Protected by one big god-sized umbrella: The Supremes (minus Scalia, due his gasp! recusal) are set to hear arguments on whether the phrase "Under God" belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge volleys up the phrase "one nation, under god" as though god were some giant US umbrella protecting us from rain, snow, sun, and injustice while delivering "liberty."

Maybe the phrase should read: "One nation, under god, however you define it." But then that may be admitting the country has a drinking problem. Were Scalia to actually be hearing this case, he and his buddy Thomas should have no choice but to focus on original intent, since they seem to adhere to a strictly literal reading of the Constitution. As for original intent, the Pledge was originally written without "under god." The Knights of Columbus pushed during the Eisenhower era. Since the K of C was so heavily involved, one can speculate that the god in question is the Catholic kind, since that may have been their intent. Therefore Scalia and Thomas would have to vote against it to be in any way consistent.

No matter how the Supremes vote on this one, we do need a Constitutional amendment to define "god" in narrow Judeo-Christian terms and need to change our money to say: "In Creator we trust."

|