As a cadet at the United States Military Academy I participated in a lot of parades. Complaining about having to participate in yet another parade, was part of the pre-parade ritual among many of the cadets. I was no exception, and my complaining was quite sincere. Many of us disliked having to get into our dress uniform regalia to go march before a bunch of gawking civilians who came to see cadets on parade. The only thing worse was doing so on those days when there were no gawking civilians. Nonetheless, however jaded I became about marching, I always felt strong emotions arising from pride, honor, a sense of duty stir within my breast when we passed before the flag or when the honor guard passed before us.

I had deep feelings about what the flag of the United States of America represents, and I do to this day. I mention this as a preface to my comments about the recent controversy concerning the pledge of allegiance. Although I do not agree with most of the responses I have read from those who oppose the ruling, I have some appreciation for the emotions out of which those responses may arise. The significance of the flag and the meanings it holds are deeply embedded in the psyches of large segments of our nation's population.

The controversy to which I'm referring, of course, was sparked on June 26, when the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which includes the state of Washington, ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because the phrase, "one nation under God" violates the separation of church and state. There were immediate responses from a number of politicians. The New York Times reported, "With what was lightning speed for their chamber, senators voted 99 to 0 just hours after the ruling to express their strong disagreement with the decision and to authorize their counsel to intervene in the case. As the Senate voted, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert led dozens of House members gathered on the steps of the Capitol in a recitation of the pledge followed by a spontaneous rendition of 'God Bless America.'"

There were other voices as well, such as those of a New York Times editorial staff, who determined that while the ruling may have been well-meaning, it lacked commonsense. The editors wrote, "A generic two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer. Mr. Newdow's daughter" (Mr. Newdow brought the suit against his daughter's school where the pledge was recited.) "is not required to say either the words 'under God' or even the pledge itself, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1943 case involving Jehovah's Witnesses…" They went on to say, "The practical impact of the ruling is inviting a political backlash for a matter that does not rise to a constitutional violation. We wish the words had not been added back in 1954. But just the way removing a well-lodged foreign body from an organism may sometimes be more damaging than letting it stay put, removing those words would cause more harm than leaving them in."

I have heard a similar opinions expressed by others whose perspectives I generally appreciate. It's an opinion that has certain merit. A news story from the Fresno, California paper, The Bee, offers an example: "The pastor of Fresno's Unitarian Universalist Church, Bryan Jessup, stood at the back of Friday's noontime gathering holding a handmade sign reading, "Under God? What does it mean-and to whom? "Good question. Wrong venue. There was no room here to exercise that most basic of freedoms essential to our democracy-free speech. Fresno County Supervisor Bob Waterston took the stage and pointed a finger at Jessup and told him, 'You're telling me with that sign that you are not part of the solution. Why don't you move out of the country? We don't want you here.'""'He is asking everybody what God is. He should know. Why not make him go somewhere else?' asked twelve year old Sarah Smotherman, who along with her ten year old sister destroyed Jessup's sign and threw it in the City Hall fountain, with the approval of their mother. Jessup watched the two girls and said, 'Is God about violence or is God about love and respect and honoring different people? In this Valley, people come in many different forms.' Jessup said that while he is comfortable personally saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, he is concerned that there is no acknowledgment that 'Good Americans can love America and think differently.'"

"The Fresno Bee then deemed that the court ruling was foolish, but not dangerous. "What's dangerous," they wrote, "is the mob sentiments that surfaced at the Friday rally. What's dangerous is the number of elected leaders who inflame those passions rather than quelling them-who in fact intentionally ignore opportunities to do so. What's dangerous is the trampling of cherished constitutional rights without a whimper of protest from the majority in attendance. That's what's dangerous."( The Fresno Bee story borrowed from The Rev. Meg A. Riley's sermon, One Nation Under God, Preached July 7, 2002 All Souls Church, Unitarian, Washington DC)

Fresno's Bee is correct that the trampling of free speech and inflaming such passions by elected officials is most dangerous. This is precisely the type of response to which the New York Times' editors were referring when they spoke of the danger of dislodging the foreign object, "under God." I would suggest, however, that the intensity of the response reveals the very real importance of this issue. It reveals the presumption held by many of our citizens that not only do we as a nation have a shared understanding of God and of God's relationship to America, but we should have such a shared understanding. It's the kind of presumption found in Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle's words,when he disagreed with the appellate court's ruling on the pledge: "We have been drawn together in the face of tremendous tragedy in the last nine months and in part that healing has come by our belief in a supreme being." (NYT, 6/27/02, p. A21)

There is, of course, nothing wrong with having such a shared understanding among a majority of citizens, providing there is also a shared acceptance of differing views, and providing there is acknowledgment, as my colleague, Bryan Jessup, said that 'Good Americans can love America and think differently.' Or to frame it somewhat differently as did my colleague, Meg Riley, in her sermon on this issue: "How do we acknowledge the rights of minorities in an increasingly pluralistic nation, while still creating language and culture which bind us all together in mutual care?"

I believe the Court was correct in taking the issue seriously and in ruling as it did. The Pledge of Allegiance is intended to play an important role in shaping our self-understanding as citizens of this nation. It's true, as some have pointed out, those people who disagree with having the phrase "under God" in the pledge can simply remain silent when that part is spoken, but that solution misses an important point. That point is the rationale for adding the phrase, "under God," in the first place.

