Please. Do compare:
Here’s the staid and objective Washington Post introducing the legal battle over UNC-Chapel Hill’s decision to make Michael Sells’ book, Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations, required summer reading for incoming University of North Carolina freshmen:
No one complained two years ago when the University of North Carolina required its incoming freshmen to read a book about the lingering effects of the Civil War, nor last year when it assigned a book about a Hmong immigrant’s struggle with epilepsy and American medicine.
But this year, the university in Chapel Hill is asking all 3,500 incoming freshmen to read a book about Islam and finds itself besieged in federal court and across the airwaves by Christian evangelists and other conservatives.
Got that? A bastion of higher learning is being “besieged” by evangelical Christians (and other conservatives — liberals are evidently incapable of finding such things Constitutionally problematic, controversial, or even distasteful) simply for assigning a silly li’l book — something those hypocritical evangelical Christian Jesushumpers never did when UNC was asking students to read about, say, the Civil War. So, y’know — Ha!
The lawsuit against UNC was filed July 22 in U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C., by the Virginia-based Family Policy Network, which calls itself a socially conservative Christian educational organization.
Here’s how the article concludes:
University officials declined to comment on the substance of the lawsuit but said they are confident that the assignment, which has no grade attached, does not violate the Constitution. UNC’s lawyers also asked a judge last week to disqualify the plaintiffs because the three students are unnamed and the Family Policy Network has no standing to sue, as it will suffer no harm from the reading.
‘Whether this is the optimal book to teach people about the Koran, I’m sure that’s debatable,’ said Shelton, the provost. ‘But it’s a place to start.’
Student body president Jennifer Daum, 21, of Pewaukee, Wis., agrees.
‘At the very least, it starts a dialogue,’ Daum said. ‘My feeling is that if you’re not prepared to read ideas that are not your own and that you might disagree with, you do not belong at an institution of higher learning.’
Translation: You can take our forcibly-assigned and overtly-propogandistic Qur’anic studies book (which presents a decidedly one-sided picture of Islam), but you can never take…our FREEDOM!
Now. Here’s how Beth Henary (of that notoriously conservative rag The Weekly Standard) frames the same debate:
It’s been said that it is important to know one’s enemies. By requiring freshmen to read parts of the Koran this year, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, may be trying to do just that. But though this year’s selection for the summer reading program may be well intended, some students and others with interests in UNC are trying to stop the program from going forward.
This summer, incoming freshman at UNC must read Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations, edited and translated by Haverford College religion professor Michael Sells. The book includes selected suras from the Koran and is accompanied by a CD with recitations from the book. Students must write a one-page ‘response’ to Approaching the Qur’an, guided by a set of study questions. Study questions include, ‘Now that you have read parts of the Koran, do you think more Americans should read all or parts of the book?’ and ‘How does the sound [of a recitation from the CD] seem to you to create meanings and effects that are not present when you just read the text alone?’ Mandatory discussion sessions are scheduled during orientation in mid-August. Students who find the work offensive for religious reasons may submit a one-page paper on why they chose not to read the book.
[…] Representing three freshmen, one Jewish and two Christian, as well as a UNC alum and a North Carolina citizen, the American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy has sued the school, seeking an injunction to halt this required reading. The suit claims the program advances Islam and misrepresents the Koran, attempting to ‘impose a uniform favorable opinion of the religion of Islam’ among students. The summer reading, the suit concludes, violates the establishment and free exercise clauses contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
And the conclusion to Henary’s piece? Glad you asked:
Focusing instead on what is in the book, rather than what is left out, the program’s website states that ‘Westerners for centuries have been alternately puzzled, attracted, concerned, and curious about the great religious traditions of Islam. These feelings have been especially intense since the tragic events of September 11.’
The site does not portray Approaching the Qur’an as all-inclusive, qualifying that the suras to be studied largely examine the experience of the divine in the natural world and the principle of moral accountability. ‘These suras,’ the program overview explains, ‘are poetic and intensely evocative, beautiful meditations, comparable in many ways to the Psalms of David and other classics of world literature.’
The university won’t comment on pending litigation, but UNC communications director Michael McFarland says the school plans to go forward with the summer reading program. McFarland emphasizes Chancellor Moeser’s continued reminders that students can opt out of the reading.
Liberal bias? What liberal bias…?
Advantage: The Weekly Standard.
