Congressman Jim McDermott caused a minor stir on the House floor on Tuesday when he omitted the phase "under God" while leading the Pledge of Allegiance.

That the Washington state representative would do so is no surprise. He was one of only seven lawmakers who voted against a 2003 House resolution--which passed 400-7--that condemned the 9th Circuit ruling that struck the phase from teacher-led recitations in public schools. In 2002, he voted "present" for a similar resolution that the House approved 416-2.

Representative Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House." But McDermott may have had a good reason for not referencing the Divine. The congressman may be an atheist or he may not believe that the United States is, in fact, "under God." If one or the other is true, McDermott could be seen as taking a courageous, albeit controversial, conscientious stand.

Unfortunately, however, McDermott's explanations of his action were more troubling than his act itself.

When asked about the incident, the congressman's spokesman, Mike DeCesare, explained that his boss "hesitated, unsure of what he should do because the words 'under God' are under court review."

Given that McDermott has twice taken a controversial stand on a major Supreme Court dispute, one would hope that he comprehends the basic issues of the controversy. The Pledge case raises the narrow legal question of whether impressionable school children in a semi-coercive setting may be led by a teacher to say "under God."

Regardless of what the Court decides, adults are and will remain free to invoke God in public or governmental settings. No question exists that "under God" is perfectly constitutional on the House floor. Religious statements are protected by both the First Amendment's free-exercise clause and free-speech clause.

All of this seems lost on Rep. McDermott, who appears not to understand our most basic constitutional rights.

In a written statement, McDermott backed away from his legal reasoning and instead explained that he mistakenly "reverted to the Pledge as it was written and taught in the public schools throughout my childhood."

Fair enough. "Under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954. It is certainly plausible that the 67-year-old congressman made an honest mistake.

Except that less than two months ago, in an interview with Human Events magazine, McDermott said, "I personally don't think it ['under God'] adds anything to the Pledge of Allegiance, and I personally don't say, 'under God."

When asked if he paused while others recited the phrase, McDermott continued, "Yeah. I consider it an infringement I don't like. I don't like infringements of Church and State. And so I don't know that I'm rigid, but I try to be consistent."

McDermott certainly is neither rigid nor consistent. In Wednesday's written explanation he said that since the Pledge has been amended, "I will endeavor to concentrate on what I am doing and say the modern version."

It's bad enough to hold mistaken principles. It is something else altogether to abandon one's principles at the slightest hint of criticism. McDermott's flip on the Pledge reeks of the crass expediency so endemic to Washington. It represents a perfect example of why voters can't stand politics.

If Representative McDermott wishes not to say "under God," he has every right to refrain from doing so. But he should understand that others may invoke the Divine, according to their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. And he should be able to explain his actions with at least some level of minimal consistency. Until he does so, he is embarrassing the House.

Vincent Phillip Muñoz is a Civitas Fellow at AEI and an assistant professor of political science at North Carolina State University.