Supreme Court Correspondent for Legal Times and Incisive Media
Con to the question "Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?"
"The only way that this reference to God in a student's daily life can be made constitutionally acceptable is to assert that the two words really have no meaning--that the words 'under God' have become so commonplace that they have been stripped of any religious significance. 'Ceremonial deism' is how some legal scholars describe it: a rote expression of faith in God that no one listens to or thinks twice about anymore. That is a hollow 'burn down the village to save it' kind of argument that does not have much merit. And it ignores the reality that only 49 years ago, the words were inserted into the Pledge with the intention that they be fervently embraced, not blithely ignored.
We will see whether the court sends the public an unpopular but obvious message: 'Under God' has to go. Stormy as the reaction will be, the ship of state will survive."
"'Under God' Doesn't Belong in the Pledge," Church & State, June 2003