[thanks to Andre for sending along The WaPo link; update: Cracker Barrel Philosopher has more]
The NC legislature has decided to clarify things for UNC as this (shameless plug) describes.
Student body president Jennifer Daum, 21, of Pewaukee, Wis., agrees.
‘At the very least, it starts a dialogue,’ Daum said. ‘My feeling is that if you’re not prepared to read ideas that are not your own and that you might disagree with, you do not belong at an institution of higher learning.’
Goodness, and I thought that the proper response to divergent viewpoints expressed at an institution of higher learning was to outshout your ideological opponents, all the while calling them “racists” and “Nazis” and other Horrible Names. Oh, and steal all their publications out of the newsboxes before anyone has a chance to contaminate their minds by reading them.
I wonder if Ms. Daum would maintain her very reasonable opinion if the book in question were not the Qu’ran, but the Hebrew and/or Christian Bible. Or something written by Thomas Sowell, or Victor Davis Hanson, or Milton Friedman, or Peggy Noonan. Perhaps we should ask her?
I am having the hardest time figuring out where you, Jeff, and your commentors actually stand on this issue. Usually folks are pretty clear, but on this issue everyone’s rhetorical devices are getting in the way. Personally, I have not read anything about this that would lead me to believe that assigning selections from the Koran to college students is a bad idea. Selections from the Bible are often part of Western Civ or literature survey courses, and every college has comparative religion humanities courses where students read from a wide variety of texts.
The study guide doesn’t sound particularly partisan. ‘How does the sound [of a recitation from the CD] seem to you to create meanings and effects that are not present when you just read the text alone?’ is a perfectly reasonable question. I wish when they assign Bible-as-literature passages they would include a CD of the hazzan of my previous synagogue chanting the psalms, and I wish they would assign the Everett Fox translation and not King James – it’s a whole different experience and much truer to the original.
These are college students, for God’s sake. All this worry seems very condescending and hysterical to me. Reminds me of the good old McCarthy days when going to folk music concerts automatically made you a Communist sympathizer. Jeez…..
I’m suprised, Jeff, that this frivolous lawsuit hasn’t provoked you to the same sort of outrage that the frivolous “under God” Pledge lawsuit did. I wonder what the salient difference is, legally, between the ‘one-sided’ view of Islam presented in “Approaching the Koran”, and the similiarly one-sided view of Christianity presented in, say, “Paradise Lost” or “The Inferno”, where Christian theology is presented as the iron-clad factual basis of the narrative! As a hypothetical 18-year-old member of the Pan-Coven Wykkyn Alliance student organization and devoted fan of Slipknot, I am, like, totally personally offended by the constant references to a benevolent God in, like, the Western canon, and I am making use of my endless free time to sue these books out of our schools once and for all. They are, after all, being “forcibly-assigned”, as they do in all these, like, liberal fascist colleges. (Excepting, of course, that neo-con bastion of Hampshire College in Hadley, MA.) I guess my question is, what is preventing similiar lawsuits against any book with a religious theme which doesn’t contain a chapter entitled “Ways This Crappy Religion Sucks”?
And frankly, if college students don’t like assigned reading lists, they have, since time immemorial, been presented with 4 perfectly acceptable, and not mutually exclusive, options:
1) Do like every college student in the history of higher education, and ignore it.
2) Drop out; form horrible punk band.
3) Go to Hampshire; major in Buddhist sheep-herding.
4) Bite me.
Apparently we are now to add #5: Sue everybody blue, based on the most anal-retentive possible interpretation of the Constitution, and get in the newspaper. How nice.
With the pledge lawsuit, I argued that “under God” doesn’t violate the establishment clause, nor does the mere mention of God in a given non-believer’s presence constitute “coercion.”
To be clear, I don’t believe that UNC’s assigning of this book violates the establishment clause, either (I just think it shows poor judgment on the part of the University –particularly given the timing), but I do think that making students who wish to opt out write an essay defending their decision to opt out (to whom must they defend themselves, for instance? The conscientious objector police?) is borderline discriminatory, and could prove problematic from a legal standpoint [see the link provided by Cracker Barrel Philosopher, above].
