The Pledge Case
I'm interested to see how this whole Pledge of Allegiance Case shakes out. Michael Newdow is the Atheist parent who brought the case and is also arguing it in front of the Supreme Court. From the article in today's Post it seems like the Justices aren't all that sympathetic to Newdow's point of view. I personally tend to agree with this:

U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson offered the court a variety of reasons to overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling. He noted that "the ceremonial rendition" of the pledge, including "under God," is not a prayer or "religious invocation."

Rather, he said, it is a "descriptive" phrase, "an acknowledgment of the religious basis of the framers of the Constitution, who believed not only that the right to revolt, but that the right to vest power in the people to create a government . . . came as a result of religious principles."

I think the Pledge itself is kind of silly. That is what is great about this country: we aren't required to pledge allegiance to anything. I could pledge allegiance to my shoes if I wanted to, and while people might find that rather odd, its not like I would get hauled away in shackles for it (well maybe a straight jacket, though).

But it seems to me that he framers were God-fearing men who didn't want to establish an "official" national religion, but didn't seem to have any problems acknowledging God. So I don't have a problem with it either...I mean, as long as its only a Christian God were talking about, or maybe Judeo too. (Just kidding.)