People will go to unbelievable lengths in order to defend the indefensible - in this case, the idea that the government has the authority to tell students to include "under God" when they say the Pledge of Allegiance. There is no way to argue that has no religious connotations, so they attempt the Orwellian idea that it doesn't really mean what it says.

The latest example comes from a debate among members of the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania - they are trying to decide whether they should vote to "support" the Pledge of Allegiance (as though it actually needed their support?). According to the York Daily Record:

Board member William Buckingham said no one should have the right to take the phrase "under God" out of the pledge. "America was founded as a Christian country," he said." While we welcome people from other countries, that doesn't give them the right to change things. If they don't want to say it our way, they can go back to the country they came from."

Buckingham said America is a Christian country and anyone entering it should be taught that. "No one has the right to infringe on this country's religious beliefs," Buckingham said. "But we have the right to infringe on everyone else's?" asked Sheila Harkins, board member.

That's right, Bill, you tell those heathen pinko foreigners! They should be thankful that they were even let inside our borders instead of being sent to Guantanamo for questioning, the sneaky little devils. This is a Christian Nation, which means that people who think differently from the Christian majority simply don't deserve the same consideration, much less civil rights.

And what about Americans who disagree with having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Well, they aren't Real Christians, obviously, so they must not be Real Americans either. Spies! Traitors! Have Ashcroft toss them in deep, dark hole somewhere.

Fellow board member Jeffrey Brown said he was having trouble with the resolution, which would support the pledge as it is written, but make no mention as to whether it should be recited in classrooms or public meetings. "I woke up Sunday morning and realized I wouldn't want to say a pledge that said one nation under Allah," Brown said. "So I can't support this for religious reasons."

Wow, Brown sounds like he has a clue. His election (like Harkins') must have been a fluke. I wonder why the two of them weren't summarily strung up for their seditious comments.

Board member Alan Bonsell said during the meeting that the pledge's reference to God did not imply a Christian god or any specific god. "The pledge is voluntary," Bonsell said. "And for those that say it, it can mean any god they want." Snook said Tuesday the word god doesn't have to imply God, or any other god, at all. "It could imply a basic moral character of the country," he said.

Here's where the Orwellian fun comes into play. Why try to argue that "God" doesn't really refer to the Christian God (despite what William Buckingham might say) or even to any god at all? Why, because it's obvious even to them that if it does, then it's wrong.

Do they have a case? No, they simply look ridiculous - especially considering their positions of responsibility over education! Of course "God" means "God" and of course it was originally meant to refer to the Christian God. There's simply no question about that. Pretending that it means something else is just a poor excuse for not accepting the fact that it's a deliberate violation of the separation of church and state that they are seeking to endorse.

Board president Noel Wenrich said ... "I think it would be arrogant of this country to not acknowledge that there is some higher power greater than this country."

Well, Noel seems to know quite a lot about the nature of arrogance. The real arrogance lies in her attitude: that she, as an elected government official, has any authority whatsoever to tell people that a higher power exists, what sort of higher power exists, how to acknowledge that higher power, what that power's relationship with America might be, and so on. She's free to acknowledge whatever higher power she wants and in whatever manner she wants, but only so long as she does it as a private citizen. Using her position as a government official to promote something in particular is an unconscionable abuse of power.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religion in Public Schools
• School Prayer