|
I pledge allegiance To the flag Of the United States of America And to the republic for which it stands One nation Indivisible With liberty and justice for all
On June 26, 2002, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (representing most of the Western states) issued a ruling that the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance that children recite in America's public schools (or, as my atheist friend Doug calls it, the "Prayer of Allegiance") "amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state. Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is 'one nation under God' is as objectionable as making them say 'we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of the professions can be neutral with respect to religion,' Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote. … However, the ruling will not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court." (San Francisco Chronicle, June 27.) Most Christians and politicians (including the entire Senate) have decried the Court's ruling, but I believe the Court has done "the right thing." One of this country's founding principles was separation of church and state. Our founding fathers (at that time, the "founding mothers" were pretty well left out of the picture) wanted to avoid the situation they saw in England, where the government officially endorsed the Church of England (which itself split from the Catholic church when Henry VIII wanted a divorce it would not sanction), and in effect denied its citizens and residents equal access to non-government-sanctioned religions. As a result, my denomination, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) has had great difficulty over the years attracting English adherents; despite my seeing first-hand that most of England's great church edifices host pitifully few worshipers, state sanction makes those who do attend church far more likely to attend C of E services, rather than some non-sanctioned upstart church.
Many of us who are gay regularly encourage the heterosexual majority to take into account and be sensitive to the different needs of the GLBTQ minority. From my vantage point, I think it should always be the moral responsibility of the majority who control a nation's societal power (in our society, white male Christian heterosexuals of means) to ensure protection of the beliefs and rights of its minorities (non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, and financially impoverished people). I realize this is not the way our world works today, but it should be our highest aspiration. (As Jesus said in The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:46, 48, NIV), "If you love those who love you [or are "like" you], what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors [i.e, the world] doing that? … Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly [Parent] is perfect.") Today, even a non-Christian American would likely tell you that the United States is primarily viewed, and operates de facto, as a Christian country. As Christians in a primarily Christian society, we must learn to be sensitive to others' religious beliefs (or absence of belief), which we must assume are as important to them as ours are to us. Far too often, Christians unthinkingly assume that while God loves us, God doesn't love those whose beliefs differ from ours. Along these lines, should Christians force their religious beliefs upon non-Christians (a practice generally known as proselytizing)? Here I confess I once did just that; upon knowing "the truth," I was led to believe that I was responsible to bring that truth to a dark world in need of Christ's light. In teams from my church, I knocked on doors, and we shared with those who would listen. (And I did not grow up a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) or a Jehovah's Witness, two denominations well known for proselytizing.) Today, it would be unthinkable for me to take such an action. Would I dissuade someone from becoming a Christian? Absolutely not! But would I attempt to "force" Christianity upon someone else because I knew it would be good for her/him? No. Here's a parallel example: Would I "out" a closeted gay man or a lesbian because I knew it would be good for him/her? Again, my answer would be no. Someone else's religious beliefs are to be chosen between him/her and God. (I guess atheists make that decision alone.) If asked my opinion, I would feel a responsibility to share what I know and believe. If I see someone struggling in life with no spiritual beliefs whatsoever, I can offer what works for me. But if someone is comfortable in his/her faith (or absence thereof), then I have no business barging in to tell that person that Christianity is the only way to connect with his/her spiritual higher power. Given my upbringing, that may very well be true for me. But my spiritual truth is not everyone's spiritual truth. (There's a lesson for Christians in that, too.) And I don't think God has a problem with that, either. God wants those who love God and seek to worship God to be free to do so. God never forces us to love God. And woe unto us who feel we must step in where God does not tread, forcing people to acknowledge a God they do not know (and perhaps do not care to know). When I recite the Pledge of Allegiance (should that situation ever occur again), in my heart (if not with my lips) I'm sure I will always say "under God." But I don't want a seven-year-old Hindu-American child (or an atheist) to be forced to say it. Not in the America I love. The land of the free, and the home of the brave. With liberty and justice for all. Pete, are you sure you want me to write another article for the church newsletter? J 
Paul D. Cain is the author of the newly published history, Leading the Parade: Conversations with America's Most Influential Lesbians and Gay Men (Scarecrow Press, 2002)
|
|
When I was asked to write for my church newsletter, I don't know if this is what was expected. (In fact, I'm pretty certain this is not at all what was expected!) But this issue has been on my heart, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my views.
The Pledge immortalized on a U.S. postage stamp © 1997-2002 BEI
The sexual orientation of individuals pictured in and writers for
Gay Today should not be assumed.