esrosedotblog

BY GOD

You gotta hand it to Michael Newdow for bringing this 'under god' thing all the way to the Supremes. You know, he acts as his own lawyer because he can; he is one. But he is not a practitioner to the BIG court so it is a real act of courage. I read that he rehearsed a lot.

So he had to stand there and put up with what seems to be some sophomoric attitude from a bunch of god-believers who find his position to be either ridiculous, beneath contempt, or even (gasp) profane and sacreligous. The latter being the point, of course. The lame right wing Rehnquist points out that Congress passed the law unanimously. Landow responds to say that no atheist can be elected to any office and so he was not represented. Exactly the point, I think. There was applause in the court which the Chief (gold stripes on his gown) quashed.

It is interesting that no one raises the question of which god we are saying we are 'under'. I am pretty sure that the Congress in 1954 was not only unanimous in its vote; but in an unstated affirmation that the 'god' in question was a judeo-christian one. And, if pressed, given the times, they really were not including the jews in the deal either. There were a few in office then but not a lot. I am not sure you could elect a muslim--have we? I lack facts here. Or a professed buddhist. We will not wander into the paths of unrighteousness and explore other possibilities. Speaking for myself, if we all have to have one, I prefer George Burns to play the role of god. He played the role in a movie and he is now in the right place to do it.

The court could dodge the bullet and rule in favor of the faint argument that Landow is not really the kid's Dad, having lost custody because 'his wife is a fundamental christian and does not share his belief' or is that non-belief. Irony of ironies, they would be endorsing the notion of a believer's pre-eminent right, no? I dunno.

I was there when they did it, of course; 1954. I was seventeen and ready to graduate from high school. I had already left my birth religion but was trying other doctrines on for size; on the road to hell. I do not remember it as being all that dramatic. Eisenhower was President then so we were putting up with anything. It was the fifties. Dad was in the White House. Mr. Clean.

No one asked me my opinion either. We had to say the 'lords prayer' too. This issue of 'god' in the pledge is closely connected to that requirement of the lord's prayer in my mind. I think of both together, and of the pledge as the second part of a necessary elision. No prayer and no god in the pledge. At least the LP is gone now; but, a lot of people are still asked to do the prayer in other venues as though we are all christians let alone believe in the same god, if any. It is interesting though, that if you take a stand, like Landow, and people think about it, they will go along with the idea of keeping religion out of civic life.

I remember that when I was Moderator of the Plymouth MA Town Meeting, (some years down the devil's path, I was 35, ca. 1972), I did away with the lords prayer and the routine invocation carried out by a rotating cast of local sky pilots. I never got challenged. The prayer and the pilots were gone forever as far as I know. See, I think this is the point. No one thinks of challenging these things, but when they do, people think about it and are willing to change. It has a strong impact. Landow may lose the battle but win the war here. He had the courage to ask the question.

Some of the argument against banning the prayer from schools back then was that, if a kid didn't want to pray, he or she could just remain silent. It is ironic--and an indication that the two issues ARE linked-- that today in the Court, the same assertion was made. If a child did not want to say 'god', s/he would not have to say the word; or, worried about censure from others, he or she could move the lips. What? We had a kid in our school, the only jew, who did not say the 'lord's' prayer. He was ostracized of course; the 'little godless bastard'.

On the other hand, god is not as popular as he was in the fifties (and it is a 'H'e too and don't you forget it); although people overwhelmingly approve the prayer when polled; some say 9 out of 10. I guess when push comes to shove most people want to believe we are a nation under 'god'. It is, at last, the last refuge in justifying a lot of what we do all over the world when logical argument indicates that we are wrong.

Ah, yes. 9 out of 10. But, we are not run by polls, not yet. We are run by a Constitution that says church and state should be separated. Whether it makes us feel good to have 'god on our side' or not. George is supposed to be over there at the side of the stage, cigar in hand, observing and commenting but never interfering. Go, George.