More yet on Obama

I agree with Tom that our institutions constitutionally presuppose a Supreme Being. I also agree that the use of “In God We Trust” on the coins and currency is constitutional (though I think the use of “In God We Trust” on the coins and currency and the like hurts rather than helps religion); so is the use of Under God in the Pledge (though the social pressure coercing little third graders should not be tolerated). I regard these monotheistic affirmations as the exceptions. They should not be the basis for allowing government to pronounce on what God has to say on any subject.

Tom, who as usual argues his case with great skill both here and in the article he cites, asks, “Shouldn't we avoid reading the Establishment Clause as containing principles condemning these foundational documents adopted around the same time?” I am not condemning those foundational documents. To the irony that God and religion is presupposed by the Constitution, I say that the question is not whether religion is favored under the Constitution, but how it is best favored. I think religion is best favored by keeping cynical and corrupt politicians (yes, I know many are fine people, but I am in an Augustinian mood, and, in any event, I do not want them using state power to put forth theological propositions) from using whereas clauses and religious symbols to the detriment of religion. For more on this, see Shiffrin, The Pluralistic Foundations of the Religion Clauses, 90 Cornell L.Rev. 9 (2004).