Two coercive words

10/16/2003

IT IS NOT necessary to be religious in order to be patriotic. One needn't love God to love one's country. This is the truth Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister from Boston, knew when he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892. The words "under God" were added to the pledge more than half a century later, in the midst of the Red scare, after a campaign by religious leaders who called on Congress to stand up to "godless communists."

Now the US Supreme Court has agreed to take up a divisive controversy over these two little words this session. Although the case raises many qualms, we hope the court will decide that the country -- and its many faiths -- are better off if students are not required to listen to the added phrase.

It is unlikely that many but First Amendment purists are worried about the threat the pledge poses to their rights. Many Americans find the phrase "under God" in this context ceremonial, absent of any real religious meaning. Millions of today's adults rather mindlessly recited the pledge in school and are no worse for wear. But some Americans feel that insisting on the phrase marginalizes them in a public setting. That's the way it is with the First Amendment: It is there to protect minority -- indeed unpopular -- views.

The case turns on a complaint brought by a California atheist, known as something of a court gadfly, who claimed his daughter's right not to recognize any god was abridged by the requirement that she listen to the pledge in public school. A lower court dismissed his claim, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled that, saying the requirement violates the Constitution's establishment clause prohibiting state promotion of religion. Justice Antonin Scalia has recused himself because he has given speeches on the case, so the court could tie, which would mean the appeals ruling stands in the western states within Ninth Circuit jurisdiction.

That the case comes before the Supreme Court at all is worrisome because of its potential to incite a backlash against the separation of church and state that has served the nation so well for 200 years. Representative Ernest Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, already has filed an amendment to the US Constitution explicitly allowing all sorts of religious and sectarian expression in the public arena. The Bill of Rights has never been altered in the nation's history, and this is no place to start. Under the law, students have abundant rights to voluntarily pray in school, read the Bible, say grace at lunch, or join religious clubs. But there is a big difference between allowing students to recite grace at lunch and requiring them to do so or stand silent while others recite it. Children particularly can feel pressured to conform when school authority figures are in charge.

God needs no protection from Congress or the Supreme Court. The unpopular right to believe in many gods, or in no god, does. God needs no protection from Congress or the Supreme Court. The unpopular right to believe in many gods, or in no god, does.