Under God divides the indivisible.

All of us who comprise the 14 percent of Americans--that's about thirty million--who hold no religious or god beliefs should be pleased and profoundly gratified by the courageous June 26, 2002, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress regarding the phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Added to the pledge in 1954 specifically to counteract "Godless communism," these words have always been a blatant unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause. After forty-eight years, we humanists can now feel, however briefly, included as Americans. In its eloquent ruling, the court explicitly acknowledges our previous exclusion:

   The pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government
   endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers that they
   are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an
   accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members
   of the political community.

Later, the court reviews the legislative history and quotes from the 1954 act, which leaves no doubt about the purpose of the added phrase under God:

   The Act's sole purpose was to advance religion.... This language reveals
   that the purpose of the 1954 Act was to take a position on the question of
   theism, namely, to support the existence and moral authority of God, while
   "denying ... atheistic and materialistic concepts." Such a purpose runs
   counter to the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government's
   endorsement or advancement not only of one particular religion at the
   expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of
   atheism.... The [U.S. Supreme] Court has unambiguously concluded that the
   individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces
   the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

Every American should read the full text of the Ninth Circuit's decision (available online at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions) and educate themselves about this issue. The displays of ignorance and intolerance and the arrogant posturing of politicians have been truly appalling. Why is it so difficult to understand that we might just as well be reciting, "One nation under Buddha, David Koresh, Allah, or Zeus" or "One nation under Wall Street" (or, as comedian Robin Williams suggests, "One nation under Canada")?

Despite repetitive and misleading sound-bites, pledging allegiance to the flag has not been declared unconstitutional. Many of the print media got it right, clearly identifying Congress' 1954 addition as the unconstitutional part of the pledge. However, most of the TV pundits and so-called news journalists parroted the right-wing's misrepresentation that the entire pledge was declared unconstitutional--thus erroneously fanning the flames and fomenting public hysteria over the court's decision. But the court was unmistakably clear that the words under God are the problem, ruling that "the policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause."

And if the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is not an endorsement of religious ideology, then nothing is. Actually, it is that and more. In the context of the pledge, citizens are asked to pledge allegiance to the concept of a God-ruled nation. As the court wrote:

   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. The text of
   the official pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a
   position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and
   identity of God.... The school district's practice of teacher-led
   recitation of the pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the
   ideals set forth in the pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of
   these ideals.

Worse yet, as the court said, public school teachers are leading the daily recitation of these words on behalf of the state. Expecting public schoolchildren to pledge allegiance to the principles of the United States when they include belief in God as the assumed ideology of all Americans is particularly egregious. As the court wrote, when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an

   unacceptable choice between participating and protesting.... Given the age
   and impressionability of schoolchildren ... particularly within the
   confined environment of the classroom, the policy is highly likely to
   convey an impermissible message of endorsement to some and disapproval to
   others of their beliefs regarding the existence of a monotheistic God.

The court properly applied the Lemon test in its deliberations. Under this well-established rule of law, the government conduct in question:

* must have a secular purpose

* must neither advance nor inhibit religion

* must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The court concluded that the inclusion of under God in the pledge fails the Lemon test.

Many people erroneously maintain that the establishment clause only prohibits government from establishing a particular religion as the "state religion." The court addresses this fallacy as well by stating unequivocally: "The Establishment Clause is not limited to `religion as an institution' ... [it] guards not only against the establishment of `religion as an institution,' but also against the endorsement of religious ideology by the government."

This Ninth Circuit Court decision is of momentous importance regardless of its ultimate fate. The public education opportunities it has afforded are a bonus. As is the case with others who have written on this subject, I am responding to more "public education opportunities" than is good for my mental health. Even after over twenty years of humanist and freethought activism, addressing this specific issue in the public forum has been a wakeup call for me.

As if the vitriolic letters to the editor by misguided citizens aren't bad enough, the arrogance, bigotry, and sheer ignorance I encounter, particularly on talk radio, is truly frightening. Some examples are:

   You people are the minority and you're forcing your views on the majority.

   This is all just nitpicking political correctness--a frivolous nonissue.

   Well, we wouldn't want to inconvenience the two of you atheists!

   If you people don't like it, why don't you start your own school system
   like the Catholics and the Jews?

   Maybe you would prefer a country like Iraq?

And my personal favorite:

   If you really believe this, why do you use money with In God We Trust on
   it?

I fear my fellow Americans have become a people with little knowledge of where we've come from or how we got here--and no vision of our future. As a nation, we appear completely disconnected from our roots and the significance of the greatest experiment in governance in the history of the world.

Sadly, this includes our government representatives--particularly those in Washington, D.C.--who did not, as they maintain, "vote to support the pledge." They specifically voted to enforce the pledge with its under God addition. (Never mind its unconstitutionality.) Simplistically couching the court ruling and all subsequent events as being "about the pledge" is disingenuous to the extreme. No one--least of all the Ninth Circuit Court, or atheists for that matter--is trying to "outlaw" the Pledge of Allegiance.

In these current times of theistic hysteria, will any of our nation's "leaders" have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and defend this clearly long-overdue decision? Who will stand in defense of the basic American principle of freedom of conscience?

Or is Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle a representative example of what we can continue to expect? He has clearly intimated that if the courts don't overturn this decision he and his colleagues will take care of it in Congress. Senator Daschle (Democrat--South Dakota) is precisely the person James Madison feared the most--someone who would pander to the majority at the expense of minority rights and individual freedoms, particularly regarding matters of religion.

When individuals and organizations dare to protest government pronouncements and policies--as they did during the 1960s over Vietnam, as they do today over the World Trade Organization and economic agreements that serve corporations over people--they are surveilled, investigated, even arrested. When our elected leaders, who are in office supposedly representing our interests, protest--as members of both the House and Senate did when they recited the pledge, including the now-declared unconstitutional phrase, on the Capitol steps--their rebellion is lauded as patriotic!

The U.S. Constitution clearly prohibits Congress from passing laws establishing religion. In 1954, that's precisely what it did. At a time when the country was in turmoil due to Joseph McCarthy's witchhunt for communists, only a very few fearless individuals stood up and said, "This is wrong. This is downright un-American." At the time, to object to the injection of God into the pledge was tantamount to labeling oneself a communist. Now, in the wake of post-September 11 "renewed patriotism," a similar situation exists. Have we really learned so little in the past five decades?

Had the framers of the Constitution wanted to establish the United States as a nation under or ruled by God, they had ample opportunity to make their intentions clear. But they didn't. Instead, the Constitution begins with the words We the People.

Barbara Dority is president of Humanists of Washington, executive director of the Washington Coalition Against Censorship, and cochair of the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force.