The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes the phrase ìone nation, under Godî? When I heard about the California courtís ruling, I thought: Well, yeah. Who could argue with that?

Never underestimate the insecurity of religious folks, though. And never underestimate elected officialsí ability to pander.

No sooner was the news reported than hysteria broke out in Washington. Congress was beside itself with rage. ìLawmakers,î the New York Times reported, ìfilled both houses Thursday morning to recite the oath, right hands over hearts, some shouting as they reached the phrase ëone nation under God.íî

ìThis absurd decision was made by a court run amok,î said Republican Representative Tom DeLay.

The courtís decision was ìnuts,î said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. ìWe are one nation under God.î

Much of the support for the ruling has come from the usual suspects: atheists and the American Civil Liberties Union. So let me interject a personal note: Iím a lifelong, active, practicing Christian. Iím also an active, patriotic citizen of this country. I vote. I fly the flag. I say the Pledge (emphasizing ìwith liberty and justice for all,î not ìunder Godî).

I also recognize insecurity when I see it. The religious folks raising the biggest stink about the Pledge ruling are reacting out of fear. They want government to do what the church canít do: make the diverse people of the United States conform to their religious principles.

Other critics of the ruling have focused on the perceived triviality of the issue: In the overall scheme of things, they insist, having ìunder Godî in the pledge is no big deal.

ìA generic two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer,î said a Times editorial. Well, no, itís not a prayer. But itís not just state-imposed prayers that violate the Constitution. And the religious critics of the California court certainly donít agree that ìunder Godî is a generic phrase.

Listen to the president: The United States, Bush said after the ruling, is a country that ìvalues our relationship with an Almighty.î

The words ìone nation under Godî in the Pledge, he said, are ìa confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God.î

The president has every right to believe that we receive our rights from God. Many Americans believe that, too. But some do not. And one of this countryís most important principles is that each of us has the right to embrace --- or not embrace --- whatever religious beliefs we choose.

If you want to grasp the seriousness of this issue, listen to Bush again: The country, he said after the ruling, needs ìcommonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.î And, the Times reported, Bush said he intends to appoint such judges.

Do we want the president to use religious beliefs as a litmus test for appointing judges? Will he refuse to nominate a Muslim or a Hindu? Will he next insist that judges swear allegiance to Jesus?

Thereís nothing trivial about having a religious phrase in the Pledge (and yes, on our currency). And thereís nothing trivial about public officialsí reaction to the California ruling.