I don’t think my post comes down one way or the other on the lawsuit; it was simply an attempt on my part to point out how the story is being presented by two competing, divergent sources—the self-styled “objective” WaPo, and the “conservative” Weekly Standard. If I’m not expressing the requisite “outrage” about the frivolity of the lawsuit, that’s because I’m not nearly so outraged with regard to this case as I was with regard to the Constitutional issues raised by the Pledge case. After all, this suit pertains to whether or not UNC can require students to read a specific piece of slanted PC revisionist history masquerading as a study aid, or else explain their reluctance to do so in writing; whereas the Pledge decision ruled that a Congressional addition to an official civic oath was hereafter unconstituional.
But let me flip this around for you: why is it that the very people who so vehemently defended the Pledge ruling are the first in line to back UNC in this case? The mere mention of a generic God is offensive to the point where it is damaging to non-believers, but forcing people to read a gussied-up guide to the Qur’an (including extended sections of Qur’anic verse) is perfectly acceptable? Why is that?
The Qur’an, after all, is the sacred text of Islam; whereas Paradise Lost is an epic poem—an important text in the Western literary canon, not a text claiming any special status for Christian theology.
I’m desperately awaiting Mr. Northrup’s response. Seems to me an actual civilized debate could be taking place. You know, one where points of view are discussed in an atmosphere free from mockery and ad hominem attacks based on emotion.
Mr. Northrup? Helloooooooooo…
Let me do the easy ones first: why is it that the very people who so vehemently defended the Pledge ruling are the first in line to back UNC in this case?
If I may speak for everyone: because I took a shallow and silly position. I took it as an opportunity to poke fun at what I perceived as rampant silliness. You (and others) took a much more mature point of view, frankly, about the really important issues involved. Because no one in their right mind gives a shit about whether you say “under God” or not – it’s a fun fight, but it’s not exactly a really vital issue. And I took notes. And I think you are currently letting certain people’s presentation of a book (I’m assuming) neither you, nor I, nor anyone we know personally has ever or will ever read color your interpretation a certain way, much as I let my own glee at being able to make fun of our embarrassing Congressmen and -women color mine. Look – I really doubt this book is any worse than any of the other “Appreciating the Rich Cultural Heritage of Blah Blah Blah” syrup which does (and should) make up the summer reading list for ignorant teenagers, which is, let’s be honest, who we’re talking about. Hey – maybe it’s some crazy Muslim “overt propaganda” being promoted by UNC for some shadowy purpose – in which case you are right. But that seems somewhat unlikely, doesn’t it?
The Qur’an, after all, is the sacred text of Islam; whereas Paradise Lost is an epic poem—an important text in the Western literary canon, not a text claiming any special status for Christian theology.
Really? I mean, you’re right in terms of literature, but you can prove that in court, consistantly? I think that would a mighty hard case to make, but let’s say you can. How about a history of Catholicism? Or Buddhism? Deist philosophy? The poems of Pope or Wordsworth? A biography of Mother Theresa? Or Ghandi? Theology departments? Moby Dick? Greek myths? All I know is: 1st Amendment, God, public school, I want to get my name in the paper. The Pledge ruling is already leading to more idiot “offended athiest” court cases; if we’re lucky, this thing will go nowhere, but it’s still a bad idea.
but I do think that making students who wish to opt out write an essay and defend their decision to opt out (to whom are they defending themselves? The conscientious objector police?) is borderline discriminatory, and could prove problematic legally.
They aren’t being “forced” to do anything. No one made them go to UNC. No one made them go to college at all. Look, I was “forced” to do physics problems for 4+ years in college, and never offered the option of a 1-page essay “opt-out” instead. Part of the deal with being a student is you aren’t in charge, and sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to, and if it hurts your feelings, tough beans. Get a job if you don’t like it – it’s a hundred times worse.
I don’t think my post comes down one way or the other on the lawsuit
No, you never explicitly said you were opposed to “propaganda”, but see #1 above. More importantly, see what you wrote about the Pledge case (I’m making your archives your summer reading list!). Frankly, I think this an example of exactly what you were predicting. I mean, is reading the tea leaves of “liberal bias” in some WaPo story really the issue here? You are allowed to write whatever you want, of course, not what I want you to write, so I guess I should appologize if I’m dragging you off on a tangent here. But I think that what makes this story interesting is not whether some kids have to read a book none of them were ever going to read anyway, and neither, I’ll wager, does the Family Policy Network.
…one where points of view are discussed in an atmosphere free from mockery and ad hominem attacks based on emotion.
