http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/29/Columns/Readin___writin____ri.shtmlBy ROBYN E. BLUMNER, St. Petersburg Times
Published February 29, 2004
Let's talk about the Pledge of Allegiance. How much do you really know about it? I dare say few of us left school without being introduced to the national anthem's Francis Scott Key. Yet, most of us recited the pledge at the start of every school day without knowing much about its provenance.
This year, in a case that has generated more raw emotion than a Jimmy Swaggart repentance, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether the pledge is constitutionally viable. Michael Newdow, a father, lawyer and atheist, challenged the recitation of the pledge in his young daughter's public school classroom. Newdow objects to the words "under God," claiming, logically, that the phrase is an expression of religious conviction - a belief in a deity - and therefore violates the separation of church and state. Amazingly, a federal appellate court agreed; and the government's appeal is set for argument before the Supreme Court on March 24.
There is no getting around the historical fact that the phrase "under God" was intended as an overt statement of religious belief. It was inserted by Congress in 1954 - fully 62 years after the pledge was written - purposely to proclaim the United States a "believer" nation in sharp contrast to the official atheism of the Soviet Union. An intellectually honest court would say that professing a belief in a deity as part of a daily ritual in our public schools violates the Bill of Rights. Though, if the high court required the words "under God" to be excised, the resulting political uproar would lead to the passage of a "pledge protection" constitutional amendment faster than you could say "Tom DeLay."
Either way, this is not going to end well for liberty.
More