Lately, I've been biting my tongue on the whole 'under God' pledge controversy. A lot of people seem very confident that the Supreme Court will overturn the wacky Ninth Circus Court of Appeals once again. I'm not so sure.

As CNN points out, "the words 'under God' were added to the pledge in 1954 through a federal law amid a Cold War push to distinguish the United States from an atheistic Soviet Union." In my opinion, that would seem to be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Clearly the U.S. was trying to put a little religion into our schools to combat communism.

Now don't take this the wrong way. When I was a lad, I was always proud to stand up and say the pledge, and I was never once offended by the words 'under God', nor by anyone's refusal to say them. When I look at it objectively, the whole controversy seems a bit silly and unnecessary. But logic tells me that forcing people to say 'under God' is clearly wrong.

If and when the Supreme Court looks at this ruling, I think it will invariably come down to the act of saying the pledge, and not the words themselves. Is the pledge mandatory, and are atheist children really being 'forced' to pledge allegiance to a flag 'under God'? Is being able to opt out of saying the pledge, or the words 'under God', enough of an out to overturn the ruling? Clearly there are some coercive effects in a schoolyard situation, and the PC police will naturally argue that it creates tension and a hostile learning environment. What the Supreme Court will decide, however, is anyone's guess.

In the rule of law though, it would seem as though the atheists have a pretty solid argument.