In a decision that may have serious implications for church-state separation, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that the governmental use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The court stated that the phrase does not endorse religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The court held that the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause because "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose [is] to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge--its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation's history--demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase 'one Nation under God' does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity." Thus, a California statute permitting teachers to lead students in recitation of the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Does this mean that only Americans who believe in a big "G" god are expected to be patriotic or perhaps those are the only ones for which a pledge of patriotism is necessary as they are the ones with a suspected divided loyalty? I am certain that anyone following current events and trends within the evangelical and Dominionist movements will agree with me. We have seen time and time again where these folks have determined that their God's will (or their interpretation of their God's will) takes a supreme position over the laws of the land. Certainly these are the very children of the homeland that need to be constantly reminded by a call to patriotism that the rule of law not the laws of Abraham or Allah or Jehovah reigns supreme in the United States of America. I want them to follow the laws of our land more closely than they do their lord's (he commands them to kill people and beat their children). I'd sleep more peacefully at night if I could assume that these equal handed non-political judges of the 9^th circuit court of Appeals had these folks in mind when they made this ruling.

If on the other hand the court meant to exclude me from patriotic representation and inclusion (since I do not believe in big or little “g” gods) am I then pardoned from other even less enjoyable patriotic duties? May I pick and choose which forms of patriotism to participate in, just as they have chosen where the separation of God and government may or may not apply? May I forgo that annual income tax ritual like churches do? I'd really rather not pay for all those military contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq or that Wall Street bail out.

Well, now that I really think about it, I guess if the courts want to exclude me from full participation in American society maybe that's ok. Since religion is expanding itself into government and forcing our children to participate in religious activities, maybe I should devote my time and energy to picking up where the church has left off; like feeding the poor and caring for the homeless. Chances are many of the downtrodden are as tired of performing hollow religious rituals as we are.

Published March 18, 2010 in the Colorado Springs Independent accompanied by the following quotation.

"I have a right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers."   Michael Newdow