Under God
by Alfred Bloom, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii
Once again the issue of separation of
church and state and the meaning of the
United States
as a secular nation has come to
the fore in our courts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld
the decision made by an earlier three-judge panel last summer
declaring that the phrase “Under God” which was added to the Pledge of
Allegiance in 1954 is
unconstitutional. At that time in the struggle against Communism,
President Eisenhower supported its’ addition. Previous generations of
soldiers and citizens had expressed their devotion to country without it.
However, the present ban on
the recitation of the pledge in public schools has been put on hold until
the Supreme Court decides the issue.
In response to the court’s decision
and the outcry of opposition to it, primarily from the dominant Christian
community, the Shin Buddhist Honpa Hongwanji Lay Association at its 41st
Annual Convention in September
2002 passed a resolution
supporting the court’s decision. The resolution was reported and
affirmed at the Legislative Assembly in February 2003. The members
expressed their belief that the
American democratic ideal has permitted over 2000 different religious
faiths and denominations to flourish in our highly diverse religious
society, as well as it has enabled people of no religious commitment to
pursue their lives freely.
In fact, despite the centrality of
religious faith in every area of American life, it is the principle of
separation of church and state and its’ fundamental secular
character that ensures the freedom of each person to follow the faith of
their choice without intimidation or oppression. While our society is
secular in the manner taught by Jesus of rendering unto Caesar what
belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God, it is not godless.
American secularism is based on diversity is not
militant or anti-religious such as has characterized the
Soviet Union
and
China
. Our secularism is a considered principle to keep government neutral in
matters of faith, while permitting faiths to flourish and propagate as
they will. The state does not favor a particular faith in practice or by
implication.
The disagreements concerning this
principle come from clarifying the implications and
applications of the principle. Fortunately we are
dealing with the fine points. We all
rely on our courts to make fair
judgments. Buddhists, therefore, affirm and strongly
support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which were wisely
created by our Founding Fathers to secure the rights of all peoples and
not merely those of the privileged few. Freedom of religion and freedom
from religion are important principles for all people in our complex
society.
Buddhism itself is not a religion of
compulsion. The Buddha shared his teaching with all seekers and never
imposed it on anyone. Buddhism teaches that all beings have Buddha-nature,
the potentiality to become Buddhas, embodying compassion and wisdom. All
are equal spiritually and in principle, if not always socially or in
individual abilities. Shinran,
the founder of the Shin Buddhist denomination, also believed in the
complete equality of all people based on Amida Buddha’s unconditional
Compassion. He never condemned those who disagreed with his view of faith,
and he opposed dependence on political power to promote his teaching. He
experienced persecution from the prevailing religious establishment of his
time, and like Jesus and Buddha, taught that we should love our enemies,
while seeking justice for himself and others.
It is, therefore, a matter of principle for Shin Buddhists to
oppose any weakening of the wall separating
church and state.
