Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Under God?

The Post had an article this past weekend about an interesting guy in Virginia this weekend. He's a Mennonite (currently practicing at a Catholic Church) who has taken it upon himself to challenge the State of Virginia and Loudon County practices which either act to "establish" religion or which place undue influence on icons such as the American flag. I thoroughly enjoyed the article and wouldn't mind hearing more from the guy himself on what motivates him. What really caught my eye, however, was this one throw away quote concerning his litigation over the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance:

"Government lawyers have argued that the recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has become so routine that it holds a historical and not a religious meaning."

Is that right? Strangely enough, I seem to recall hearing any number of conservative Christians moaning that the 9th Circuit's decision that "under God" is unconstitutional is a direct assault on Christianity. The State, however, seems to be arguing that removing "under God" would instead be an assault on history. So which is it? Or is it both? Regardless, I'm glad to see a devout Christian arguing that "under God" should be removed. His religious beliefs probably won't prevent the theofascists from attacking his motives, but it might just take a little wind out of their rhetorical sails.