The dangerous fallacy of ceremonial deism

In disputes over church-state separation, “ceremonial deism” has become a legal doctrine heavily relied upon by those who wish to defend governmental religiosity. Though the concept has been around for decades, ceremonial deism has been seen with increasing frequency since 2004, when it was used in a concurring opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to uphold the “under God”  wording of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ceremonial deism refers to certain governmental religious expressions, such as the Pledge wording and the national motto of In God We Trust, that defenders claim do not violate the Establishment Clause “wall of separation” between church and state. Justice William Brennan, who in 1984 was the first high court justice to refer to “ceremonial deism” in a written opinion, explained that the term covers religious references that “have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.” In other words, although the expression may appear religious, it is harmless because it is understood as having no religious meaning.

The idea of an umbrella term for harmless governmental religious references might have some appeal, but use of the term “ceremonial deism” for that purpose is grossly inaccurate and even dangerous. In the real world, genuinely discriminatory governmental actions often escape scrutiny, partly because they are shielded by the euphemism of “ceremonial deism.”

To read the rest of this Psychology Today article by AHA President David Niose, click here.

One Response to The dangerous fallacy of ceremonial deism

  1. Well, if “ceremonial deism” implies the loss of significant religious content then religious people won’t mind if we do away with it, right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>