When the New York City Board of Education called on public schools to bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in the wake of 9/11, my daughter, a freshman at Stuyvesant High, thought her big chance to protest had finally come. Have you thought about what you'll say if you have to justify not reciting it? I asked. "Sure," she replied. "I'll say, there's such a thing as the First Amendment, you know--separation of church and state? I mean, under God? Duh!" Judge Alfred Goodwin of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, meet my Sophie, future president of the ACLU if the punk-rock-guitarist plan doesn't work out.

Virtually every politician in the country has issued a press release deploring Judge Goodwin's ruling that the words "under God" constituted a coercive endorsement of religion. "Ridiculous!" said the President. Tom Daschle led the Senate in a stampede to condemn the ruling 99 to 0, after they recited the pledge together. The Times editorial expressed the standard liberal line, mingling world-weariness and fear: "under God" is a trivial matter, so why arouse the wrath of the mad Christians? You can turn that argument around though--if it's so trivial, why not do the right, constitutional thing? Let the nonbelieving babies have their First Amendment bottle! The very fact that the vast majority of Americans believe in God counts against inserting expressions of religious faith into civic exercises for kids--civil liberties are all about protecting unpopular minorities from being steamrollered by the majority. The history of "under God" is not very edifying or even very long: It was added to the original pledge--written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist--by Congress in 1954 as a means "to deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." If that was the purpose, it worked. The new Evil Ones, however, have no quarrel with being "under God"; it's the "liberty and justice for all" they disapprove of. If we really want to drive them nuts, we should change "under God" to "with equality between men and women." Or better yet, retire the pledge as an exercise in groupthink unbefitting a free people.

Something tells me we haven't seen the last classroom invocation of the divine umbrella--Judge Goodwin has already stayed his own ruling--but even if the decision is upheld, it's unfortunately the least significant in a number of recent rulings about education. The Supreme Court decision upholding the Cleveland school voucher program is a real, nonsymbolic triumph for organized religion, which stands to reap millions of dollars in public funds, taken directly from the budgets of the weakest school systems. Theoretically, your tax dollars can now support the indoctrination of every crackpot religious idea from creationism to stoning, with extra credit for attending rallies against legal abortion and for the retention of "Judea" and "Samaria" as God's gift to the Jewish people. What happened to e pluribus unum? (Interestingly, as David Greenberg notes in Slate, e pluribus unum was replaced as the national motto in 1956 by... In God We Trust!) And what about that pesky First Amendment? Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that separation of church and state is preserved because it is the parent, not the state, who actually turns the voucher over to the religious school. By the same logic, why not a health system in which patients get vouchers good for surgery or a ticket to Lourdes?

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.