The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it
includes the phrase ìone nation, under Godî? When I heard about the California
courtís ruling, I thought: Well, yeah. Who could argue with that?

Never
underestimate the insecurity of religious folks, though. And never
underestimate elected officialsí ability to pander.

No sooner
was the news reported than hysteria broke out in Washington. Congress was
beside itself with rage. ìLawmakers,î the New
York Times reported, ìfilled both houses Thursday morning to recite the
oath, right hands over hearts, some shouting as they reached the phrase ëone
nation under God.íî

ìThis
absurd decision was made by a court run amok,î said Republican Representative
Tom DeLay.

The courtís
decision was ìnuts,î said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. ìWe are one
nation under God.î

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: Iím a
lifelong, active, practicing Christian. Iím also an active, patriotic citizen
of this country. I vote. I fly the flag. I say the Pledge (emphasizing ìwith
liberty and justice for all,î not ìunder Godî).

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 canít 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 ìunder Godî in the pledge is
no big deal.

ìA generic
two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer,î
said a Times editorial. Well, no,
itís not a prayer. But itís not just state-imposed prayers that violate the
Constitution. And the religious critics of the California court certainly donít
agree that ìunder Godî is a generic phrase.

Listen to
the president: The United States, Bush said after the ruling, is a country that
ìvalues our relationship with an Almighty.î

The words
ìone nation under Godî in the Pledge, he said, are ìa confirmation of the fact
that we received our rights from God.î

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 countryís 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 ìcommonsense judges who understand that our rights
were derived from God.î 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?

Thereís
nothing trivial about having a religious phrase in the Pledge (and yes, on our
currency). And thereís nothing trivial about public officialsí reaction to the
California ruling.