Pledge Controversy Revived

I suppose I'm not surprised at this sour grape popping into the mix again. After the ruling of the SCOTUS on the first try, I was pretty much certain this guy would find someone to make him relevant to the case.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton said he was bound by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled that the words "under God," added by Congress in 1954 during the McCarthy era, rendered the pledge unconstitutional.

Michael A. Newdow, the atheist who won the 9th Circuit ruling, ultimately lost his case last year before the U.S. Supreme Court. Without deciding the constitutional question of separation of church and state, the high court ruled that Newdow had no legal standing to sue on behalf of his grade-school daughter because he did not have primary custody.

Newdow still lacks standing, but his new lawsuit may go forward because he has added plaintiffs who are parents with full custody of their children, Karlton decided. The ruling affects the Elk Grove Unified School District, the Eleverta Joint School District and the Rio Linda Union School District in Sacramento County.

The issue is a bit complicated, if you bother to look at it equitably.

First is Newdow's claim that this is unconstitutional because it appears to be an attempt to establish a religion controlled by the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'll say that the original intent of adding the line "under God" wasn't likely to be any attempt to establish a state religion, but most certainly was focused on the Christian God. The change only came in 1954, so I doubt any historical perogative could exist. Personally, I fail to see this as any attempt to establish a religion or prohibition of the free exercise therof.

I would, in fact, point out that if Newdow is using this as his argument, I would say it certainly appears that he is attempting to establish Atheism as the state religion/philosophy. Maybe not. But I do see that as a valid point of view for those who have firm religious beliefs. In fact you could say, that if the SCOTUS finds in favor of Newdow, that they are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religious beliefs.

In my opinion this is forcing the SCOTUS to draw a line in the sand, but a line that will be very difficult to interpret. If they allow the Newdow finding, will it then indicate that Congress can't have a prayer before starting a session?

I just can't find any logic, or anything in the constitution that promotes an Atheistic world view as being more valid than a Theistic view. I fully believe that this is a perfect example where strict reading of the constitution is correct. The government can't create laws establishing or forbidding or restricting religion.

Personally, I'd rather see the pledge in its historically original version. But this case isn't about the pledge.