"It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect," the judge wrote. "The Pledge and the phrase 'under God' are not themselves prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text of a religion. Here, the words 'under God' appear in a pledge to a flag – itself a secular exercise, accompanied by no other religious language or symbolism."But for all of the Court's complex (and sometimes convoluted) reasoning, there's a simple and obvious test that shows that their decision is wrong. Even they should have seen it. Consider this:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Doesn't this also meet the Court's definition of "secular"?
Or how about this:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Surely that too meets the Court's definition of "secular."
You can't logically make the claim that my two versions of the Pledge violates a Christian's or Jew's rights, but their version of the Pledge doesn't violate my rights. The law cuts both ways.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals is wrong on this important ruling. They can use all of the legal reasoning they like to obfuscate the plain meaning of the words, "under God," but their logic all falls apart when you turn the tables.