Oops! One correction to my comment – append the following phrase to the last sentence:
“… so take that and jam it where the sun don’t shine along with your complete collection of Mike & the Mechanics LPs, you sexually deviant fascist gutter troll bitch poopy-face.”
Sorry. I need to proof-read my stuff better.
I had thought that the required text that seems now so controversial was for all incoming taking a basic course in composition. If that is the case, seems to me a silly way to approach the subject matter that is to be taught. I speak from some 25 years of experience in this.
If, on the other hand, it is a book required of all incoming students and with no course grade or credits assigned, I think the assigned work equally silly and useless. Is the notion to familiarize ourselves with a looming enemy, akin to alerting us of The Yellow Peril?
Alas, and I dislike saying this, from what I have read in religious texts, including the Koran, the Koran is not much of a good read AS literature and remains perhaps worthwhile as religious doctrine only.
Andrew writes, “[…] maybe it’s some crazy Muslim ‘overt propaganda’ being promoted by UNC for some shadowy purpose – in which case you are right. But that seems somewhat unlikely, doesn’t it?”
No, I don’t think this is any more insidious than most of the PC garbage kids are made to swallow at universities these days (much of it during orientation, mind you), but I also don’t think that such an observation makes UNC’s requiring the book any less of a poorly thought-out plan.
The issue of a given freshman’s decision to attend UNC is an interesting one, but given the time table involved—it is clear that incoming freshmen would have applied, received acceptance letters, and accepted matriculation offers long before this book was ever assigned them—such an argument might actually militate against your point (which, after all, is about choice).
Again, I don’t think this case violates the establishment clause. But I do think that the suit might have merit on this opt-out issue—especially given that the “assignment” is ungraded.
You’re right, though—I’m worried that students will one day win a suit arguing that something a teacher assigns in class is being unconstitutionally forced upon him/her. But I think a court is far less likely to find for a student in this regard than might the modern PC university itself. In short, I’m far more frightened of the hyper-“tolerant” university culture that produces boneheaded plans like UNC’s than I am most courts (outside of San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit, I mean
.
Or maybe I’m afraid of both, I don’t know…
But to be honest with you, I truly WAS blown away by the WaPo’s presentation of this story—which so obviously paled in comparison to the quite reasoned presentation offered by the Weekly Standard’s Beth Henary.
I mean, weren’t you?
C’mon. You know you were… Say it say it say it lou-ou-oud! Say it clear…!
>>why is it that the very people who so vehemently defended the Pledge ruling are the first in line to back UNC in this case?
Yes, but there’s an opt out available to the recitation of the Pledge, too (in addition to the individual pledger’s ability to omit any phrases s/he might find offensive in the process of reciting the Pledge, should s/he choose to). And in the case of the Pledge, the opt out is guaranteed by law.
The UNC book, on the other hand, instructs students in select parts of the Qur’an—which admittedly might make the student who reads it a “good student” in the sense the modern university has in mind, but not in the way I as a university teacher would hope that student would approach “scholarship” (which is why I’d have preferred UNC just assign the Qur’an itself, if a familiarity with Islam was what it was after, and then given anybody who wished one an opt out—but without the insulting caveat that those opting out must defend their decision to do so in writing, and to attend special seminars in which they explain themselves to tolerance counselors.)
[As an aside, I also don’t believe for a second that the majority of those voices who were so interested in defending the 9th Circuit ruling actually think the Pledge is as powerful or as indoctrinating a speech act as they began claiming it to be in light of the ruling—nor do I think a student who choses to omit the phrase “under God” is somehow stigmatized as a disloyal American as the result of such an omission.
I think such a self-righteous pose was struck out of mere convenience by those who wish to see “God” removed from any and every aspect of public life. I wrote plenty on this at the time of the ruling—I don’t care one way or the other about the inclusion of “under God,” but what I do care about is the court’s idea that uttering the phrase in the presence of non-believers is coercive and injurious.
In the case of the UNC requirement, I’m objecting to the conditions of the opt out (legally), and the PC-Qur’an-lite text (intellectually)
As far as my original post itself is concerned, I was interested mostly in comparing the WaPo’s framing of the controversy with the Weekly Standard’s far less slanted (in my judgment) presentation of the facts of the case.]
Student body president Jennifer Daum, 21, of Pewaukee, Wis., agrees.
‘At the very least, it starts a dialogue,’ Daum said. ‘My feeling is that if you’re not prepared to read ideas that are not your own and that you might disagree with, you do not belong at an institution of higher learning.’
