Ever since Michael Newdow filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter’s non-existent political… Ever since Michael Newdow filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter’s non-existent political grievance last year, the Pledge of Allegiance has been getting some serious face time in both the courts and the press.

You’ll remember Newdow as the man who made the noble protestation that his daughter does not deserve to be subjected to the phrase “under God” in the nation’s pledge. In doing so, he kicked off a series of court battles that are borderline absurd and that ask the question: What is the pledge, and why are we all so passionate about it?

Reuters reports that Newdow’s daughter still recites the pledge, despite the court’s 2-1 ruling in favor of her father, probably because she never cared one way or the other to begin with. By using his daughter to make a political statement, Newdow has raised the bar for parents who want to live vicariously through their children.

Back in February, around the time the federal appeals court was throwing out the Bush administration’s request to review its ruling in the Newdow case, a law took effect in Pennsylvania requiring students to say the pledge or face punishment. This prompted the ACLU to drop its gloves and roll up its sleeves, filing suit faster than you could say “one nation, under God.” The same thing happened more recently in Colorado, where state officials decided to put their efforts on hold until 2004.

In these cases, it was the ACLU that was being reasonable. I never thought I’d see my fingers type those words, but if you think about it for 10 seconds, you will have done more thinking than most of these elected officials.

What kind of a country forces its people to swear allegiance? If they choose not to recognize the flag, you may call them unpatriotic or unappreciative or whatever – that’s your right. But it’s completely un-American to deny them the right to abstain. The notion that a child should be punished for not robotically repeating a political slogan flies in the face of liberty, and has no place in a free nation.

In sorting through these cases, I found that all this court drama starts to look more typical in light of the pledge’s unfortunate history, which goes a little something like this:

The pledge was not composed by the light of a rocket’s red glare in a field stained with the blood of patriots. It wasn’t born out of the revolution. It was written relatively recently, in 1892, by a socialist (!) named Francis Bellamy. It originally read as follows: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Bellamy wanted to include the word “equality,” but state superintendents would not allow it – equality was not part of the agenda, at least not with women and former slaves around.

Then, in the early ’20s, during a period of heavy immigration, several groups became concerned that newcomers would be saying “my Flag” while secretly thinking about their homelands. So the phrase was replaced with “the flag of the United States.”

Finally, in 1954, a push was made to add “under God.” Some groups were sincere about the phrase, hoping to cite the nation’s connection to the almighty. But the government had ulterior motives. The congressional legislation favoring the change states this goal: “[to] acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism.”

As part of an effort to snuff out the atheistic, politically frightening communists, the federal government supported adding God to the pledge. It was also around this time that “In God We Trust” first began to appear on dollar bills. You can always count on politicians to find faith when the timing is convenient.

So by now, I’d say the pledge has grown used to being a tool and Francis Bellamy is well-accustomed to spinning in his grave, watching his masterwork get worked and reworked by the dictates of what’s happening now.

So we should not be surprised when our beloved version of the pledge gets nipped and tucked. Government officials will use it to try to force patriotism, the Michael Newdows will use it to make headlines, and the rest of us will get up in arms over something we should all be used to by now.

Do I think God should be mentioned in the pledge? Yes. Our nation has a foundational spiritual history that is worth mentioning, communism or not.

But I won’t give up on life if the phrase gets the ax. God and America were here before the pledge and they’ll likely be here after it. Just let me know when the San Francisco courts start ruling the constitution unconstitutional.

Eric Miller realizes that it turned out kind of cynical after all. Accept his apologies at [email protected].