On “God Bless America” And The Foundations of Our Civilization
by Mark D. Steele

In this great nation of ours almost all ideas are welcomed and considered. But, let’s face it. Some ideas are still evidence of ignorance, stupidity, or ungratefulness. Tom Flynn, in a recent opinion piece on the MSNBC website (1) , complained about the use of the song “God Bless America”. He argued that it is the wrong song to unite America because it automatically excludes atheists and those who are not monotheists. He went on to say that for those who live without religion, “our sense of loss was greater, since we envision no next-worldly existence in which the victims might be made whole for what was torn from them.” And, mentioning all of the religious memorials he asked, “what opportunities did we have to join with fellow Americans to express our anguish? … Where were the secular memorial or remembrance events that all Americans could share?”

Now, Mr. Flynn’s argument, while welcome and well within his right to free speech, falls into that category described above as evidence of ignorance, stupidity, or ungratefulness. I do not know Mr. Flynn and am unwilling to further sub-categorize his argument. But I will state why it must be the product of one of those three causes.

My problem with his argument is twofold. One, he disavows the concept of a creator-God while taking full advantage of the freedom afforded by a civilization that could not have been founded without that very concept. Two, he foists upon us the common myth that because theists typically believe in an afterlife they are less inclined to be touched by events that transpire in this life. In this essay, I will only focus on the first issue.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” This statement is arguably the primary proposition, the underlying concept, the cornerstone ideal of our Republic. Lincoln referred to it when he said that our forefathers had founded a new nation dedicated to this very proposition. In implementation, we have been less than ideal. But this has not been because, as a people, we largely believed in God but because, too often, we have not believed enough. For this idea has a long lineage that runs through the western civilization known as Christendom. It is not the premise of an argument but the conclusion. The argument begins with a Creator and a very specific one at that. This Creator is the God of the Bible as understood by traditional Christianity. And the premises that led to this conclusion include the following:

• That there is a law above kings and governments and it is the law instituted by God (Divine Law) but largely discoverable by reason (Natural Law),
• That human beings possess a certain dignity because they were created in the image of their creator,
• That this dignity expressed itself in the ultimate divine law to do unto others that which you would have done to you,
• That, in so far as this divine law is followed and this dignity is protected, it is possible to create a just society.

And, in fact, several of the founding fathers of this nation expressed the belief that were the American people to lose this underlying religious foundation, they would also lose the character necessary to uphold the Republic with liberty and justice for all. George Washington’s farewell address in 1996 stated, “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.” Washington’s knowledge of recent events offered ample evidence of this fact. In what was perhaps the first attempt at an atheist revolution and society, the French Revolution had led to its inevitable conclusions: compete upheaval, a reign of terror, and a lapse back into tyranny. Some ideas are just not powerful enough to form the basis for a free society and the French found that their atheistic conception of the brotherhood of man fell into that category.

As if that were not enough, in the 20th century the Russians rejected their religious tradition in favor of atheistic socialism and found that although this sounded good it failed as the basis for a society. It failed to provide a free society and it failed even to provide a sound economy. One refugee from that oppressive Soviet society was Ayn Rand. And while I dispute some of her fundamental premises, I do agree with her on one of her key propositions – that ideas DO matter. The key ideas held to be true by a person or a society will shape that person or society in very real ways. Less philosophically perhaps, St. Paul stated this point when he said that whatsoever you sow, you reap. And history has made abundantly clear the proposition that if you sow atheism, you have no valid theoretical foundation from which to reap human dignity and freedom. Another Russian, Dostoevsky, was right: if God is dead, everything is permissible. The converse of this is that if God is dead, nothing is morally required. There are no valid moral requirements – no duties, no responsibilities, and no rights. One’s only obligation is to survive.

But what of the great philosophers of the past who did not subscribe to the concept of a personal God? What of Plato and Aristotle? What of the Stoics? Well, what of them? Plato gave us a book entitled The Republic but this did not provide the basis for a free society but a manual for governance by the elite. Aristotle coached Alexander the Great who spread his one-man rule throughout the known world. Marcus Aurelius was one of the greatest of Stoic philosophers. But his philosophy did nothing for the fact that the majority of humans inhabiting the Roman Empire were slaves. It did nothing to restrain him when persecuting Jews and Christians. The simple truth is that atheism enshrined in a society does not, has not, and cannot lead to liberty.

So, “what opportunities did we [i.e. atheists] have to join with fellow Americans to express our anguish?” They were the same as everyone else’s opportunities. They were to be found in the National Cathedral and in churches, synagogues, and mosques everywhere throughout our land. Was anyone excluded because God was mentioned? Yes, but only because they excluded themselves by rejecting the underlying and necessary foundation of the liberty that they enjoy. I support and once fought to defend their liberty to disbelieve because I believe in their dignity and worth. But to complain of the strength and certainty of the foundation while standing in the building is either ignorant, or stupid, or ungrateful. Ignorant if one does not understand the facts of the foundation. Stupid if one really believes the foundation does not exist and yet chooses to remain in the building. Or ungrateful if one resents the fact that the foundation is required.

(1) http://www.msnbc.com/news/653613.asp

Copyright 2001, by Mark D. Steele, all rights reserved