The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it
includes the phrase “one nation, under God”? When I heard about the California
court’s ruling, I thought: Well, yeah. Who could argue with that?
Never
underestimate the insecurity of religious folks, though. And never
underestimate elected officials’ ability to pander.
No sooner
was the news reported than hysteria broke out in Washington. Congress was
beside itself with rage. “Lawmakers,” the New
York Times reported, “filled both houses Thursday morning to recite the
oath, right hands over hearts, some shouting as they reached the phrase ‘one
nation under God.’”
“This
absurd decision was made by a court run amok,” said Republican Representative
Tom DeLay.
The court’s
decision was “nuts,” said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. “We are one
nation under God.”
Much of the
support for the ruling has come from the usual suspects: atheists and the
American Civil Liberties Union. So let me interject a personal note: I’m a
lifelong, active, practicing Christian. I’m also an active, patriotic citizen
of this country. I vote. I fly the flag. I say the Pledge (emphasizing “with
liberty and justice for all,” not “under God”).
I also recognize
insecurity when I see it. The religious folks raising the biggest stink about
the Pledge ruling are reacting out of fear. They want government to do what the
church can’t do: make the diverse people of the United States conform to their
religious principles.
Other
critics of the ruling have focused on the perceived triviality of the issue: In
the overall scheme of things, they insist, having “under God” in the pledge is
no big deal.
“A generic
two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer,”
said a Times editorial. Well, no,
it’s not a prayer. But it’s not just state-imposed prayers that violate the
Constitution. And the religious critics of the California court certainly don’t
agree that “under God” is a generic phrase.
Listen to
the president: The United States, Bush said after the ruling, is a country that
“values our relationship with an Almighty.”
The words
“one nation under God” in the Pledge, he said, are “a confirmation of the fact
that we received our rights from God.”
The
president has every right to believe that we receive our rights from God. Many
Americans believe that, too. But some do not. And one of this country’s most
important principles is that each of us has the right to embrace — or not
embrace — whatever religious beliefs we choose.
If you want
to grasp the seriousness of this issue, listen to Bush again: The country, he
said after the ruling, needs “commonsense judges who understand that our rights
were derived from God.” And, the Times reported,
Bush said he intends to appoint such judges.
Do we want
the president to use religious beliefs as a litmus test for appointing judges?
Will he refuse to nominate a Muslim or a Hindu? Will he next insist that judges
swear allegiance to Jesus?
There’s
nothing trivial about having a religious phrase in the Pledge (and yes, on our
currency). And there’s nothing trivial about public officials’ reaction to the
California ruling.
This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 2, 2002.
