Is it possible to be a Buddhist and a good American simultaneously? Can a Hindu be a patriot? Can an agnostic or an atheist be true to his country? Should national allegiance depend on having the "right" religious opinions, or is it possible for Americans to be diverse, yet unified as One Nation, Indivisible--regardless of religious differences? Should a test of one's very loyalty to the country be a religious test?

These are the questions that pundits have ignored and religious conservatives simply want to avoid in the wake of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. A three-judge panel declared it a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause for Congress to have inserted the words "under God" in the national Pledge some 50 years ago. The panel's two-member majority opinion has been widely and wildly unpopular. It has silenced staunch progressives and brought conservatives to wail about liberal bogey-men who want to wipe religious freedom from the face of the earth. The opinion is virtually certain to be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the panel's decision, in my view, is the courageous and correct one.

The Supreme Court will overturn the ruling, but only by ignoring or paying mere lip service to some of its own precedent. Though many members of the Court have indicated in dissenting opinions and in (legally non-binding) dicta that the religionized Pledge is constitutional, the Court has articulated several principles that weigh against overruling the Ninth Circuit's decision. It is true that the Establishment Clause was written mainly to prevent the Government from instituting a national religion or church, such as the Church of England. A natural corollary that the Supreme Court recognizes, however, is that matters of faith are to be left to the People; the Government has no business declaring what kinds of religious opinions are acceptable, or what we should or shouldn't believe.

Under the Court's own reasoning, the Government is supposed to go beyond merely treating all religious opinions equally (something that even the current Pledge fails to do--Buddhists and Hindus, after all, do not recognize one "God"). Additionally, the Government isn't supposed to do anything that would either advocate or inhibit religion in general. This is partly why the Court has repeatedly declared it unconstitutional for public schools to hold a variety of events with religious connotations, including non-sectarian benedictions at graduation ceremonies, "voluntary" student-led prayers before football games, and even a simple moment of silence at the opening of the school day--a moment when no one is compelled to make any verbal recognition of God at all.

One nation, indivisible?

The pledge finds God

One country, one God?

Story Index