August 1, 2002

GOD UNERWÜNSCHT



After Hitler had annexed my native Austria in 1938 one could see signs at public beaches, resort hotels, restaurants and other assorted places "Juden Unerwünscht," Jews not welcome. It seems that this fate is now to befall God in America. The phrase "one nation under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, has recently come under attack because the word God when uttered at public functions supposedly violates the Constitution. Yet anybody who has bothered to read the Constitution and more specifically the First Amendment, which is the excuse for banning God from the "Public Square," knows that this a fraudulent claim, regardless how many judges agree with it. Here is the full text of the First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since Congress has not passed a law that forbids: school prayer, singing songs at graduation ceremonies which contain the word God, or any other mention of God at public functions, it is difficult to see why these activities should be "unconstitutional." On the contrary when one forbids the use of the word God one violates the First Amendment by preventing "the free exercise thereof," and "abridging the freedom of speech."

How has this perversion of the intent of the framers of the Constitution come about? It is quite recent and the article by Alan Mittleman From Jewish Street to Public Square (First Things, August-September 2002) is most enlightening. As some Jews became progressively more "secular" and left the confines of Jewish enclaves in the major cities for the suburbs the old traditional bonds were broken. But suburbia brought along other problems. Discrimination in terms of housing, private clubs, admissions to universities existed and had to be confronted. Three organizations were the most active in this respect: the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith.

It is generally agreed that discrimination on basis of sex, color or creed is patently unfair and should not be tolerated in a country which prides itself in its Declaration of Independence "...that all men are created equal..." Had the laudable efforts of the mentioned organizations stopped at the point where equality had been achieved we could all have lived happily for ever after and would indeed have become a model for the rest of the world. But some Jewish intellectuals simply didn't know when to stop. They still carried the long history of persecution in their backpacks when they came from Europe, and wanted to achieve not only equality but "safety." To accomplish this goal there were three possibilities: full assimilation, conversion of the country to Judaism, or the abolition of all religious sentiments from the public sphere. Complete assimilation was not desirable because it would threaten the survival of the ancestral belief and to expect that Judaism would become the majority religion was, of course, unrealistic. Therefore the third option was chosen. In a fully "secularized" country, which is a euphemism for atheistic, there could be no threat to Jews as Jews, anti-Semitism would vanish and the Messianic age would dawn. This was the ideal to be worked towards. To quote from Mittleman's article

"It was from the [American Jewish] Congress and particularly from its lead attorney, Leo Pfeiffer, that a stream of test cases and friend of the court briefs on crucial church-state cases would issue. The Congress learned from the NAACP and the ACLU that the courts could effect radical changes more swiftly and elegantly than legislatures...It is no exaggeration to say that the shaping of the church-state separation regime of the post-war period cannot be understood without Leo Pfeiffer's activism."

Mr. Pfeiffer was, of course, not alone and anyone who is really interested in how God was expelled from public schools and other public functions should read also Stephen Feldman's book Please don't wish me a Merry Christmas. In this book Feldman also shows why America has to be secularized. The predominant religion of the country is Christian and as such automatically antisemitic. This may strike one as strange but Dr. Feldman is a law professor and here is his definition of anti-Semitism

"the intentional or unintentional, conscious or unconscious, hatred, dislike, oppression, persecution, domination, and subjugation of Jews qua Jews for whatever reason or motivation, whether it be religious, cultural, ethnic, racial or political."

Feldman explains

"My critical narrative, told from the viewpoint of an American Jew, reveals the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state to be a highly complex social phenomenon that flows primarily from and helps reproduce the Christian domination of American society and culture."

Ergo what should Christians do? Since they are by nature at least "unconsciously antisemitic," as Feldman declared, it seems the only way out of the dilemma is that they would have to renounce their Christian faith and become atheists. Even if they merely continue to go to church on Sundays, their antisemitism will be reinforced, which they will carry over into their professional and social lives. Am I exaggerating or is this the logical conclusion which is aimed at, but obviously, and for good reason not voiced?

Lest one believes that I am making too much out of Feldman's book here are excepts of the reviews from the back cover, "a wild ride." "Clearly a superb work of scholarship...the historical sweep of the book is impressive." "His ability to understand and discuss difficult nuances of doctrinal history is impressive." The conclusion from a review in Booklist states

"At a time when debate rages around issues associated with the establishment clause of the First Amendment - including school prayer and public displays of Christian religious symbols - and at a time of resurgent antisemitism, Feldman's carefully reasoned and meticulously documented case is particularly welcome."

It did not seem to have occurred to the reviewers that the book is profoundly anti-Christian and that the relentless pursuit to banish God from public functions is bound to lead to a backlash. These "intellectuals" fail to consider the law of unintended consequences and do not realize that their efforts are likely to produce precisely what they wanted to avoid: a resurgence of anti-Semitism. Let me emphasize, however, that it was not only "non-Jewish Jews," to use Deutscher's terminology, who were responsible for this slide of our society into "secularism." Nevertheless that they were in the vanguard of the effort is readily demonstrable.

Let us now look at what this relentless drive towards a secular society has achieved. Inasmuch as Freud has abolished a conscience, with its concomitant sense of responsibility to a higher power, and even the so-called super-ego has given way to "do your own thing," we now have a "culture," which no longer deserves the name. When a "joke" by Woody Allen that "the brain is my second most favorite organ” is heartily approved of; when public education and the media gear themselves towards the lowest common denominator, one should not be surprised that even the President of this country is reported to have derived a great deal of pleasure from a current Austin Powers movie which revels in gutter humor. If America were a little island somewhere in the ocean all of this would not matter very much. But we are the self-proclaimed "Leader of the Free World", "Defenders of Western Civilization" who broadcast this smut far and wide. Responsible people should, therefore, take cognizance and try to return America to the principles the country was founded on.

