Today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the presence of the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance that children are expected to recite in school each morning.  Needless to say a lot of controversy swirls around this case.

Associated Press article:  Supreme Court to Take Up 'Under God'

Michael Newdow, an atheist living in California, objected to his daughter having to recite/hear the 'under God' portion of the pledge every day, brought a case against the Elk Grove School District and won.  The appeals have made it all the way to the Supreme Court today, and today we will see what the Court will do.  I hold out hope that Newdow will win, but not much as the Court of late has been riddled with conservative appointees not to mention Dick Cheney's "hunting buddy" (who fortunately has been recused because he publicly criticized the lower court's ruling in Newdow's favor last year.)

"After today, this court will decide whether America remains one nation under God or whether we shake a fist in God's face," the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, told a crowd of people carrying signs that read: "I support the pledge."

These people don't get it.  Christianity is not the only religion in America, and our own code of laws dictates that the government must be separate from the church, including endorsement of any one religion over others.  If the pledge were changed to say 'under Allah', 'under Yahweh', or 'under Jehova' you can bet these people would be having hissyfits even though Allah, Yahweh, and Jehova are all the same God under different names.

Removing the words 'under God' is not "shaking our fist in God's face".  The government is not supposed to be endorsing Christianity.  Removing the words 'under God' is not attacking the pledge or its intention, which is allegiance to our nation.  If you want to proclaim allegiance to your religion, or to your God, there are many fora available to you to do that, such as your Church, your religious gatherings, your private parochial schools and so forth.  I "support the pledge" too.  That's why I don't want it to be an illegal pledge.  That's why I want those words removed.  I object to people who want those words included being called "supporters of the pledge" as if I am somehow not a supporter of the pledge.

"Tradition" is the most common answer I get when I ask why people want those words to stay in there.  People tell me 'under God' affirms this country's history which, they claim, is undeniably Christian.  But 'under God' was not in the pledge as originally written in 1892.  Those words were added by the Congress in 1954 in response to lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War as a way to differentiate our country from the "Godless Communists".  So the 'tradition' argument kind of falls flat.

I'm not on a crusade here.  Although I believe "In God We Trust" has no place on our currency, and "so help me God" has no place in our court system, I'm not campaigning for their removal.  A witness in court is allowed to swear alternatively if they are atheistic, what's printed on the money isn't 'indoctrinating'.  Children being forced to stand in a room full of people every morning listening to them say 'one nation, under God' is definitely inculcating.  I don't want my kid saying 'under God', but if she does not pledge then she looks like an outsider to her classmates... peer pressure is a powerful force.  They're not adults folks, they're kids.

Anyway, my prediction is that the Supreme Court will either weasel out of ruling on the case, or rule that the pledge should remain as it is. If the latter happens there will be strong dissent from the nonconservative portion of the court which should make interesting reading. I'll continue to hope for a better solution, but the odds seem slim to me.

Peace.