Two little words

There’s no getting around it: Forcing children in the public schools to pledge allegiance to a nation “under God” amounts to a government endorsement of religion, and that is specifically prohibited in the very first line of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.That’s what the judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rightfully ruled last week in the case of Michael Newdow of Elk Grove, an atheist who had the temerity to point out the obvious: “under God” is a phrase that is loaded with religious implications, and the Elk Grove Unified School District does not have the right to force his daughter to recite (or listen to) a daily pledge that includes those two little words.

Yet this seemingly simple ruling has ignited a controversy the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the Supreme Court outlawed compulsory prayer in the schools 40 years ago. Republican politicos from President George Bush and Attorney General Josh Ashcroft on down have expressed their outrage, and even Democrats such as Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Gray Davis, along with Attorney General Bill Lockyer, have followed suit. Pundits from coast to coast have denounced the court, and as for Newdow, he’s fielding threatening phone calls and watching outraged neighbors picket his home.

Seemingly taken aback by this outpouring of dissent, the judge who issued the ruling moved almost immediately to stay its implementation. This means the ruling will not take effect before opponents have a chance to appeal it in a higher court, where most experts believe it will be overturned.

We’re not so sure.

Those who support keeping the words “under God” in the pledge argue that the recitation is an act of patriotism and an endorsement of religion. But a review of the history of the pledge reveals that it was installed by Congress in 1954 with the express aim of designating the United States as a nation dedicated to God. The original pledge contained no reference to religion, but at the height of the Cold War, Congress passed a law inserting the words “under God” specifically to differentiate the American ideology from that of its Communist enemies. In signing the law, President Eisenhower stated that the pledge would now amount to “a dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

No one at that time denied that the alteration of the pledge was anything but an endorsement of religion, and no one can deny it now. The 1954 addition of “under God,” a product of Cold War hysteria, ought to be excised.

Far from being an affront to patriotism, this change would be an affirmation of the pluralistic principles that make this country great. America, if it is to fulfill the promises contained in its Constitution, must include people of all religions, and people of no religion. As our society becomes increasingly diverse, we must recognize that if we are to be truly inclusive of the increasing numbers of Muslims, Hindus, atheists and Buddhists whose beliefs might differ from our country’s mainstream religions, we must be increasingly careful to exclude specific endorsements of religion from our public life.