What the American Jewish Congress has accomplished on the domestic front, AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) has achieved in regard to our foreign policy. The committee has been, and still is, working exceedingly hard to ensure that Congress does not pass legislation which might be construed as harmful to the interests of the state of Israel. Seemingly unlimited financial resources and a dedicated corps of volunteers make sure that only those candidates for election or re-election to public office gain the needed number of votes who are firmly committed to a pro-Israel line. This holds true even if a given government in that country adheres to policies which are not in the best interests of the United States. Whenever this happens, as for instance currently in regard to the Palestinian issue, the American people have to become convinced by media pressure (let me not use the dirty word propaganda) that Israel is our most reliable and best friend. Alternative voices to this view can only rarely be heard.

Let me make it explicit at this point that I do not blame the mentioned Jewish organizations and other members of the Jewish community to pursue their self-interest vigorously with all legal means. They deserve to be congratulated to their success and for having shown how a small minority can use the democratic process to thwart the wishes of the majority. To remedy the situation those of our citizens who are not in favor of how the domestic and foreign policy of the country is being conducted, should look in the mirror and say mea culpa. But mea culpa is only the first step. Effective organizations would have to be created, which are neither anti-Semitic nor neo-Nazi, but are led by responsible citizens from the entire spectrum of the American people who say: thus far and no further. The envelope has been pushed to the limit and it is time to put the real interests of all the citizens of this country to the fore, rather than those of special interest groups whoever they are. We have a genuine crisis of confidence in government as well as the financial system which has deliberately defrauded millions of our citizens which needs to be rectified.

The proposed answers to the problems of: homeland security, financial scandals and the dry rot of our culture are more money and more laws. Neither of these can solve the problems. There is not and cannot be total security for anybody regardless where the person lives. Man-made and natural disasters have always occurred and will continue to do so. While reasonable precautions can be taken, the creation of a police state is not the answer. Not only is it inimical to the American spirit but in the long run it will financially and morally bankrupt the country, without a chapter 11 protection.

To use the state of Israel as a model for how we should protect ourselves from terrorists, as is currently proposed, does not make good sense. One unbiased look at the Middle East shows that Israeli citizens are less secure after about one and a half years of Likud government with concomitant repression of the people living in the West Bank and Gaza than they were before. No amount of propaganda can hide this fact. For us to go down the same road is a guarantee that we shall also suffer the same fate. What is needed instead is that on the domestic scene we should first of all stop creating more fear. If and when another disaster were to occur we should respond to it with measures which limit the impact on the innocent victims, while we are pursuing at the same time a foreign policy which shows to the entire world that we do not prefer one country over another when we try to resolve a given conflict..

In regard to further legal measures for our problems it should be obvious that whenever more laws are created the lawyers go to work and in no time at all they will have discovered loopholes to subvert the law so that the rich and powerful can get away while the little guy goes to jail. This is not a good way to run a country. Campaign finance reform is also worthless. Loopholes will be found and money will continue to be poured into the coffers of preferred candidates. A genuine reform of the electoral process which drastically reduces the election cycle should be called for. As long as a Congressman or even Senator has to worry immediately upon entering office about creating a "war-chest" for re-election, he/she cannot be expected to take a rational, reasonable, long range stand on controversial topics. Pandering to voters with the deepest financial pockets is bound to take precedent. Regardless of the best intentions this must be recognized by the public at large as a fact of life. As long as we do not insist on electoral reform rather than merely campaign finance reform nothing will be accomplished. When laws are created and subsequently not impartially and promptly enforced they are worse than useless; they make a mockery of the very word "law."

And what is the common denominator of all our problems? Absence of a sense of responsibility! The rich know that they can get away, in some cases even literally, with murder and there is no conscience to restrain them. "Greed is good" we have been told in a movie not too long ago. When CEO's of companies are interested mainly in enriching themselves further without regard to the fate of their employees or stockholders who get ruined in the process, capitalism will lose its luster as a model to be emulated by the rest of the world. So will the secular society which we are pushing so hard for in other countries. No human relationships be they within the family, in business or government can flourish without trust. But trust has to be earned and cannot be legislated. This is the fundamental problem of our country. The last few decades of the past century have eroded trust on all levels and it is high time to rebuild it, by day to day behavior which subordinates personal desires to the needs of others. This effort could be immensely aided if trust in God were to be re-established because it brings with it a sense of responsibility regardless of high one's station in life is. To those who believe, like Nietzsche, that God is dead we can answer that Nietzsche forgot one vital characteristic of God. You can kill Him but He obstinately refuses to stay dead.

Those of us who still have a conscience and believe that we have an immortal soul for which we are responsible to our creator will have to shed our complacency and cowardice so that we can indeed work toward America becoming again "one nation under God," who by the way is non-Sectarian. I said cowardice on purpose because those who engage in this task can expect ridicule by those who "know better," and it is much easier to just keep quiet and "not make waves." This was an option we had also in Nazi Germany. In those days you risked your life if you spoke out; today you only risk derision or being shunned. But this is precisely what builds character, a quality which has been so sadly lacking in high places.

Finally, the perfunctory "God bless America" which is the routine refrain of our President and some other politicians with which they close their speeches is utterly meaningless. Why should He? when those in charge of the country don't pay Him any respect the rest of the time. The phrase is not even a request but when not preceded by a "may," it is an order. Inspire of His infinite patience He may not relish being ordered around. Thus our country needs a change of heart and a return to the values which created it in the first place. The attempt to replace an internal conscience by external laws has failed and will continue to do so. The time has come to change the attitudes which gave rise to the headline of this essay to a sincere: Welcome to America, Lord!
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!