I have to ask Johngalt something. I know you to be a fan of our 40th President, and I am, of course, familiar with you views on religion in the public square.
I wondered throughout the many moving speeches and ceremonies if the references to God bothered you.
I was blown away, musically and emotionally, by the version of "Battle Hymn of the Republic" at the National Cathedral. Dan Henninger writes:
It is the music of choice when one's goal is to match the grandeur of the nation to a public life. But it goes without saying that should any school district in America establish, if one may use that word, the singing of Ms. Howe's hymn each Friday afternoon at a week-ending convocation, the Supreme Court would banish it.Julia Howe's "Battle Hymn," written at a Union Army camp on the Potomac, is way, waaay over the Court's quota of capitalized "h" words--He is trampling, His sword, His day, the Hero born of woman, and His truth.
But still--even the most devout atheist can't tamp down the tearful wellings of national pride that erupt in most of us when a strong chorus sings "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord . . . His truth is marching on."
The long historical truth is that God, whether He exists or not, is good for summoning national pride, communal bonds and the martial spirit--the qualities most necessary to ensuring the survival of the United States at its current level of pre-eminence.
But I did keep wondering "if this is not driving Johngalt crazy..."
Excellent question! I had read the Henninger piece you quote from, and an opinion on SCOTUS' sidestepping of the Pledge issue last week (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005223) and mulled over how I might blog these two articles before concluding that our guests would merely yawn at my incessant "God bashing." But since you've asked...
The references to God in Reagan's funeral don't bother me a bit. The Battle Hymn of the Republic doesn't bother me either, since it is an historical fact that Americans have worshipped God. My position has been that God does not, can not, actually exist. (Interestingly, Henninger admits as much with the phrase "...whether He exists or not..." Bravo!) I carry the issue further by explaining how manipulative individuals and organizations use the threat of punishment or retribution by this non-existent deity to promote their collectivist ideals, namely altruism and egalitarianism.
For SCOTUS to hear the Pledge case and make their decisive ruling on the basis that the plaintiff had "no standing" to bring the suit is clear evidence that the plaintiff's position itself is unassailable in any but theistic (or possibly relativistic multi-cultural) terms.
Posted by: johngalt at June 21, 2004 01:44 PMExcellent Answer!
Posted by: jk at June 21, 2004 01:54 PMI think it is because death always brings out religion. It is the fear of this great unknown where the comfort of religion can be felt strongest. As for the song I recall playing it in a public school orchestra, in California no less. Years ago perhaps, but interesting. If we were to take away all music or art with a religious theme what a great loss to society!
Posted by: Silence Dogood at June 29, 2004 03:47 AMA loss, indeed. I cannot imagine that you would play "Battle Hymn of the Republic" in a California public school today.
Posted by: jk at June 29, 2004 09:22 AMI don't know, I'll let you know as my kids get further along in school. Last year's concert did have some religous pieces which I have to admit suprised me. This is at a charter school, public, but not in a way.
Now, before I end, I don't want to let religion off that easy, even if I do attend church - less regularly in the summer it seems as does my family so don't feel too alone in your "holy roller" position JK. I am a believer in God, it is just organized religion I have trouble with. But as my wife convinced me we should expose the kids and let them make their own decision rather than keeping them away because of my feelings. Anyway I have always been struck by the cause of religion in art and music, it is often a strong argument from the religious right. The discussions about this seem to miss an important point, namely that the reason so much great art and music had religious themes is that the Church was the one with the money to support the creation of the works. Sort of a renaisance Christian version of the NEA if you will.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at June 30, 2004 01:22 PM