Any hope for a decisive ruling or for legal coherence regarding the Pledge of Allegiance will need to wait another year.
Soonthe Supreme Court will decide the Newdow case, ruling on whether public-school teachers may include the words “under God” when leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause in a manner that encourages and sometimes demands hostility towards religion.
Representative Jim McDermott wishes not to say “under God” while reciting the Pledge of Allegience, but others may do so, according to their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
Michael Newdow may have become what he purports to fight against: a dogmatic believer in his own moral and intellectual superiority who is blind to the weaknesses in his own position.
With the Locke v. Davey ruling, the Supreme Court majority not only endorsed religious discrimination, they constitutionally sanctioned it.
By publicly displaying the Ten Commandments, weteach thatthat the American legal tradition is fundamentally different from the Mosaic legal code, to which the Ten Commandments belong.
With two decisive decisions that return to Madison”s writings, the Supreme Court could reconstitute its religion jurisprudence, reinvigorating a robust protection for religious liberty.