The real issue, I think, it the attitude of the protesters. Notice that the Pledge of Allegiance is about “one NATION under God” not “a nation under ONE GOD.” So it is an unwarranted presumption that praying to more than one deity is not a “real” religion. That opinion seems to presume that monotheism is somehow superior to polytheism or that the distinction between the two is clear-cut. Persons with a univocal mind, such as those who protested, probably overlook the references to multiple deities in the Hebrew Bible. If the people of Israel believed in the existence of more than one deity, and managed to serve the Lord despite continual contact with polytheism and polytheists, they offer no authority to those who would censure today’s Hindus.

Reputable scripture scholars make a distinction between MONOTHEISM, namely the belief that only one God exists and HENOTHEISM, which says that there is only one God for me. Over and over again, we find personages such as Abraham, Moses and the prophets voicing belief in the “gods of other nations” in distinction from the “God of Israel.” These same scholars have demonstrated textually to my satisfaction that full-blown monotheism appeared very late in Jewish religious history. In other words, only with the contact with Hellenist philosophy did the idea of one God become a statement of metaphysics rather than a declaration of preference. And one can arrive at this conclusion even without discussing if monotheism is the root of the “high” or “supreme” deity usually found in polytheism.

Jesus inherited the truly monotheistic position of late Judaism, but the entrance of Gentiles into early Christianity brought with it notions of the Image of God and emanations. These concepts produced the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: One God but Three Divine Persons. Pure monotheism it is not. When we add in the Catholic custom of invoking saints to find lost things or ensure a safe child-birth, Christianity assumes some of the nebulous FUNCTIONS of polytheism, even if the dogma remains monotheistic.

We can leave aside for now the implications of Mohammed the Prophet speaking about other gods in the so-called Satanic verses. That he spoke such words seems part of the historical record. The confusion about his meaning led later Muslim theologians to remove these words from the Qur’an – which is the right of the body of believers. Yet the example serves to show that the boundaries of belief shift with time and are shaped by circumstances.

In sum, a Hindu prayer to more than one deity does not violate any legal norm. Still less, can the so-called monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic traditions claim any historical superiority over Hinduism. And consider how much more interesting all the deities are than the boring Politburo atheism of no god at all!