{"id":65162,"date":"2002-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-07T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/07\/07\/serment-divin\/"},"modified":"2002-07-07T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-07-07T00:00:00","slug":"serment-divin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/07\/07\/serment-divin\/","title":{"rendered":"Serment divin<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Serment divin<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t7 juillet 2002 — Un texte paru ce jour m\u00eame dans le New York Times,<\/a> d’Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, historien de grande r\u00e9putation dans l’establishment<\/em> am\u00e9ricain, prend position sur le fond contre le courant g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de critique de la d\u00e9cision de la Cour d’Appel du 9e District qualifiant d’inconstitutionnel le membre de phrase \u00ab under God<\/em>\u00bb dans le serment d’all\u00e9geance au drapeau. Le texte de Schlesinger d\u00e9plore l’aspect de plus en plus religieux associ\u00e9 au patriotisme depuis le 11 septembre 2001. Schlesinger termine son texte de cette fa\u00e7on :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab As for the Constitution, more than a half-century ago the Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, declared unconstitutional a law requiring schoolchildren to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," Justice Robert H. Jackson memorably said for the court, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The court handed down its decision against compulsory pledges of allegiance and flag salutes on Flag Day in 1943, when young Americans were fighting and dying for that flag around the planet. The American people then, far from denouncing the court, applauded the decision as a pretty good statement of what we were fighting for. Are we backsliding today? Perhaps the next step for those who identify patriotism with religion will be to try to amend the Constitution itself by mentioning God.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl y a une forte pouss\u00e9e religieuse aux USA aujourd’hui. De nombre de points de vue, jusqu’au discours de GW \u00e0 Washington \u00e9voquant l’affaire du serment, le 4 juillet a plus \u00e9t\u00e9 une f\u00eate religieuse que la c\u00e9l\u00e9bration patriotique de l’Ind\u00e9pendance. Il y a ainsi une mont\u00e9e dans les obligations conformistes et les pressions collectives aux USA : d’abord, pour afficher son patriotisme ; ensuite, pour prouver son patriotisme, afficher ses sentiments religieux. C’est un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne tr\u00e8s important, cette mont\u00e9e de la religion aux USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’establishment<\/em> suit et m\u00eame alimente cette tendance. Une attitude de FAIR-L (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism) sur les r\u00e9actions des m\u00e9dias, le 28 juin, lorsque l’affaire a commenc\u00e9, est int\u00e9ressante \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter. Nous le faisons ci-apr\u00e8s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

FAIR-L Attacks on Pledge Ruling Bolster Its Logic<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tJune 28, 2002<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn the immediate aftermath of an appeals court ruling that the Pledge of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAllegiance was unconstitutional, nearly all the commentary in the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcountry’s leading newspapers criticized the decision. But some of the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmore alarmist arguments used to defend the phrase "under God" actually<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttended to support the judges’ finding that including it in the Pledge is<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tan impermissible government establishment of religion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOf the 10 largest-circulation dailies in the country, six had run<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\teditorials on the ruling as of June 28; all six attacked the decision.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEditorialists called it "a fundamentally silly ruling" (L.A. Times<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(6\/27\/02) or an "addled opinion" (Wall Street Journal, 6\/27\/02). The New<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYork Times (6\/27\/02) said it "lacks common sense," while the Washington<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPost (6\/27\/02) compared it to a "parody." The appeals court "went way<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\toverboard," in the opinion of Long Island Newsday; for the New York Daily<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNews (6\/27\/02), "the sooner this decision is overturned, the better."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSigned columns in the top papers had little more balance. Jeffrey Rosen<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin the New York Times (6\/28\/02) criticized the ruling’s "polarizing<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tvision." In the Washington Post (6\/27\/02), Marc Fisher criticized "a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcourt steeped in the arrogance of political correctness."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA column by the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass (6\/27\/02) ran under the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\theadline, "Ruling on Pledge Is a Slap in Face to All Americans." Marc<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHoward Wilson (Chicago Tribune, 6\/28\/02) called it "typical San Francisco<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tlunacy" and "misguided grandstanding."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn a twist, the L.A. Times (6\/28\/02) ran a feature by staff writer Martin<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMiller, who described himself as an atheist but attacked the non-believer<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twhose lawsuit prompted the decision as "sullen, cantankerous and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tlitigious…intolerant, pushy and self-righteous."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCompared to these harsh attacks on the ruling, supporters were muted. The<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWashington Post’s E.J. Dionne (6\/28\/02) mustered half a cheer for the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdecision in an op-ed headlined "Wrong for the Right Reasons." The Chicago<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTribune’s Eric Zorn (6\/27\/02) noted that he had criticized mandatory<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\trecitations of the Pledge in the past, and invited readers to view those<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcolumns on his website.