Dear George,

The reaction to the 9th circuit's decision tells us a lot about the irrationality and deep divisions within our society. As for the politicians, Bud Trillin has it just right:

They pledge allegiance to the thought
That every politician ought
To take a stand that's foursquare for the Lord.
They think if they say, 'God is great!
Don't separate him from the state!'
Election is the blessing he'll afford.

The pre-1954 version of the pledge (written in 1892 by the Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy) referred to values and beliefs enshrined in the Constitution -- clear statements of what we as a nation have approved through the democratic process: one indivisble nation; liberty and justice for all. "Under god" has no basis in the Constitution. It is also, unlike the otherparts of the pledge, ambiguous. To whose or which god does it refer?

The most charitable thing one can say about "under God" is that it is for many people a way of acknowledging the frailty and arrogance of human beings, warning us all to be cautious about our certitudes and aware of our limitations and imperfections. But for many it is an act of arrogance and bullying, the imposition of a particular religious view on people who do not share that view. And it is certainly absurd to believe that there is a god who pays special attention to the welfare of the United States in contrast to other nations. We are a chosen people? Egad!

To me the most interesting part of the venomous reaction (including the shameful outbursts of our elected leaders) is the depth of anger and the expressions of contempt. What kind of sensitive nerve has been struck? It is easy enough to understand how some of our citizens regard the decision as yet another assault by godless secular humanism. They are not unlike those who favored the insertion in 1954, seeing it as a declaration of (cold) war on atheistic Communism. But why all the others, all those elected officials and ordinary citizens? People who generally can argue rationally? These are the questions I think we need to ponder.

Thanks for citing my earlier piece on the Pledge. For those who want to learn about its history, the quickest way is to read the sections of the book on it by Dr. John Baer that are on the web. Google him. There is also a fairly good piece in the current New Yorker.

Paul Gaston (electronic mail, July 11, 2002)