God," said Albert Einstein, "does not play dice with the universe." But what did he know? He was only one of the most brilliant minds in the annals of humankind.
So what does his opinion matter when compared with that of the federal appellate judges who agreed with an atheist and declared that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because, as amended by Congress 48 years ago, it includes the words "under God"?
Much has been said about this astounding court opinion and much more will be said about it, probably in a higher court opinion reversing this one. So you wonder: What were those judges in California thinking when they voted 2-1 against the very mention of God?
The opinion generated a firestorm of criticism from the White House, from Congress and a stunned citizenry. They disagree with the court's finding that the mention of "one nation under God" in the pledge is as objectionable and as illegal as saying "we are a nation under Jesus, a nation under Vishnu, a nation under Zeus, or a nation under no god." Note the lower case in this last instance.
So the court ruled in favor of the citizen who feels that his constitutional rights are violated by what he sees as a breach in the separation of church and state.
In this, the citizen seems to have overlooked the Declaration of Independence, which was crafted by the nation's founding fathers before they adopted the Constitution.
In the declaration, the founders cite as a "self-evident" truth that all "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
So here we have someone claiming a right but denying the existence of the One who created that right. Nice trick.
Who or what one believes in _ or does not believe in _as the Maker of this or any other universe has never been, as a matter of national policy, a cause for banishment, punishment or rejection.
So refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without the phrase offending such individuals as the plaintiff in this case, should not be an issue.
What should be an issue is the denial of someone else's preference to recite the pledge in any form. This should offend no one, whether it be a believer who later rejects the notion of God or an atheist who later embraces religion.
Such changes in belief can result from the strangest moments.
I once knew a man who became a priest because he promised to do so if his God cured his deafness. His hearing restored, he believed.
Whittaker Chambers, the former Communist who was a key witness in the post-World II espionage case against Baltimore's own Alger Hiss, once recalled the moment that he renounced atheism.
He said it came as he studied his young daughter's ear and concluded that only a heavenly, supernatural force could build such a beautiful, delicate structure.
In old city neighborhoods, operators of confectionery stores often posted little signs proclaiming their business policies
I especially remember now one that said, "In God we trust. All others pay cash."