One nation, one way to think

Earlier this year, Michael Newdow's suit to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance was renewed by three California families whose children attend northern California schools. The first decision, in Newdow's favor, was reversed because Newdow is not his child's sole custodian, and his former wife was opposed to the lawsuit.

In the meantime, in Virginia, the Spotsylvania County School Board voted to remove a policy requiring students to stand during recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. The policy resulted from a state senate bill that required students to stand and recite the Pledge unless they could articulate a religious objection and provide proof of their religious beliefs.

The presumption behind this rule is that you have to have a religious reason to refrain from standing with your hand over your heart when the pledge of allegiance is recited. But what about the students who do not have a "religious" reason, but who think it is wrong to recite the pledge? And what happens if--just pretending here, of course--the pledge is restored to its original form (minus "under God"), and people still object to reciting it?

I am one of those people. Loyalty oaths scare the hell out of me, and they always have. Then there is that business about liberty and justice for all, which certainly does not exist in this country. Perhaps it is because one of my parents did not become an American citizen until later in life, or perhaps it is because I have never been good at doing something without questioning the authority behind it. Whatever the reason, a group of people standing and pledging loyalty to something in unison gives me a creepy feeling, and it always will.