Psycho Economist

To me that the idea of ceremonial deism doesn't add up. It's this vague, judicially constructed loophole in the establishment clause that says "religious-looking" expressions on the part of the state without any meaningful religious content don't violate the first ammendment. But it seems that in practice it means, "It's okay for Christianity to be the unofficial state religion since we're all Christian. We are all Christian... right?"

This seems especially true since there is precious little point to deist "ceremony". Deism posits that a god who created the universe / world / life exists, but doesn't intervene. If that's true, how could we be a "nation under God"? The deist god exercises no authority over us to which we could subordinate ourselves. Why have kids make public, school-time prayers to a deity that won't answer them? How are the ten commandments, in any way, the product of a deity who doesn't interfere in mortal affairs? How could we place trust in a god who doesn't do anything?

(As an aside... where do deists say their god stopped taking an active role in earthly happenings: The creation of the universe? The dawn of life? Of intelligent life? The first embers of civilization? The discovery of monotheism? The resurrection of Jesus? The protestant reformation? When Darwin published The Origin of Species?)

Fundies look at ceremonial deism as an unsavory means to keep their foot in the door. We see through this nominal charade and try not to put up with it. But how, to everyone in the middle, does the fact that it's stupidly expensive to sandblast "In God We Trust" off our old courthouses justify carving it into the lintels of new ones?

crazyfingers

I agree with what you've said. But to me the most important evidence that what we have going on is not ceremonial deism is the fact that too many christians get so upset when it's suggested that it's wrong to have god all over state stuff.

If it was just ceremonial deism, why would they care?

GaryP

That sums it up for me too.

Stephen Maturin

The "ceremonial deism" idea is ridiculous on a couple of levels. First and foremost, as CF rightly pointed out, it simply doesn't square with reality. The doctrine holds that certain government-sanctioned references to God have been in place so long and/or repeated so often that they've lost any substantial religious content. Dat's crazy talk. Those interested in keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, retaining "In God We Trust" as the national motto, etc. care rather passionately about such things. Hell, theistic folk who'd otherwise never give these issues a single thought go absolutely medieval when such references are challenged in court.

Second, you're absolutely right, PE; "ceremonial deism" is a rather gross misnomer. The notion has nothing whatever to do with deism, and any connection to "ceremony" is tangential at best. Credit for the misnomer goes to the dumbass law school dean who made up the term back in the sixties. "Nonreligious theism" might be a more accurate description, but that would only serve to highlight how nonsensical the whole idea is.

The Newdow case will give the Supreme Court a chance to tackle this "ceremonial deism" stuff head-on. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a majority of the Court adopting some form of the doctrine without actually using the name "ceremonial deism."

keitht

I agree, its pure sophistry. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't care if they said "allah", or even "satan", instead of "god", but if you ever suggest that, then watch them try to keep from screaming "blasphemy".

Keith

Obey_Matthew_6_6

If "ceremonial deism" has become ceremonial and overused to the point of being rendered "non-religious", then what's the point of even continuing the practice?

I think the overboard reaction to the Newdow decision proved once and for all that it's NOT ceremonial and has NOT lost its religious meaning.

Obvious to an atheist, anyway. But for some addled reason even non-practicing theists want to defend it. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

StrictSeperationist

The Supreme Court has already confronted this issue, and dealt the whole concept of "cermonial deism", in whatever form it may take, what seemed like a crippling blow in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). There, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said:

"We are asked to recognize the existence of a practice of nonsectarian prayer, prayer within the embrace of what is known as the Judeo Christian tradition, prayer which is more acceptable than one which, for example, makes explicit references to the God of Israel, or to Jesus Christ, or to a patron saint. There may be some support, as an empirical observation, to the statement of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, picked up by Judge Campbell's dissent in the Court of Appeals in this case, that there has emerged in this country a civic religion, one which is tolerated when sectarian exercises are not... If common ground can be defined which permits once conflicting faiths to express the shared conviction that there is an ethic and a morality which transcend human invention, the sense of community and purpose sought by all decent societies might be advanced. But though the First Amendment does not allow the government to stifle prayers which aspire to these ends, neither does it permit the government to undertake that task for itself."

But I believe that, although the above seems to damn the constitutional aberration that is cermonial deism, some variation on that very familiar theme will be used to overturn the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Newdow case. I wonder if Kennedy will see the irony of joining a majority that in essence overrules the conclusion he came to above less than 11 years ago. Something tells me he won't.

GPLindsey

"In God We Trust" and "Under God" should be ruled unconstitutional because they reflect the gov't embracing monotheism, as opposed to polytheism (thus offending the Hindus) and religions that have no central God (like Buddhism). Not all religions embrace a single God, and the Govt shouldn't embrace a category of religion.

Also regarding the pledge--the Constitution makes clear that it recognized that the State cannot compel the taking of a religious oath, as it prohibited religious tests for office and used the phrase "oath or affirmation" in regards to the civil oath taken by the President and others. If making kids stand every day to say "I pledge allegiance...to one Nation Under God..." doesn't cross the line and reflect a mandatory religious oath, I don't know what does.

Also on the pledge, not only do Christians get upset with tampering with the pledge itself, they don't even want the teacher's INSTRUCTIONS about the pledge tampered with! In my kids school, the teacher says nothing about the pledge being voluntary or says "all rise who wish to say the pledge"--the teacher just announces that it's Pledge of Allegiance time. It's my job, I guess, to try to make my 7 year old understand the nuances of freedom of conscience, and that Pledge time is the one moment of the day he doesn't have to do what teacher says. Having teacher say its voluntary would be too much of an accommodation for the tiresome atheists out there!