Constitution

Most of us have recited the pledge of allegiance numerous times throughout our educational career. We've put our hands over our hearts, gazed steadily at the stars and stripes, and said the words we memorized so long ago, including the phrase, "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We've all also held American currency in our hands and probably noticed the words, "In God We Trust" inscribed on it.

The constitutionality of the phrases "under God" and "in God we trust" were the subject of a recent debate here at Focus on the Family. Dr. Michael Newdow, a physician and attorney, debated TrueU's own Dr. Chris Leland about the possibility of these phrases violating the Constitution.

Michael Newdow's Opinion

Newdow has filed lawsuits that bring into question the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He believes that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intentions of keeping religion out of government. Therefore, he believes that a national pledge that mentions God is unconstitutional.

Newdow insists that the Constitution was written without the idea of the United States being a nation under God. He believes the Founding Fathers were very careful to keep established religion out of government so that others would not be discriminated against. Newdow repeatedly stated that currency with references to God, or pledges that acknowledge a deity, violate the equality that Americans — and specifically, him as an atheist — are entitled to. Just as Christians wouldn't want their children reciting a pledge that stated that God doesn't exist, he, as an atheist, doesn't want his children reciting a pledge that states God does exist.

Chris Leland's Opinion

Leland, author of TrueU's Truth Lab column, believes it is important to look at the role that God has and should play in the United States. Historically, he argued, the government has approved of — at the very least — a "ceremonial deism" that allows for mentions of God in the pledge, on currency, at national prayer meetings and in sessions of Congress. The idea of God is a part of America's heritage.

While he agrees that the Constitution does not specifically mention God, he also points out that the Constitution fails to mention many things that are a part of American life — including the auditing of his taxes.

One of Leland's main points was that he believes it is false to assume that if God is taken out of the public square that nothing will replace Him. He argued that something will take God's place — something has to. When one ideology is rejected, another steps in to replace it.

Leland also argued that the government of the United States is set up to honor the will of the majority while protecting the minority. We elect officials to represent our opinions, and, if they don't, we replace them. Leland noted that the majority of Americans believe in some type of God — which would make atheists like Newdow the minority.

Leland conceded that the United States is not a Christian nation, but we are, however, a nation established with "ideological beliefs that shape the way we live." Leland believes that clear beliefs about God shaped the way the Founding Fathers approached the formation of this nation and the writing of the Constitution.

Denise's Opinion Questions

OK, so now we've got the facts of the debate. The issue is not one that I would want to tackle — I think it's difficult, and I certainly don't know enough about Constitutional law to address it properly.

I did find myself coming up with some questions during this debate, however, and I would love it if you came and discussed them with us in the Coffee Shop. Here's what I'd like to talk about:

• Newdow continued to compare this issue to racist laws that used to exist in the United States, ones that called for separate water fountains for blacks and whites and restriction of interracial marriages. Do you think this is a fair comparison? Why or why not?
• Leland argued that it is not possible for everyone to be treated completely equally. Someone's ideas will be imposed and someone else's will not. He argued that the will of the majority rules — it's the way our democratic republic operates. Do you think this is a valid point?
• One of the things I kept noticing is that both debaters were attempting to interpret what the Founding Fathers were actually saying in the Constitution. Newdow argued that they were emphatic about not establishing any form of religion in the United States government. Leland argued that the Founding Fathers did acknowledge God — that the Bible was much of their framework for the way they approached the Constitution. He believes that their refusal to establish religion had much more to do with theological differences within Christianity than the establishment of a godless government.
  
  Basically, it made all of us debate attendees wish the Founding Fathers were there to clarify things. These points reminded me of Michael Bauman's article, "The Meaning of Meaning." In it, Bauman talks about reader-centered interpretation versus authorial intent.
  
  What do you all think is important in a case like this debate? Is it crucial for us to attempt to understand exactly what the founding fathers were establishing through the Constitution, or is this a document whose meaning can change over time?
• And my last question is one that was brought up by our former online editor, Dan Bradley. He noticed that Newdow continued to talk about how laws change based on oppression or incorrect interpretation (e.g. slavery was legal for many years and is now considered morally repugnant). Newdow acknowledges that religion has been a part of America's history, but he believes acknowledgement of God by the government is unconstitutional. So Dan wonders whether or not Newdow would support a popular vote about whether or not to keep the phrases "in God we trust" and "under God" in our public discourse. What do you think? Would you support such a vote?

Come Chat!

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What's your opinion on the debate?

Join the discussion!

So, there's the gist of what went on. And there are my questions. Please, please, please come chat with us in the Coffee Shop and let us know what you think of this fascinating topic. What's constitutional? What's not? What kind of beliefs influenced the founding fathers? Is true equality possible?

Let me know.