As you may have read, Michael Newdow has received a positive judgment on his claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional in its current form. Specifically, it is the "under God" part that he objects to. Newdow had previously been able to take his suit as far as the Supreme Court, but the claim was dismissed becuase he did not have legal guardianship of his daughter, who attends public school in California. This time, he is working on behalf of three parents. Now his case goes to the Ninth Circuit, and thence, possibly, back to the Supreme Court. I've also read that a Virginia judge recently dismissed a similar suit, saying that although "under God" is religious, it is part of something that is a patriotic tradition and not religious in and of itself. I removed the phrase "under God" myself when I was in the fifth grade, of my own free will. But many kids don't think about these things, nor are they encouraged to, so they simply say the whole pledge because the school leads them through it. I believe that it is wrong for a public school to lead the pledge with "under God" in it. I further believe that the entire Pledge of Allegiance is an anti-democratic practice. It is practiced in rote, without meaning, and very, very few students know that they are not legally obliged to even stand for the Pledge, let alone that they are not required to say it. What do you think?