Supreme Court cops out... news at eleven.

The supreme court issued a ruling today that can only be described as a cop out and a complete avoidance of answering the question. In an odd 5-3 (the "dissenters" actually voted in concurrence but for different reasons) vote the supreme court elected to reverse the lower court's decision, not because they disagreed with the decision but, rather, they disagreed with the father's legal authority to bring the suit. It was their judgement that the father lacked, "prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."

This Supreme Court has consistently shown that they are unwilling to wade into what are essentially moral debates. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter for debate. After two years in court the child's mother filed a motion to intervene or dismiss. The court then latched onto this late development and essentially said that the father had no right to force his daughter (whom he does not have legal custody over) into the suit and therefore everything goes away.

What is unclear to me is how that leaves the Ninth Circuit Court. I'm sure Mike could tell us about some legal rule that applies (case gets ruled on but then gets thrown out on technicality... is a legal precedent established?) but as a practical matter it's now fairly obvious which way the Court will lean if someone else were to file a suit. As a result, someone will almost certainly file another suit, and as a result, the Supreme Court will almost certainly have to listen to an almost identical case 2 years from now. The difference is that that court will have 1-2 new judges AND will have the benefit of 2 years to see which way the public opinion winds blow.

So I ask you this. Why have that wording in the pledge at all? What purpose does it serve? Is it somehow intrinsic to the pledge's meaning or power?

I believe there are two things that have made this phrase so acceptable. First, the majority of Americans are nominally christian. If the pledge were to say "Under Allah" or "Under Yhvh" there would be open scorn and outrage. In fact, despite the similar religious origins of the 3 major religions, I bet that if a noted Muslim person were to lead the pledge and change "Under God" to "Under Allah" he would be treated like Roseanne Bar singing the pledge. The second thing is that the very word is ambiguous. The letters g-o-d only become the Christian God when you capitalize them. To the ear god and God are homonyms. Therefore, it is easy to justify that the pledge might not be interpreted to mean "One nation under [the Christian, monotheistic] God" but rather "One nation under [an unnamed and undeterminable] god".

Make no mistake. I am not an anti-religious nut. My wife happens to be very religious and despite my secular beliefs I will be happy to raise my children in a manner consistent with her beliefs. To me, religion and spirituality is so ephemeral that it will always remain divisive. It is quite difficult to change someone's religious attitudes. In my experience, the onset of old age is the only great spiritualizer. Our spiritualities come as a result of two things: a need to believe in a higher power and higher purpose and the resonance of some primal chord within us that makes us think, "this feels right to me."

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I fail to see how that sentence is any less powerful than the one said every morning by every child across America.