Now I know that the end is near.

Currently in litigation - in United States Supreme Court - is the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow 02-1624. This case was filed by 49-year-old Californian and life-long Atheist Michael Newdow, who feels that the Pledge of Allegiance, which by the way was written in February, 1892 by Francis Bellamy and James Upham, should not contain the words, "Under God." He feels that having those words in the Pledge breaches the figurative wall separating church and state. "There's a principle here and I'm hoping the court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all."

This is not the first case of this type filed by Newdow. In fact, he once attempted to file suit against the government to try and have the words, "In God We Trust" removed from all U.S. currency - that suit didn't even make it to trial.

This one went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now I know that the end is near.

Before the nine Justices of the highest court in our nation is a case that will decide whether millions of public schoolchildren may continue to do what tens of millions of schoolchildren have done before them - recite the Pledge of Allegiance the way it has been recited since 1954 when the words, "Under God" were added by Congress and President Eisenhower at the urging of the Knights of Columbus. On one side of the table is Newdow, and on the other side is Bush Administration Lawyer Theodore Olson - whose primary argument in this case is that the Pledge, "reflects America's religious heritage."

Wow.

While I understand that everyone has the right to file a lawsuit, and everyone has the right to their own opinions, feelings and beliefs - I cannot understand how this case made it as far as it did. In other words, I feel, for a number of reasons, that this case should have been thrown out of court faster than you can say, "And to the Republic for which it stands."

First of all, when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed in 1954, that took some serious legislation and a lot of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus - not a federal lawsuit. Second, Newdow's claim is that his eight-year-old daughter should not have to hear the words, "Under God" at school. While I am sure she understands what God is, do you think she understands the pledge in general and what she is really reciting? When I was in school and I recited the Pledge every school day for at least 8 years, I knew the words I was saying - but did not really know what they meant. Do you think as an eight-year-old I knew that I was basically saying, through the Pledge of "Allegiance" - that I was taking an oath and declaring my undying support for my country?

Did you?

It's like the childhood song "Ring Around The Rosie." Do you think that when kids sing that song they know that they are singing a song written about the effects of the Plague? Basically, the first line of the song is about the red sores infected people would get (Ring around the rosey). The second line was about how the sores would smell so badly that infected people had to place flowers somewhere inconspicuously on their bodies so that it would cover the smell of the sores (a pocket full of posies). And the last line was describing the people who died from the Plague who had to be burned to reduce the possible spread of the disease (Ashes, ashes, we all fall down!). So if a child doesn't understand that they are singing about a horrible disease, how can they possibly understand what "One Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all" means?

I certainly hope that the Justices of the United States Supreme Court do the American thing and politely thank Mr. Newdow for his concerns and opinions...

...and then dismiss his case.

God Bless America.