High Court Takes Easy Out On 'Under God'


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday to allow the phrase "under God" to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance.

No matter which side of the fence you fall on that decision, it should outrage Americans that our highest court found a legal loophole to avoid dealing with this issue.

The original case was brought before the lower courts by atheist Michael Newdow, who argued that his daughter should not be subjected to religious indoctrination at school by being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Newdow's case was finally heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled on Flag Day --0 years after the phrase in question was added -- that the Pledge of Allegiance will remain as is.

Their reasoning: following a custody battle with his daughter's mother, Newdow lacked the legal authority to argue on his daughter's behalf.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

The legal loophole.

What this decision has done --esides reveal an alarming lack of backbone in dealing with "weighty" issues --s delayed the inevitable. This same argument will come back to the high court, no doubt brought by other atheists who have done their homework a little better.

I hope by the time the issue does resurface, our Supreme Court will muster the backbone to deal with it in a manner more befitting of the highest court in the land.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.