Letter: Religion should not be imposed through pledge

Friday, June 18, 2004 | 8:44 a.m.

I am sadly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to skirt the issue of including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. This struggle against state-sponsored sectarianism is far from over. By throwing this case out on standing, the Supreme Court implies it is willing to disregard the 30 million Americans who identify with no religion, as well as faithful Buddhists, Hindus and others who do not subscribe to this monotheistic pledge.

The words "under God" in the government-established Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The practice of reciting the pledge in public schools specifically targets children, inculcating them with a monotheistic message not held by millions of Americans.

This is not a passive reading of a historic document but an active swearing of loyalty to one's country. When these words were added on June 14, 1954, our national oath of loyalty became tantamount to prayer. The First Amendment does not require hostility toward religion, but mandates government neutrality toward religion. By imposing a religious belief on those without such beliefs, the current version of the pledge utterly fails this test.

The court must inevitably recognize that "under God" is not the language of patriotic ceremony but rather the governmental endorsement of sectarian religion. I am confident that defenders of church-state separation will remain vigilant in confronting the 1954 addition of "under God" to the pledge, which violates the principle of religious neutrality, and will leave the teaching of religion where it belongs -- with parents and in houses of worship.

MEL LIPMAN