Still More on the Pope and the Pledge

I agree with Rob that the Pope's call for "an acknowledgment of Europe's Christian heritage in the EU Constitution" takes place in the context of an increasingly dishonest (in ignoring Christianity's formative influence), and not merely secular, culture. Some might defend the present Pledge, though, precisely to forestall the "forgetting" we see going on in Europe.

Also, does it matter for Michael and Rob that the Pope (I assume) believes not merely that Europe should acknowledge Europe's historical roots in Christianity, but that Europe should re-Christianize, too? Doesn't the Pope desire "ongoing normative assertion[s]", too?

And, while Rob and I agree that an opinion reversing the Ninth Circuit on the ground that "under God" is meaningless should hardly be welcomed by believers, it is not clear to me, as a normative matter, that the "framework of Establishment Clause jurisprudence," such as it is, matters much. That the term "under God" -- understood as bearing some meaning -- sits uneasily with O'Connor-ism indicts the latter more than the former, it seems to me.

I'm still not sure what to think about the Pledge case. The Constitution, correctly understood, permits the current form, for better or worse. It seems to me that "under God" is defensible as a rough-and-ready claim about our founders' vaguely theistic orientation, and perhaps also as an aspiration. The danger, though, as Rob has explained persuasively, is that the term becomes a source of national self-satisfaction, even idolatry, and distracts from our national failings.

Rick