Follow-up: As I figured, quite a furor was caused by a Federal Appeals Court decision that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. Bipartisan condemnation of this decision seems to be the trend of the day, ranging from "This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok" (Republican Senator Christopher Bond) to "Just nuts" (Democratic Senator Tom Daschle). However, I do think that it was particularly cheesy to hear that House members gathered on the Capitol steps to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance; that's almost as bad as their horrible rendition of "God, Bless America" after 9/11.

The Federal Appeals Court basically disagreed with a lower court's ruling that "the ceremonial reference to God in the pledge does not convey endorsement of particular religious beliefs." Once again, I agree with this statement and see no reason why it should have been overturned.

On a related topic, a CNN interview with the litigant that brought suit in the first place shows how myopically he views the world. When asked whether "In God we trust" should be removed from all U.S. currency his reply was "Absolutely." He also admitted his daughter was not ostracized in school for being an atheist or not reciting the Pledge, but that "My daughter is in the lawsuit because you need that for standing." So the original basis for the suit is not even valid. Hmmm....