The Pledge of Allegiance was created in the 1890's by a socialist clergyman, Francis Bellamy. According to an Associated Press account: "Bellamy crafted it as a resonating oration to bolster the idea that the middle class could fashion a planned political and social economy, equitable for all." Life is filled with peculiar ironies, such as a socialist inspired pledge at the heart of the world's foremost capitalist nation. The phrase, "under God," was added to the pledge in 1954 in the midst of the 'Cold War.' The proponents of the phrase felt the need to distinguish our Pledge of Allegiance from similar orations used by 'godless communists.'

The phrase was added explicitly to distinguish Americans from the godless. Having it added to the Pledge of Allegiance for that reason seems to be a clear indication we are excluding from our communion of good citizens those who are godless, and those who are godless may well include those who do not believe in God in the same way as the majority. It's not unreasonable for atheists, agnostics and others whose theology differs from the majority to feel excluded or to feel a sense of dis-ease regarding the phrase, "under God." Of course, the New York Times' editors are correct. If the appellate court's ruling is ever actually implemented, and the phrase is removed, there undoubtedly will be a strong backlash.

Sometimes humor can exacerbate a situation like this, if people feel their concerns are being taken lightly, but sometimes good humor can help relieve the tension surrounding a controversy. Either way our nation's wits won't be deterred, so we might hear their take on it. When asked his opinion about the inclusion of the phrase, "under God," Robin Williams suggested it would be more accurate to say "one nation under Canada."

In its created news story from last June, SatireWire wrote: "A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision that has infuriated politicians from both parties, and sent the United States on a desperate search for a new sponsor. While the U.S. Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, officials are quietly speaking with several potential sponsors interested in having their brands associated with America, and are already test-marketing the phrases 'One nation, under Wal-Mart'… and 'One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks'." Actually, I suspect those substitutes would not work, but if the humor fulfilled one of its invaluable roles of loosening our vise-grip on tightly held perspectives, then we may be open to considering a different suggestion altogether.

Earlier I mentioned that in 1943, the Supreme Court involving Jehovah's Witnesses. It ruled that the West Virginia State Board of Education could not require Jehovah's Witnesses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court's decision described the situation in this way: "The Witnesses are an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.' They consider that the flag is an 'image' within this command. For this reason they refuse to salute it."

The Jehovah's Witnesses may well have had it right in that case. Last May I wrote a "Perspectives" column for The Olympian. in which I described what I called pseudo-patriotism. In the article I said: "Pseudo-patriots believe… our nation can do no wrong. For them our country has become the standard against which right and wrong are measured. Doing so, they make our nation a false idol. We create false idols whenever we treat that which is less than ultimate as if it were ultimate. From that perspective whatever our nation does to further its fight against terrorism is right… One of religion's important roles is to help us become oriented to that which is truly ultimate. It provides us with a way of understanding life that takes us beyond ourselves, our families, our society and our country. It points us toward the possibility of perceiving life's larger truth which some name as God."

Although the Jehovah's Witnesses understanding about life's larger truth and mine are very different, we share the understanding that no nation should fulfill the role of being the ultimate measure of right and wrong. I would contend that the Pledge of Allegiance moves us in the direction of perceiving this nation as having ultimate value. At least, as a nation that's explicitly under God's sponsorship, as SatireWire proposed, we can justify our actions as being part of God's plan or being divinely ordained. Don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting we should not place a high value on our nation's well-being or that we not commit ourselves to sustaining its great virtues of liberty, justice and equality. I am simply proposing that however well intentioned the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance it may contribute to the reality of what I called pseudo-patriotism -the infusing of our country with ultimate value.

While, as citizens of this nation, we have a responsibility to serve its well-being in order to preserve and deepen the virtues of liberty, justice and equality, we should also never forget that we do not exist for this nation, but this nation exists that we might most faithfully grow into our humanity - a humanity we share not just with other Americans but with all other people. I will close with words taken from the 1943 Supreme Court decision to which I referred earlier. This decision, written by Justice Robert Jackson, contains a passage I find quite useful for reflecting upon this issue and upon our roles as citizens.

"Of course patriotism cannot be enforced by the flag salute. But neither can the liberal spirit be enforced by judicial invalidation of illiberal legislation. Our constant preoccupation with the constitutionality of legislation rather than with its wisdom tends to preoccupation of the American mind with a false value. The tendency of focusing attention on constitutionality is to make constitutionality synonymous with wisdom, to regard a law as all right if it is constitutional. Such an attitude is a great enemy of liberalism. Particularly in legislation affecting freedom of thought and freedom of speech much which should offend a free?spirited society is constitutional. Reliance for the most precious interests of civilization, therefore, must be found outside of their vindication in courts of law. Only a persistent positive translation of the faith of a free society into the convictions and habits and actions of a community is the ultimate reliance against unabated temptations to fetter the human spirit."

May we remember as the notable Unitarian minister, A. Powell Davies, asserted, "[f]reedom is itself the basic precept of [our] faith." May we serve the cause of freedom, seeking to diminish all that fetters the human spirit. Amen