My response to Alan Wolfe's Salon essay about why the Ninth Circuit's ruling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstituional was a bad idea (in the form of a letter to Salon's Editor):

Wow. Talk about missing the boat entirely. Alan Wolfe's essay on why the Ninth Circuit's decision ruling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional was (in his opinion) wrong is a perfect collection of the presumptuous sort of thinking that lead to such a legal challenge in the first place. To wit:

1. "God was the best available alternative, broad enough to be inclusive of just about everyone in 1950s America who believed in something." That sounds like a pretty wide net at first, but suppose that you include along with the atheists all of the agnostics and freethinkers out there who would rather not put a name or face out there responsible for the cosmos and beyond. Mind you, this would include most of our Founding Fathers - despite Ari Fleischer's claim that the Declaration of Independence uses the word God "three or four times", in fact the word is only used once and it's a pretty hedged usage at that: "...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" - whatever that means, but it sure doesn't sound like the God that our President and Senators are so chummy with these days, does it?

2. "Those who believe in more than one God still believe in at least one." Alan Wolfe suggests that adding an 's' will bridge the gap between the polytheists and monotheists of the world, but the problem here isn't singulars or plurals, but the notion of exclusivity. When a Christian, Jew, or Muslim says the word "God", he or she is referring not to an abstract concept, but a specific divine being, one of whose most important commandments is to reject all other gods. *That's* why the word "God" doesn't work - not because it's a singular noun, but because it's a loaded one.

3. "But nothing about the pledge is coercive. Students can opt out of saying it." Where did this man go to school? Certainly not where I grew up - and not too long ago either, mind you! - where such a refusal could lead to ridicule, suspension, or worse.

Finally, Alan Wolfe trots out the old argument that since "faith is essential to how we Americans define ourselves collectively", then we must reject any attempt to remove the language of faith from our public discourse. I think it's only appropriate to let Jesus Christ himself rebut that one:

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:6)

'Nuff said, I think!