The Pledge

...was ruled unconstitutional again today. The Supreme Court already ruled on this one, but not really: They ducked the actual question at hand by ruling that the claimant didn't have a right to sue. Therefore, the claimant resubmitted his suit, properly this time, and got the same result from the same federal court who ruled the pledge unconstitutional the last time. No surprises.

I was really on the fence about this, feeling that "One nation, under God" was really far to generic and nonspecific to be seen as a government sponsored endorsement of any religion, but then I read this paragraph, and realized that I had kind of missed the point:

"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists.'"

OK. I get it now. I'm still not 100% against the "One nation, under God" line, but I certainly can see why it is a problem (constitutionally) and should be removed.