Supreme Court rules on Pledge case

The Supreme Court ruled today on the case Elk Grove Unified School District V. Newdow. Michael Newdow, an atheist, had argued that the phrase "under God" should be eliminated from the Pledge of Allegiance, citing the First Admendment. Although reciting the Pledge is optional, Mr. Newdow argued that to abstain would put undue pressure on his 3rd-grade daughter.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to dismiss the case because Mr. Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. Mr. Newdow never married the mother of his child, and is in another court battle currently, attempting to hash out custody and visitation rights. It's a logical decision, but one without backbone. The Supreme Court needs to rule, for once and for all, on the separation of Church and State.

I think that we will need to do some serious distortion of the Constitution to rule that the government cannot put "under God" in the Pledge, or have other non-denominational, non-religious references to God (e.g. "In God We Trust"). Just look at the Declaration of Independence. The justification for the American Revolution is grounded in the existence of a God, and a moral God, at that. Nothing more is noted; indeed, this God can be Allah, Jesus, YHWH, the God of the Unitarians or Deists, or even the inner light of the Quakers (although that one might be a stretch).

Morality and laws both start to become arbitrary and groundless without something above humanity. It is necessary that we follow in the tradition of our Founders and continue to affirm the existence of God. Thomas More wrote in Utopia that atheists could not hold office in his imaginary world of Utopia. They were allowed to be citizens and live in peace, but were not considered to have enough discernment to be an official. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founders would not have necessarily been opposed to a similar law.