___________
Of course, Ms Daum would include books with selective readings from right wing whackoes as well? Ya think?
“If you grant the premise that the pledge attempts to instruct youngsters on the definition of Americanism and does so invidiously, then no opt-out mechanism is going to make it innocuous.”
Well, I don’t grant that, but even so, I disagree with your conclusion. Part of what is “American” is the willingness, the ability, and the legally protected right to dissent. By choosing not to utter the phrase “under God,” kids are being just as American as those who utter every word in good faith. They are performing what it is that makes America so great. What America isn’t (though many have tried moving us in this direction) is a place where you have a “right” not to be offended by anything.
The “coercion” and “injurious” test were the grounds upon which the Ninth Circulit Court staked its decision. I, too, think the Court was wrong in that regard; and so their decision was Constitutionally flawed. As I’ve made clear, I don’t think the Pledge “is being used to indoctrinate both minority and majority in a religious conception of citizenship” in a way that violates the establishment clause. So yes, the “power” of the phrase “under God,” such as it is, is purely symbolic to me (to others, it means much more). Which is why I think petitioning Congress to rescind the 1954 addition is a perfectly reasonable program, should one wish to pursue it; however, I don’t think that straining the establishment clause in order to excise a phatic phrase is at all wise. Further, I think it trivializes legitimate invocatiions of the establishment clause to protect against religious encroachment. If “under God” (generic) violates the establishment clause, then “in God we trust” must go, too. However, if “under God” is de minimus (and I think the ruling will ultimately say just that), then all that’s left for determining the Constitutionally viability of retaining/removing the phrase is the Lemon test. And if the court rules that a non-believer—despite being given a legal opt out—is injured or coerced simply by hearing others use the phrase “under God,” well…we’ve opened up the worst legal can of worms in the history jurisprudence. (Imagine the suits: “I can’t be required to read Paradise Lost because it offends my atheistic sensibilities; I can’t be made to read “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” because it presents the handicapped in an unflattering light”—etc.)
The thinking behind the assignment that forces opt-out students to justify their decision is just plain wrong—whatever the school’s reasoning. UNC has already accepted these students based on whatever standards they use in making admission decisions (some degree of merit is presumed here, no?). The fact that UNC announced the Qur’an requirement after students had already committed to attending UNC puts the burden on UNC to establish why students MUST read the work, or else DEFEND THEMSELVES against a requirement made after they’d already committed to attending.
The book being used is not The Qur’an –even an edited version of the Qur’an (though it does contain a number of suras). Instead, it’s an “appreciating and understanding the Qur’an”-type text. Students aren’t required to look at the actual Qur’an. Think of it this way: It’s like UNC has assigned the Cliffs Notes of Moby Dick rather than the novel itelf—and the edition of the Cliff Notes they’ve assigned was written by a bigwig in Green Peace (who’s decided to excise the part in which the whale takes Ahab’s leg, because it presents whales in a “violent” light.) A student who has read nothing but the Cliff Notes version of Moby Dick—particularly one so ideologically influence—wouldn’t have an understanding of the novel, and in fact might have a dangerous misunderstanding. This is not scholarship, and as the first experience these students have with UNC, it is shameful, if you ask me.
I do not have any expertise on Constitutional law, but it strikes me as an exercise in denial simply to declare a phrase “phatic” (and thus innocuous) for all legal purposes when there are tens of millions of people to whom it is obviously anything but. If the phrase had no power, why did George Bush seem to think he could invoke it as evidence regarding the limits of citizenship? The history of the pledge also plainly goes against any attempt to treat it as meaningless verbiage. “Under God” was inserted into a pre-existing text to fill a perceived ideological need, not to make it more singable.
To my knowledge, nobody is making the (obviously absurd) argument that atheists must be protected from the injury suffered from the mere experience of “hearing others use the phrase ‘under God’,” just as nobody is arguing that atheists must be protected from the injury suffered from the experience of hearing others pray. At issue is the use of government power and resources in endorsing the prayers or the pledges. It is already clear as a matter of law that public schools may include religious texts (and—a fortiori—Milton and Hugo) as subjects for discussion. What is there in the Ninth Circuit ruling which would have the potential to obliterate this distinction between official endorsement of views and discussion of views?
