SUPREME COURT CHICKENS OUT
Atheist dad can't sue over Pledge

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

The Supreme Court today at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said.

Click here for the rest.

As much as I wanted a ruling on this, I think that the Supreme Court was right not to hear the case: Newdow is simply not an interested party inasmuch as that he apparently doesn't have full custody of his daughter; therefore, he can't sue. I can almost hear a collective sigh of relief coming from the Court on this--I'm sure they're scared as hell of doing the right thing.

From my non-lawyer point of view, it seems completely clear that compelling students to verbally verify the existence of a supreme being is a rank violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. Hell, I believe in God, myself, but it really pissed me off to have to lead my students in a pledge to God every goddamn day. This sort of thing goes way beyond any trivial "in God we trust" statements found on money and whatnot. Enforced recitation of the pledge amounts to coerced belief in God, and that's just plain unAmerican.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$