I seem to recall one of my brothers—years ago—subscribing to a Columbia Record “deal”—where the first five records are free! He neglected to notice the fine print; setting in motion years of obligatory payments. I remembered this story this past week, as the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to lean toward retaining the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. For many, this seems like a good deal. But the fine print might set in motion years of judicial reasoning. Let me tell you why.
On June 7, 1965, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut statute (prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples) interfered in their private procreative decisions. That was a good decision—a good deal. But look at the fine print. The Court decided the case on the basis of a “right to privacy.” The payment plan was set in motion. In 1972, the “right to privacy” was in the fine print as the Supreme Court decided (Eisenstadt v. Baird) that a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was unconstitutional. The next year—1973—the “right to privacy” was the foundation for the Roe v. Wade decision that invalidated a Texas law prohibiting abortion. Then the “right to privacy” was in the fine print again in 1992, when the Court decided the Casey case by advancing this “right” all the way to declaring “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In less than forty years, “the right to privacy” took us from choosing contraceptives to defining the cosmos. How does the 1965 “deal” look now?
Fast-forward to 2004 and the current “one nation under God” case. I have no idea how the Court will rule. Justice David Souter has indicated he thinks the case has little merit. This sounds like a good deal for people of faith. But look at the fine print. Souter’s argument is grounded in the idea that [his words]: “Religion in this country is so diluted… it goes beneath the constitutional radar. Insofar as the way we live and think and work in schools and civic society… whatever religious direction there is, is simply lost.”
Souter is saying we should retain the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge because it means nothing in public life. That’s the fine print in this appealing offer. The irony is that Justice Souter gets it half-right. Religious direction is lost for most Americans. It has become a privatized affair that influences little of public life. It is mostly a compartmentalized matter that does not think coherently about the wider world. But if he’s right, where will we be in 2044?
I think Souter’s half-wrong because faith historically influenced the way we think, work, and built our civic society. I hope people of faith follow the Supreme Court decision carefully and read the fine print.
Leave a Reply