We are asked to hold that inclusion of the phrase “under God” in this nations Pledge of Allegiance violates the religion clauses of the Constitution of the United States. We should do no such thing. We should, instead, recognize that those clauses were not designed to drive religious expression out of public thought; they were written to avoid discrimination. We can run through the litany of tests and concepts which have floated to the surface from time to time. Were we to do so, the one that appeals most to me, the one I think to be correct, is the concept that what the religion clauses of the First Amendment require is neutrality; that those clauses are, in effect, an early kind of equal protection provision and assure that government will neither discriminate for nor discriminate against a religion or religions.

Much has been made about he recent ruling that deems the pledge to be unconstitutional. The above text is from Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, who partially dissented against the ruling. His dissent is very well written and his neutrality should be commended. However, I don't believe his argument to be the norm for our court systems. The constitution was incredibly vague, but for reason. Our forefathers, in great foresight, knew that times would change and so would people. They set-up the constitution and the branches of government to tackle these changes as time went on; a perfect plan. However, the constitution gave no instructions of when to read literally, and when to read liberally. The establishment clause will continue to be attacked and defended, but if we read the constitution very literally, I don't think the pledge would qualify. Initially, I was dumbfounded at the ruling, and initially dismissed it as ludicrous. However, the more I thought about it, the less I disagreed with it. Our liberty is guaranteed in the constitution. Religion is protected by the constitution, but people are also protected from religion. In this case, the constitution, I believe, sides with the atheist. I'm perfectly fine with this, because I believe our liberty, as a whole, is more important than a pledge.