Perhaps worth examining is the underlying issue of SOCAS. First, there exists the abominable concept of “Ceremonial Deism,” the coinage of a former SCOTUS justice to describe the lip service paid by the public to a vaguely conceived god whose characteristics are delimited to the intersection of the various monotheistic faiths, vaguely Unitarian in concept if anything, without power to move the hearts of men. This otiose deity is invoked to avoid the necessity of considering “In God We Trust,” “under God” in the Pledge, and other such formularies as “establishments of religion” violating the First Commandment, with the resultant furore from those who consider that their God is the one insulted by requiring omission of His byname. IMNSHO Ceremonial Deism is not supportable either Constitutionally or theologically.
On the other hand, the strict “Wall of Separation” doctrine, though with hoary antecedents reaching back to Jefferson, is not the sole legitimate construction that may be placed on the Establishment Clause. Mme. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor a decade ago gave a structured argument to an alternate reading common in the 19th Century, which requires government to remain stringently neutral with regards to any religious belief. It is this reading which justifies the Lemon test and which validates the “faith-based” distribution of charitable assistance about which Mr. Bush has gotten a lot of flak, though it far predates his administration.
With regard to the issue of the Pledge in schools, I have to say that I do appreciate Saint Cad’s on-the-spot report. If conditions are as he reports, where there are indeed no repercussions among students for reciting or failing to recite the Pledge, then I see no violation. However, I wish to suggest two points: what is the case at his school and those of his colleagues may not be the case everywhere. Bunn Middle School, which my neighbors’ children attend, has a classic rural-North-Carolina conservatism, and I’m not confident that what works in “St. Cadville, CA” (since we don’t know exactly where in California he’s located) will work elsewhere. And this is a national issue: the rule must be the same for Fairfax County VA, New Rochelle NY, Blue Earth MN, Tuscaloosa AL, Key West FL, and Santa Monica CA. Second, I’m sure Saint Cad is ruefully aware of a truism: regarding what schoolkids’ attitudes really are, the teachers are often the last to know.
It’s worth noting, too, his final point on the issue: whether or not there is any compulsion or coercion exerted on the students, the faculty who are required to lead recitation of the Pledge are being mandated to express not merely their allegiance to the country but their belief in the Ceremonial Deity.
I wish to retell an anecdote here that touched me deeply, as perhaps providing another dimension on the issue. Three years ago, I took my three honorary grandchildren to the North Carolina Science Museum in Raleigh, and parked two blocks east of it. As we were walking from the car to the museum, we passed by the Legislative Building, which of course had the U.S. and N.C. flags flying in front of it. Jordan, the youngest, six the previous month, noticed the flags and pointed them out to his brother and sister. As one, they turned and, completely spontaneously, brought right hand to heart and recited the Pledge. They may have been slightly vague on some of the Pledge’s abstract concepts, but their patriotism was heartfelt and voluntary.
And it is that “liberty and justice for all” that matters, in the end, not whether someone may or may not utter the Pledge or require someone else to do so. A rather ironic comment made by a political columnist some years ago, to the effect that what made the Flag worth defending is that it symbolized a country where we are free to burn it if we so choose, comes to mind. What makes the Pledge worth reciting is that it avers our allegiance to a nation where we are free not to recite it if we so choose.