If the text used as an introduction to Islam is as bad as you describe, then of course it is very bad indeed, and should be replaced immediately. I very much doubt, however, that a better text would have prevented the uproar. Even a perfectly objective selection from the Quran would still be “the book used by our enemies.”
You are indignant at the university for “putting the burden” on students to explain the reasons for opting out. This sounds strange to me, coming from a teacher, because when my students miss an assignment and I give them a makeup, I consider it a favor rather than a burden. And if my students complained that they were entitled to skip the reading AND to skip the makeup assignment because they had no specific warning when entering the university that they might have to read this particular book, I would wonder where they got their chutzpah (or the Buddhist equivalent thereof). Students are only obliged to read the books that have been listed as required reading before they enter college? In which universe does THIS law apply?
“If the phrase had no power, why did George Bush seem to think he could invoke it as evidence regarding the limits of citizenship?”
Because he is religious. But clearly he was wrong to make that statement in any case.
“‘Under God’ was inserted into a pre-existing text to fill a perceived ideological need, not to make it more singable.”
Yes, by a legislative act of Congress. In 1954. It wasn’t unconstitutional then, and it’s not unconstitutional now, based upon most interepretations of the establishment clause.
“To my knowledge, nobody is making the (obviously absurd) argument that atheists must be protected from the injury suffered from the mere experience of “hearing others use the phrase ‘under God’,” just as nobody is arguing that atheists must be protected from the injury suffered from the experience of hearing others pray. At issue is the use of government power and resources in endorsing the prayers or the pledges.”
Well, nobody except the 2 judges who ruled that way in the Ninth Circuit’s decision—who declared that the inclusion of the phrase failed the Lemon test.
“What is there in the Ninth Circuit ruling which would have the potential to obliterate this distinction between official endorsement of views and discussion of views?”
Read the dissenting judge’s opinion. Here’s a bit:
Jeff;
If you grant the premise that the pledge attempts to instruct youngsters on the definition of Americanism, and does so invidiously, then no opt-out mechanism is going to make it innocuous. If the pledge called us
1) My point in bringing up Bush
And let me add one more thing; My point in bringing up Bush
We’ll just have to agree to disagree then. I’m not interested in going to war over the format of the UNC assignment; but then, I’m not one of the students who’s involved with the suit. I simply find certain aspects of the case interesting—some for legal reasons, some for intellectual reasons.
Certainly, you can make all sorts of arguments for what college students should or should not reasonably expect from college, or what they should or should not have to do to claim conscientious objector status—but all of these arguments beg the question—because the suit will decide those issues. As I say, I have no vested interest in this. My post was about how an ostensibly “objective” publication like the WaPo was far more slanted in their coverage of the story than was a self-proclaimed conservative periodical like The Weekly Standard.
Back when the Pledge issue was fresh, I answered all the questions you raise. You can do a search and look through those posts and comments if you’d like, but I don’t feel like rehashing all of those arguments. I will point out, though (because I don’t think the question came up before in such a way as you raise it in your comments) that I think it quite reasonable to note that speech that at one time was pointedly referential, can easily over the course of nearly 50 years, become phatic. This is especially true now that the Cold War is over, for instance.
I’ve enjoyed talking with you on these points, but as I hope you’ll understand, I have to respond to lots of other comments on a whole slew of other posts (not to mention, I have to put up new posts). But please, do feel free to post additional points if you wish. Just don’t think me rude for not responding right away. (I’m kind of in the middle of a debate with Steve Sailer of the Human Biodiversity Institute over the issue of “race” at the moment. If you’re interested in such things, here’s the link.)
>>But please, do feel free to post additional points if you wish.> Just don’t think me rude for not responding right away.
“I would have to imagine that one such test is whether the phrase is still treated seriously by high government officials, and that another is whether there remain many reasonable people who still consider it as stating something important and substantial.”
I don’t believe that’s how such things work, legally—I think politicians would all rush to defend the high-mindedness of in God with Trust, but such a defense (even were it sincere) doesn’t change the fact that we exchange money multiple times a day without establishing religion or injuring recipients. The phrase is phatic to just about every schoolkid, I’d imagine—though I’m going off my own experience from many years ago (when I thought we were “one nation, under God, and invisible…”)
>>The phrase is phatic to just about every schoolkid, I’d imagine—though I’m going off my own experience from many years ago (when I thought we were “one nation, under God, and invisible…”)