You’re quite right, Christians were persecuted in Rome. And the US was attacked on 9/11. We’ve been wronged, we feel under siege. I absolutely agree.

But does that justify committing wrongs against others, especially our fellow citizens who are unrelated to the war? I, for one, have not been wronged by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The events of 9/11 do nothing to persuade me that we should ignore their legitimate stand of conscience against pledging allegiance to some power other than god. And now that we are at war, this seems like a particularly bad time to provoke sectarian battles here at home.

The guys who attacked us are the forces of intolerance, and on 9/11 they killed people of many races, faiths, and nations. We are the forces of liberty, diverse in perspective but united in the mission of tolerance. That’s a mission I hope we can all get behind.

Do not confuse cause and effect. The fact that our country is virtuous may make people feel an allegiance toward it; but the fact that people pledge their allegiance does not make the nation virtuous.

American patriotism is a paradox. Every one of our nation’s founders was a traitor to his country. Why should a country conceived in liberty, not patriotism, betray its founders by promoting patriotism over liberty?

The great majority of our founders were men of faith. Yet rather than impose their religious views on the nation, they expressly limited the power of government to do so. Why should a country conceived in liberty, not a particular religion, betray its founders by promoting religion over liberty?

Down through the years, Quakers, Johova’s Witnesses and the Amish have been persecuted for their believe that they should not pledge allegiance to any authority than god. I have difficulty dismissing their faiths as being the result of too much mall and MTV. Anyway, the ACLU didn’t, and neither did the courts.

Doubtless, you and I would conclude that many people have raised their children poorly. And doubtless, many people would reach the same conclusion about you and me. For me, the question is not who is right, but how do we live in a society where people disagree. For people who know that they are right, I guess there’s no problem in imposing their views on others. Osama bin Laden holds this view; do you?

I don’t. I and a small number of others follow the teachings of a man called Christ. Christ taught us to love our neighbors and to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Because I would not like to have others impose their religious practices on me, I resist imposing my religious practices on others. But we are a small minority. The great majority of people where I live call themselves Christians, which apparently involves wearing a big cross on their sleeves and chanting “We’re No. 1! We’re No. 1!” The fact that Christ himself was a member of an oppressed minority does not seem to influence them, and “doing unto others” is not a big part of their world view.

I am deeply grateful for our nation, and the liberties and opportunities it affords. I hope it continues to afford those liberties and opportunities to minorities as well as majorities, and therefore I cherish the civil liberties that preserve them.

In Lee [v. Weisman], the Court held that invocations and benedictions could not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, be given at public secondary school graduations…. Adherence to Lee would require us to strike down the Pledge policy…. [And i]t is true that since this Court decided West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, States cannot compel (in the traditional sense) students to pledge their allegiance…. The “coercion” here, however, results in unwilling children actually pledging their allegiance.
In Barnette, the Court addressed a state law that compelled students to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag. The Court described this as “compulsion of students to declare a belief.” The Pledge “require[d] affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind.” In its current form, reciting the Pledge entails pledging allegiance to “the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God.” Under Barnette, pledging allegiance is “to declare a belief ” that now includes that this is “one Nation under God.” It is difficult to see how this does not entail an affirmation that God exists. Whether or not we classify affirming the existence of God as a “formal religious exercise” akin to prayer, it must present the same or similar constitutional problems.
To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer, and I admit that this might be a significant distinction. But the Court has squarely held that the government cannot require a person to “declare his belief in God.” Torcaso v. Watkins (“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion’ ”); see also Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (“The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief”); Widmar v. Vincent (rejecting attempt to distinguish worship from other forms of religious speech)….
I conclude that, as a matter of our precedent, the Pledge policy is unconstitutional.

[But Thomas then concludes that schools may recite the Pledge because precedent is wrong: The 1st Amendment bars only the feds from establishing an official religion, not the states. According to Thomas, each state should be free to establish its own state religion and to incorporate the rituals of that religion into the state’s public schools, among other things.

Talk about activism. Take a moment to pray for the non-Mormans in Utah, among others....]