4.2.12 WC: 191694 I also knew that our Constitution said some things about religion. In our Yeshiva we learned mostly about the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion. But I started to read a little more about the Constitution and quickly learned that there were three references to religion in that great document of liberty. The first, in the body of the original Constitution, declared that “no religious test shall ever be required” for holding office under the United States. Wow, is this really true? I wondered, then why hasn’t there been a Jewish president? And why is there only one “Jewish seat” on the Supreme Court? It sure sounded to me like religious tests were being applied in fact, although it was unconstitutional to do so. This got me to thinking about the difference between the law as written and practiced. I also discovered that the First Amendment, in addition to guaranteeing freedom of religion, had an awkwardly phrased guarantee which I did not understand: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There were two words I didn’t understand. What does “respecting” mean? I had always used it to suggest a positive attitude—respect—toward others. Clearly it had a different meaning in the First Amendment, something like “regarding.” Second, what did the word “establishment” mean? I simply had no idea and so I began to do some research. The answer was anything but simple and the meaning of the term is still not completely clear to me after 60 years of thinking, writing and teaching about it. So there was some upside for me in the words “under God” being added to our pledge. It not only got me thinking, it got me arguing with my friends and even with some of my teachers. It’s an ongoing argument... The downside, which was evident to me even back then, was that whatever the words prohibiting an establishment of religion meant, they seemed incomparable with compelling every school boy to declare his belief in a God inserte