[MD] Freedom From Religion

[Steven Peterson]

Hi all,

Given the establishment clause, the Constitution should perhaps be
used to ensure not only freedom of religion but also a freedom from
religion by insisting that a Bible may not be used in the Presidential
inauguration ceremony, the Pledge of Allegiance may not include "under
God," our currency may not not bear the words "In God We Trust," the
President and other elected officials ought not indicate the end of
their speeches with the words "God bless America," there ought to be
no public displays which may in any way be interpreted as referencing
something religious around the winter holidays.

Most if not all of this surely does not pass strict Constitutional
muster, but I agree with Senator Al Franken who said, "I think, for
example, 'under God' probably shouldn't be in the Pledge of
Allegiance, it wasn't put in there since, like the 50's, but it's not
that big a deal to me." Franken, a secularist, but perhaps not a very
militant one, does not see his freedom as threatened by such things.
References to God on our currency and in the Pledge were enacted into
law early in the God war to distinguish us from those "godless
commies" ("So help me God" is not actually part of the oath of office
but has been a tradition since Washington himself through in the extra
tag line at the first Presidential inauguration.), but I am content to
let them stand for the time being. I tend to agree with Franken as far
as those examples go that they shouldn't be there in our secular
government, but I don't see such issues as terribly important or
nearly so important as some others so long as members of all religions
as well as the nonreligious are given equal consideration in
presenting their own holiday displays at city hall and so long as
politicians and citizens are never required to make certain
declarations and swear on Bibles for the purposes of conducting civil
business.

My wife and I were actually caught off guard in being asked to do just
that at the Delaware County Courthouse in Pennsylvania last fall while
applying for a marriage license. We were asked to attest to certain
facts by swearing on a Bible without first even being asked if we were
adherents to a Bible-believing religion. It was apparently taken for
granted that America itself is a Bible-beileving nation. We could have
been Muslims, Hindus, or Wiccans for all they knew. Swearing an oath
with a hand on the Bible is supposed to make us reluctant to lie, but
ironically the book itself contains some obvious untruths. Still more
ironic is the fact that the Bible itself tells us not to swear on the
Bible since we aren't to swear oaths at all--Matthew 5:34 and James
5:12, "But above all things, brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,
neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be
yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." Then again,
it also says that we should so swear--Isaiah 65:16 and Numbers 30:2,
"If a man vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a
bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that
proceedeth out of his mouth." At any rate, the government has no
business trying to settle this theological debate. No one ought to be
asked to swear on a Bible or any other book.

Because of the Quaker tradition in Pennsylvania where weddings are
conducted by the bride and groom and not performed by any celebrant,
it was eventually possible for us under Pennsylvania law to have a
beautiful, meaningful, yet secular ceremony in the venue of our choice
without needing to appeal to sanction from any ecclesiastical
organization. However, at that time a self-uniting license was denied
to us on the dubious grounds that we are not Quakers. Margaret Downey,
who is a past President of the International Atheist alliance and
founder of the Anti-Discrimination Support Network, met us at the
Chester County Courthouse, where she has her local clerk's office
well-informed about our Constitutionally protected right to religious
freedom as well as her personal commitment to and history of appealing
to higher courts if necessary on issues of religious discrimination.

Few states offer self-uniting licenses and perhaps many counties in
Pennsylvania refuse to issue them as Delaware County does. As a
secularist committed to freedom of religion, I believe strongly that
such marriage licenses should be made available across the country. As
it stands, nonbelievers often feel that they have no choice but to be
married by a member of the clergy. Given that atheists are a
relatively small and unorganized group, it seems unlikely that we will
gather enough political power to bring about this sort of change
anytime soon. If we hope to successfully oppose these sorts of
religious discrimination, then we will need to find a way to partner
with the many religious people who are committed to democracy and to
reading the establishment cause as protecting our liberty on all
matters religious including the protection of the same rights for the
nonreligious.

In other news, my wife and I have a baby girl due at the end of September.

Best,
Steve