I think about it this way; I try to think about how the decision would actually affect me or someone I know.
This was a prayer that teachers were expected to lead. If I was teaching at a school with such a policy I would have to decline to lead such an oath. To do otherwise would be to engage in a serious act of hypocrisy. If I am fortunate enough to have decent co-workers they will respect my decision, but I cannot rely on this. In some schools, that would be a significant blow to my authority and I subsequent actions would be taken to isolate me (and perhaps drive me out of the school). I look at the establishment clause as something that should protect me from such behavior, so that I do not need to rely on the goodwill of my coworkers. Rights are something you should be able to expect, not something you get if people feel like it.
This is not entirely abstract, btw, I have twice been asked to lead prayers at our annual graduation dinner. Both times I declined, and was treated respectfully, though one co-worker treated me very different from that point on. If the prayer in question were a matter of school policy, I think it would have been a much more serious problem. As it happens, btw, I am not fully covered by today's decision since I teach at a tribal institution, and the establishment clause does not apply to tribal governments. If I wanted to challenge something like the pledge, I would have to work the federal funding angle, and I'm not sure how that would work out. In any event, most of the people I work with no what it's like to have someone force their beliefs on you (quite literally), and so most of my coworkers are unusually open minded about these things. It's not perfect; I once read a memo from a Vice president saying that evolution could not be taught in our classes, but we dealt with this by ignoring the proclamation in the hopes that the administrator in question would have better things to do than try to enforce it. I am not entirely happy with my school's approach to these issues, but I content myself with the knowledge that I can always leave and go back to a place where I will enjoy my rights as an American citizen more fully.
Sundry comments:
God is named in the Pledge. the word is used as a personal name, presupposing an identity. We can all read different things into that, but then we can all fight about what it really means after all. remember that a significant number of Christian leaders have been telling us lately that Allah is not God, that these are not just two words for the same being after all. I'm not saying I agree with that position, but I am trying to point out that the supposed inclusiveness of the term "God" can be taken away quite easily. And in any event, the term does not include me or other unbelievers. I regard any attempt to enshrine belief in God (however non-sectarian) in our nations rituals as a deliberate attempt to make me into a second class citizen.
No the founding fathers would not have applied the establishment clause itself to the states, though some sought parallel provisions at the state level. More importantly, the 14th Amendment changes all that. And of course, the founding fathers were human, and they could be every bit as inconsistent as our modern politicians.
(In reference to the other thread) defining this as a victory for Humanism is an attempt to make the establishment clause meaningless. If absence of a religion is defined as a religion in itself, then we are all condemned to a religion of one sort or aother. That's a game I don't appreciate, and todays decision simply does not endorse any specific world view. It does not force people to say the pledge without the words, it says you cannot force people to say the pledge with the words in question.
How do we draw the line? There are indeed some gray areas (the girl who recently wanted to thank Jesus in her validictorian speech for example), and I see some leeway for allowing individual expressions at formal functions (provided they really are individual, and do not lead to collective obligations). Much of the list of horribles that Worthy has posted are in no way implied by todays decision.
Several news pseudo-commentators have stated that this was political correctness run amuck. Those guys should kind of award for hypocrisy. The Pledge is itself an attempt to check the political correctness of citizens. It is a test of loyalty (i.e. political correctness), and those who wish to see the test include reference to God are themselves promoting a vision of political correctness (one which leaves unbelievers out).
