An Embedded Premise

Strike The Root ^ | June 28, 2002 | John T. Kennedy

[SteamshipTime]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional in public schools. I’ve seen a number of libertarians applauding this development, but I take no comfort from it. This is no retreat for government, the public sphere continues to expand without limit, and everywhere it expands it drives out freedom of conscience, which includes religion.

“They shouldn’t be using our tax money to promote religion in public schools”. Well, of course not. But what about all the people who would not willingly pay for a school that does not incorporate prayer and religion? When will they get relief? This decision didn’t yield a bit of freedom for anyone. Some people favor prayer in schools and some oppose it, but it is impossible for either side to achieve any liberty at the expense of the other. All this court decided was whose rights were going to be violated.

Once again, I think people have been enticed into seeing a public policy issue here, when in fact there is none. The fundamental principle at stake here is freedom of conscience.

Should there be religion in public schools?  That’s the wrong question. It embeds a premise that we need to reject. It’s like the old joke: Have you stopped beating your wife? Except in this case it’s no laughing matter. Religion in schools is not the problem; religion in schools has never been the problem. The problem is government in schools.

Should there be religion in public schools? The question presents a false dichotomy.  Should the government require you to paint your house black, or white? The correct answer is that the government shouldn’t have anything to say about what color you paint your house. And it shouldn’t have anything to say about what happens in schools. As long as government is in schools, freedom of conscience will necessarily be trampled.

Remove government from schools and the “problem” of religion in schools is suddenly nowhere to be found--everybody patronizes the kinds of schools they favor. The supposed problem vanishes because it never was the problem; government was the problem all along.

This decision was no retreat of government power--it was an exercise of government power.  All it settled was which individuals would have their right to freedom of conscience more thoroughly violated today.

Don’t let statists frame freedom of conscience as a public policy issue. When they ask the wrong question, reject it out of hand.

[SteamshipTime]

The correct perspective on the Ninth Circuit's decision.

This decision also follows from the impossibly ambiguous and unworkable Fourteenth Amendment (the First Amendment was clearly intended to apply only to the federal Congress).

[yendu bwam]

But what about all the people who would not willingly pay for a school that does not incorporate prayer and religion?

Great question that deserves honest contemplation and thought. Hopefully the recent SCOTUS vouchers decision will allow for more freedom to choose religious schools for many people.

[secretagent]

Thank for the piece. I agree with it, as far as it goes.

Now tackle the Pledge in Congress, and the phrase "In God We trust" on the currency.

"God" sounds vague enough to satisfy the montheists, but leaves out pantheists, agnostics, and atheists. I suppose we could strike the phrase from or even eliminate government currency itself.

That leaves Congress. Wait - I think the President swears in with "...so help me God".

I agree with the conservatives: as long as you don't compel the Pledge - no problem. But I agree more with the libertarians: eliminate the needless conflict where you can.