LAW FROM THE CENTER

DC Law Studentwrites:

I agree with the Government that recital of the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one. Just because "under God" is contained in the pledge does not alter the inherent patriotism of the event. Students are affirming their belief in the values and ideals of our country, and vowing to honor the symbols that reflect those beliefs. If they disagree with the notion that belief in a supreme being heavily influenced the founding of our Nation, they can simply not recite those two words in the Pledge, or not recite it at all. But I do not buy that these two options amount to an unconstitutional coercion. Yes, peer pressure sucks, but there must be more than a stare, giggle, or finger-pointing to violate the First Amendment.

Finally, I want to mention the fact that I am an adherent to the concept of "ceremonial deism." I believe that there are some religious words, phrases and practices that, although appearing religious on their faces, and perhaps orginally started as a purely religious matter, after continuous repetition throughout history in a secular manner become non-religious in nature.

This reminds me of an interview President Reagan did on TV. He was telling a story about how he met Gorbachev in Reyjavik, Iceland during the famous summit there. He was having a "private" conversation with Gorbachev, and Reagan heard the translator say, "God willing." Reagan was taken aback. Don't Communists disavow God as a construct of the bourgeoisie to persecute the proletariat? Reagan asked about the phrase, and Gorbachev told him that it was just a figure of speech, and that he had no belief in a higher being.

Even in Communist Russia, the leader of the world's most powerful Marxist regime used the word "God". Using the word does not turn you into Pat Robertson.