Posted on: Friday, June 28, 2002

Pledge ruling adds up to a big distraction

Since Hawai'i falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, state residents had more than passing interest in that court's ruling this week that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

The ruling means little right now, since (a) it has been put on hold pending a decision on reconsideration and (b) it surely will be appealed through the Supreme Court.

With patriotism at a high level, you'd have to say the ruling was at best ill-timed. And it's rather petty, since the pledge is purely voluntary.

Still, in theory, one can see the philosophical rational in opposing a pledge that requires everyone, from atheist to animist, to swear his or her allegiance to the country in the name of God.

If the day ever comes when the last court in the land agrees that the pledge as is is unconstitutional, it can be rewritten. After all, that "offending" "under God" language didn't get into the 1892 pledge until the dark days of the Cold War in 1954.

But let's be realistic. As used, the words are a form of relatively harmless "ceremonial deism," in the words of former justice William Brennan — a use no more constitutionally troublesome than "In God We Trust" on our currency.

It's a fine issue for debating clubs, but our schools — and our nation — have much more important fish to fry.