The ruling, while shocking and probably doomed for reversal (the Ninth Circuit is the most often reversed of the circuit courts), is not as completely out to lunch as the rabid right-wingers would have you believe. It simply says that the phrase “under God” - which was never a part of the Pledge until 1954 - constitutes an endorsement of religion. The Pledge itself, as written in 1892 (by a reverend, by the way), is perfectly OK. Lost in the commotion is that the Supreme Court long ago held that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge at all.

Also lost in the fury is the logic behind the decision. As noted, the phrase “under God” was inserted into the Pledge in 1954 by Congress, during the first tense phase of the Cold War against the godless Soviets. President Eisenhower noted while signing the bill that “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim . . . the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” If that’s not an endorsement of religion, particularly of the Judeo-Christian form, I don’t know what it. And that, folks, is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.

And the fact that the Declaration of Independence talks about a “Creator” is irrelevant. The Declaration, for all its wonderful prose, is not a legally binding document. It was a political statement of a group of rebels declaring themselves independent from a tyrannical government. If it had legal force, than its proclamation that “all men are created equal” would have settled the question of slavery well before the Civil War. The founding legal document of this nation is the Constitution, which is specific in its intent to keep the state and religion separate. It is from that principle that the Ninth Circuit’s decision sprang.

While some who have spoken out against the ruling have put forth good faith arguments against the ruling and why it should be reversed, others have gone off the deep end. The Senate, never ones to let a chance to make political hey go by untaken, condemned the 2-1 decision by a vote of 99 to 0. Anytime the Senate votes 99-0 on anything (Jesse Helms was apparently in the hospital and unable to make it 100-0), I’m suspicious. My senior senator, Robert Byrd, called the judges involved “stupid.” Trent Lott vowed to reverse the decision if another court did not, not realizing that the decision announced was based on the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot change it without amending the Constitution.

On Fox News last night, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (whose morality apparently includes death bed service of divorce papers) went so far to say that the two judges in the majority are no longer fit to sit on the bench because they are so far out of touch with the American people. Right wing host Sean Hannity promised to provide viewers with the addresses of the two judges so that Fox viewers could let them know exactly what they thought. Neither seemed to realize that the job of judges is sometimes to make unpopular decisions that are, nonetheless, required by law.

Religious leaders are, of course, infuriated at losing another means of indoctrinating the next generation. Oddly, if they are allowed to ramble on long enough, their true agendas and biases become apparent. Debating on CNN’s Crossfire last night, Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, had this to say while attacking the ruling (from a transcript at cnn.com): "Has this judge, Republican or Democrat, libertarian or whatever he is, reform party, whatever he may be, have they forgotten what happened to us on 9/11? Do we have to go through another, hey, God says I'm going to get your attention. . . . I'm telling you that God uses anything that man does to give glory to himself."

There you have it - 9/11 was a message from God, made with the lives of thousands of innocent people. These are the people who claim to understand the First Amendment of our Constitution? The events of 9/11, as horrible as they were, are not a justification for sweeping away the protections of the Constitution, be they in the First or Fourth Amendments.

In the end, the decision that has caused so much furor in the last 12 hours will most likely be overturned, either by the Ninth Circuit en banc (heard by all the judges in the circuit) or the Supreme Court. As noted above, no child can be forced to say the Pledge anyway, and I suspect that a reviewing court will use that lack of coercion to justify keeping the Pledge just the way the majority likes it.

But that ignores a more fundamental question - why is there a Pledge at all, at least that is enshrined in law? The very notion of such a pledge in a nation that allows for free speech and worship, and that protects the malcontents as well as the pious, is anathema to that very freedom. If the people, as private citizens, want to make whatever pledges they want, fine. But maybe the government should just get out of the business of coerced allegiance completely.