WASHINGTON -- A confession: It's been my practice for many years now to omit the last six words whenever I recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Given the double standards that exist between races, classes, ages, sexual orientation, region, religions and gender, "with liberty and justice for all" were too sour for me.

But Tuesday's ruling from a federal appeals court in San Francisco made me rethink the practice.

According to the jurists, the pledge is not a description of the United States, not even an idealized one. Instead, it is an oath to the principles that the U.S. is supposed to uphold.

If the court's interpretation is right, then I've been wrong. I am most certainly for liberty and justice for all. No problem, as long as I'm not giving the country credit for providing liberty and justice for all, because that would be disingenuous, to say the least.

However, it was not that phrase that provoked the ruling that President Bush has proclaimed "ridiculous." Rather, it was "one nation under God" that took the case to court on the complaint of a young student whose parents are atheists.

"'One nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," wrote the two-judge majority. In other words, it doesn't convey a description of a national condition but pledges allegiance to the concept, or principle, of a God-ruled nation.

Atheists have always gotten under my skin with their insistence that certain words and thoughts hinder or impose on them in some way. It seems that, if they don't believe in what I'm saying, they can simply ignore it, laugh at it, scoff, whatever.

But when I turn it around and put myself in the disbeliever's seat, I am able to understand the atheists' complaint. The "one nation under God" phrase doesn't offend me. But, then, I'm a Christian. I'd like to think I am secure enough in my faith that I wouldn't be rattled by "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Buddha," but I bet I would be. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a someone else's god?

And that is the thing, you know. It's the requirement -- or even the expectation -- that children pledge allegiance to something they may not believe in or, in some cases, that their parents don't want them to believe in. If a public institution like a school requires or expects them to do so, that's the state -- the society -- dictating an exercise. That's We the People, without whom the public institution could not exist, directing an oath that should be heartfelt, or else why bother?

For We the People to order allegiance to the Almighty goes against the primordial principle that, in the collective, we will not tinker with a man, woman or child's religion or lack thereof.

Therefore, if the court is correct in its take on the purpose of the pledge, I guess it did the right thing in declaring the "one nation under God" phrase unconstitutional. And it opened my eyes about "liberty and justice for all."

Still, there are going to be big problems getting the country to accept the premise that the pledge is to an ideal rather than a reality. Besides, many people won't give a hoot about the distinction. All they know is that they and a lot of other Americans profess to believe in God and that anyone who doesn't like saying so can just sit down, shut up or leave.

In which case, so much for liberty and justice for all.

Deborah Mathis is a columnist with Tribune Media Services.

©1999-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

###