just a note that I haven't completely missed the Supreme Court's response to the Pledge case.

this was a completely predictable result. there was no way the Court could get to the merits because the guy had pretty shaky standing. I think O'Connor [but I could be wrong] argued that he had standing because it was his rights he was protecting. but as the non-custodial parent, his standing was weak. The Court tends to pass on first go-round if they don't have a solidly standing plaintiff.

interestingly, the Court seemed willing to hold that the "under g-d" was not Constitutional, provided they can get to it. It would be a divided court, but I think there is a majority leaning that way.

now if we can only find a good plaintiff, the issue can be dealt with once and for all. but since we are at war that involves religious overtones, I don't think it is a good idea right at the moment -- but overall, the words don't belong there. the only reason why they should be allowed to remain for a little while longer is that people have gotten very used to the words there over the last 50 or so years, and to take g-d's shelter away from america at this critical time would be a psychological blow to many people, and would shake their patriotism. we need all the patriotism we can get right now.