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSusan Jacoby in Newsday (6\/28\/02) narrowly endorsed the opinion as<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"entirely correct in constitutional terms," although she wished that the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPledge were "a more substantive issue." Libertarian conservative James<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPinkerton (L.A. Times, 6\/28\/02) produced the most robust defense of the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tappeals court justices, praising their "historical wisdom" (although<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcalling their ruling "poorly thought out").<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThough support for the court ruling was limited in the leading U.S.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpapers, the criticisms of the decision in some ways backed up the court’s<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treasoning. Several critics adopted the position of the appeals court’s<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdissenter, saying that "under God" is not an establishment of religion<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbecause it is a "rote civic exercise" (New York Times, 6\/27\/02), a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"harmless civic recitation" (Newsday, 6\/28\/02) with "such a minimal<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treligious effect" (New York Times, 6\/28\/02). "God’s name is just a frill,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ta space-filler in the unthinking torrent of much daily conversation,"<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tclaimed Fisher in the Washington Post (6\/27\/02).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut at the same time, many opponents of the decision warned that it could<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tprovoke a powerful, emotional response from believers. The New York Times<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(6\/27\/02) warned that it was "inviting a political backlash," whose<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\teffects Rosen spelled out in the paper the next day: "That ruling will<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\talmost certainly galvanize Republicans to push for the appointment of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tconservative judges who will seek to place religion in the center of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpublic life." The Washington Post (6\/27\/02) noted that the ruling " can<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tonly serve to generate unnecessary political battles and create a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfundraising bonanza for the many groups who will rush to its defense."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThose are fairly serious consequences for the cessation of a "rote civic<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\texercise." Indeed, the vitriolic attacks against the decision, and the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twarnings of what Christians and other monotheists might do if the Pledge<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twere not maintained as is, bolstered the appeals court’s finding that<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tincluding "under God" was "not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbelieve in a deity" or "merely descriptive of the undeniable historical<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsignificance of religion in the founding of the republic," but rather "an<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\timpermissible government endorsement of religion" that "sends a message to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tunbelievers ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcommunity, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinsiders, favored members of the political community.’"<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tGranted, some of the defenders stood up for the Pledge because of, rather<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthan despite, its religious content. "The sentiment that this is a land<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tblessed has been accepted since Pilgrim days," asserted the Daily News<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(6\/27\/02). The Tribune’s Kass (6\/27\/02) wondered whether his children<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twill be "jailed for having any dangerous and heretical beliefs, like a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbelief in God."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe most disingenuous assertions in support of the Pledge status quo<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\trelated to the purpose of adding "under God"– an important constitutional<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tquestion, since church\/state separation questions typically hinge on the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsecular intent of governmental action.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t"The pledge, taken as a whole, was not intended to be a coercive prayer,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbut was designed to promote patriotism, and as such is consistent with the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tneutrality principle," wrote Rosen (New York Times, 6\/28\/02).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEditorialized the Daily News (6\/17\/02): "The two words, viewed in the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcontext of the entire pledge, have nothing whatsoever to do with avowing<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfealty to God."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYet if one can believe President Dwight Eisenhower, who signed the bill<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat added "under God" to the Pledge, that is precisely what altering the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\toath was meant to accomplish. "In this way we are reaffirming the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttranscendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future,"<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEisenhower announced at the time (Columbus Dispatch, 6\/28\/02). "From this<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tday forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tevery city and town, every village and every rural schoolhouse, the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Serment divin 7 juillet 2002 — Un texte paru ce jour m\u00eame dans le New York Times, d’Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, historien de grande r\u00e9putation dans l’establishment am\u00e9ricain, prend position sur le fond contre le courant g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de critique de la d\u00e9cision de la Cour d’Appel du 9e District qualifiant d’inconstitutionnel le membre de phrase \u00ab… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3466,3465,2804],"class_list":["post-65162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-dieu","tag-serment","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}