The Supreme Court last week announced that it would hear an appeal of the controversial decision of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the "Pledge of Allegiance" case (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.) The court's involvement will settle this particular issue, but it will do little to close the chasm between the two sides on the broader question of the role God is allowed to play in public life.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that Newdow probably lacked legal standing to bring his case in the first place (he did not have custody of the child whose recitation of the pledge so aggrieved him), we still are left to wrestle with the question of how much religion is too much in the village square.

Without reviewing the full libraries of each of the Founding Fathers, it is difficult to assess what role religion played in each of their lives. It does, however, seem clear that the pressing issue with most was that the government should not be in the business of establishing a state-mandated religion, nor in infringing a citizen's right to practice his or her faith. This is, after all, what the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Italics added for emphasis by this writer.)

Ever since Madalyn Murray O'Hair successfully drove prayer out of the public schools, there has been a tremendous amount of energy spent by opponents of organized religion to broaden the scope of the first 16 words of the First Amendment. Through well-heeled legal wrangling they have been extremely successful--even if the tortured logic of their opinions left all but legal scholars wondering how common sense got shuffled to the bottom of the judicial deck.

While the separation of church and state is generally agreed upon by all sides as a hallmark of American freedom -- and indeed, necessary for the preservation of both the Union and religion -- at what point will we become mature enough to admit that the right to believe in God also must be respected -- and protected?

We're not talking here about including "Creation Science" in classrooms, demanding a Judeo-Christian prayer be read prior to morning announcements or that the Eucharist be celebrated at lunch on Wednesdays. We're talking, in the specific, about the propriety of students including the phrase "under God" in their largely ceremonial recitation of a few patriotic words at the beginning of class. Broadly, we're asking if a belief in God can be publicly acknowledged at all.

It strikes me as odd that those opposing such an open display of "religion" are so offended by brief reference to a deity that they don't believe exists. Can the mere mention of a supreme being -- the simple entertainment of the idea that something larger than ourselves might exist -- actually be that offensive; that unconstitutional? Is it so dangerous that it must be expunged from our public record?

Students are taught and told many things that individual parents might take issue with -- from evolution to discussions of genocide; reproductive realities to a highly selective American history. In this milieu, how does the phrase "under God" come in for such scrutinized attack?

It seems absurd to me to expend energy on such benign matters. Surely, there must be more egregious violations of personal rights going on somewhere. I think it's safe to assume that most school children are not unduly influenced by use of the expression "under God" as opposed to "from the primordial soup."

I would ask the ACLU, and other sponsors of litigation designed to stamp out any traces of religion, that they re-investigate the First Amendment in its full scope. Does it really leave no room for any public expression of generic religious principle? Unlike the lawsuits brought, such an investigation wouldn't require the expenditure of millions of dollars. It doesn't really even require the wisdom of Solomon -- which is a good thing, because as a Biblical (as well as an historical) figure, he probably can't be allowed into the public realm of discussion.