I realize that criticizing David Brooks’ New York Times columns has become something of a parlor game among blog writers, one which I usually ignore, but today will be an exception. Brooks’ column was so bizarre today, I just can’t help myself.
The column notes that the Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow over the use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Brooks, apparently, believes the phrase should stay there. I say “apparently,” because Brooks never really expresses an opinion, other than the fact that he likes religion.
In making his case, Brooks does his level best to explain that he sees religion as a good thing, which has a positive influence on society. To illustrate his point, Brooks argues that the civil rights movement “was not a political movement with a religious element. It was a religious movement with a political element.”
That’s fine, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the controversy over the Pledge.
No one’s arguing that religion is incapable of playing a positive societal role. Religion was used to justify slavery in this country, but it was also utilized by abolitionists. Scripture was cited by those who demanded segregation, as it was by leaders of the civil rights movement. Faith has inspired people to greatness, and it has driven people to heinous crimes.
Brooks wants the reader to believe that this has something to do with Congress inserting a religious phrase into a secular pledge. He never says why.
Brooks’ argument also strays into complete nonsense.
If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.
Not surprisingly, Brooks doesn’t actually attribute this sentiment to anyone in particular. There’s a good reason — no one defines church-state separation this way. Brooks is attacking an imaginary enemy.
But Brooks goes on (and on) in praising religion.
Whether the topic is welfare, education, the regulation of biotechnology or even the war on terrorism, biblical wisdom may offer something that secular thinking does not — not pat answers, but a way to think about things.
Again, all of this is a perfectly nice sentiment. But if this was supposed to be a column about a religious phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, Brooks managed to go almost 700 words with precious little why his faith has anything to do with the controversy that will go before the Supreme Court tomorrow.
When he finally gets to the topic at hand, Brooks is incoherent.
The lesson I draw from all this is that prayer should not be permitted in public schools, but maybe theology should be mandatory. Students should be introduced to the prophets, to the Old and New Testaments, to the Koran, to a few of the commentators who argue about these texts.
From this perspective, what gets recited in the pledge is the least important issue before us. Understanding what the phrase “one nation under God” might mean — that’s the important thing. That’s not proselytizing; it’s citizenship.
So Brooks supports a ban on prayer in school, but he wants students to be taught about religion. Fine with me, but what does this have to do with the Pledge? Brooks doesn’t say.
And then Brooks wraps up by telling us the case isn’t even all that important anyway, so long as people learn about religion.
Remind me again how this guy got a job at the New York Times?