Ooh, this is good stuff, from the letters page on AndrewSullivan.com:

Contrary to one of your other reader letters, the pledge in schools is not an “expression of their religious views” or even an expression of patriotic views in general. The pledge is ritualized in schools (and forced in many states) precisely because these children do not understand or hold these views. If they did, then they would freely and informally express them and no one would consider it important to have a ritualized coerced pledge. The pledge in schools is pure and simply an authoritarian exercise in indoctrination and an attempt instill both allegiance to the nation (not democratic principles) and allegiance to the authority of the dominant monotheistic conception of God.

In other words, the school pledge is an extremely un-American ritual that is identical in every way to the kinds of blind indoctrination that we despise in other authoritarian societies.

Of course, getting supporters of the pledge to deny their position is un-American is half the fun.

All this outrage, but no competent counterargument. Legal experts agree that the ruling draws the logical conclusion from previous case law. The one dissenting opinion in the ruling basically states that the harm done to children coerced into reciting the religious component of the pledge is minimal compared to the fact that a lot of people would “feel good” if the pledge is kept as it is. But the Supreme Court itself has tossed out “feel good” arguments in the past.

The Wall Street Journal had to resort to an ad hominem attack and an appeal to consequences in its condemnation of the ruling. Both are logical fallacies, prissily delivered, and a sure sign that the editorial page doesn’t have an argumentative leg to stand on.

Of course, the outraged, most of whom haven’t read the ruling, are being fed a misrepresented version of it. It is, in fact, about protecting children from undue influence. Unlike children, adults do not suffer coercion when they choose to recite the pledge, or not to recite it, or only parts of it. These are the kinds of decisions adults are capable of making, but not impressionable children. The government should not mandate that children be asked to recite an endorsement of religion. That is not the government’s job.

And yes, those two words do amount to an endorsement. The words “under God” were added specifically for that purpose in 1954, to show that the US was a God-fearing nation, in stark contrast with those Godless communists. The facetious might make the argument that since the cold war has been won, those two words are no longer needed.

Finally: No, American money is not next, as certain alarmists would prefer us to believe. We do not tend to recite “In God We Trust” every time we use money, and hence we are not coerced by the existence on coinage of what is undeniably an endorsement of a religious concept. Other invocations of God, at public occasions such as the start of Congress, serve a secular purpose, and as such have their place. The addition of “under God” served a religious purpose, as President Eisenhower so eloquently put:

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

Honest libertarians everywhere will be rejoicing at the news that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it refers to the US as one nation “under God,” which violates the separation of Church and State. The decision was just handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Not enough people realize that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

Pertinent info: The pledge was first codified by Congress in 1942. “Under God” was added to the pledge in 1954, also by Congress.

The plaintiff-appelant Michael Newdow, did not seek damages, but “declaratory and injunctive relief;” he simply wants “under God” to be removed from the pledge, not that the pledge be abolished outright.

Excerpts:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism.

[…]

A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.

[…]

Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

Interesting fact: The addition of “under God” to the pledge was made during the Eisenhower administration, “when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism.”

Continue reading →