DUMP THE PLEDGE :

Pledging Allegiance: Wrong for the Right Reasons (E. J. Dionne Jr., June 28, 2002, washingtonpost.com)

[I]f liberals want to be intellectually honest and not just political in defending the use of "under God" in the pledge, they need a more robust argument than "ceremonial deism." If you think the 9th Circuit was wrong, you have to believe on principle that it's wrong to obliterate every public reference to God, whether on the currency or at the opening of Supreme Court sessions. The doctrine underlying such a view cannot be that public references to religion are unimportant. That takes neither religious people nor their critics seriously.

There is only one viable principle for upholding the reference to God in the pledge. It would assert that we need to strike a balance between the rights of believers and the rights of nonbelievers. That means that the public arena should not be godless, but neither should it be dominated by religion.

Before the 9th Circuit panel's ruling, we thought we had achieved an implicit, awkward but workable equilibrium. We did so by combining sharp limitations on religion's role in government institutions with at least some permission for its expression. Politicians are angry with the two judges not because they are "nuts," but because their unfortunate yet principled decision has forced us to decide explicitly if this is what we really want.

Here's an idea for the GOP, why not replace the words of the current Pledge with the words of the Declaration of Independence : We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This passage makes conservative arguments quite precisely. In the first place it is an acknowledgment that our rights derive from God and that our system of governance must be predicated on this. Secondly, it establishes the right to life, which has been so badly degraded over the last thirty years.

To object to such a pledge would be to object to the very idea of the American Republic itself. That's not to say that people would not so object, but at least the terms of the debate would be clarified--you either believe in those words or you don't believe in the foundation upon which America is constructed. In which case, let's hear what you believe instead.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 28, 2002 10:15 AM