Lemon Pledge

A Big Case Over Two Little Words

As I write, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and whether the words "under God" belong in it. William Safire wrote about the issue this morning, as did many columnists. He says that the words don't belong, and that inserting them in 1954--to bolster our cause against communism--was a mistake, but says taking them out now would start us on a slippery slope.

I stand in the minority on this issue, and I know it. But the legal logic for agreeing with Michael Newdow and the Court of Appeals is compelling. The fear that removing this reference to a deity will lead to removing all such references from American civic life is not a rationale for deciding the case, the merits of which are otherwise fairly straightforward. The Court has ruled that children cannot be put in the position of standing out for choosing not to be part of any religious undertaking in the context of public school. The Pledge clearly meets that standard; only someone who believes in God already would argue that the words in question are "ceremonial." Those who do not believe, while a minority in the United States, must be protected.

If the Court is consistent with itself and judges the case on its merits rather than on the basis of fear of change--and really, what other rationale is there for worrying about keeping the word "God" on money or in the oaths we take in court if one believes in our government and its separation of church and state--it will remove the words "under God" from the Pledge. Won't that be a fun election-year issue?