Hooray for The Pledge Ruling!

Too busy right now to say anything too extensive, but I will say this: I'm extremely happy with the pledge ruling. This was actually the outcome I'd hoped for. As a non-lawyer, I don't know whether Newdow had standing or not, though my layperson's guess was that he didn't. The important thing, I think, is that this ruling leaves the door open to similar challenges in the future, while failing to stir up the right wing before the upcoming election.

There's no doubt in my mind that having 'under God' in the pledge is inconsistent with the principle of the separation of church and state; but I think this is a bad time to press the issue. We'd lose that fight and probably lose the election, too as a result. In fact, though I think that Newdow is clearly in the right, I have to confess that I've been rather irked at the guy for bringing the case when he did.

But my objections to the Pledge go far beyond even the reprehensible 'under God' clause. I find the whole idea of a pledge of allegiance insulting, and I refuse to recite it or stand when others do so. The very idea that anyone would ask me--let alone require me--to make such a public profession of my loyalty to and love for my country is despicable. The pledge, it seems to me, represents a kind of...how to say...meretricious patriotism. And the very idea of pledging that allegiance to the flag rather than the Constitution is utterly preposterous...bone-headed...completley out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway--O frabjous day! A happy ruling, IMHO.