The other day I noted my objection to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.  I don't hold this view that strongly nor is it something I feel is particularly important to settle.  My main concern was that lawmakers seemed to be emotionally overreacting on this issue instead of treating it as a legitimate test of the constitutionality of blending church and state.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled, and they essentially wimped out.  The case was dismissed because the plaintiff, Dr. Michael Newdow, did not have sufficient custody of his daughter to represent her in this action.  They did not speak to the central issue of whether a national tradition like the Pledge of Allegiance could or should contain references to religious deities.

So be it.  I imagine this will merely open the door to another challenge at a later time.  Perhaps it is just as well, we hardly need another issue to divide the country right now, and this would have been far from the most important...