Opinion
 

Staff Editorial

                            Matt Dulin                             Tony Hernandez 
                Jim Parsons             Dusti Rhodes           Richard Whitrock

One nation?

Fifty years ago Monday, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an order adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. On Monday, the Supreme Court preserved the phrase, at least temporarily, ruling that an atheist did not have the right to challenge it on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter.

The court ruled that Michael Newdow -- who brought suit against his daughter's California school district claiming that it was unconstitutional for the district to lead students in the pledge because it contains "under God" -- does not have the legal authority to speak on her behalf. Newdow and the girl's mother, Sandra Banning, are engaged in a long custody battle; the court said Banning has an equal voice in decisions relating to the child's education.

So, rather than deciding a potentially thorny issue of church and state, the court ruled on a technicality. It's not a victory for those who support "under God," nor is it a defeat for the people trying to strike it from the pledge. It is also not a case of the Supreme Court opting out of a controversial constitutional issue. Rather, the justices rightfully decided that a ruling on the pledge issue should have a firm foundation, and a ruling based on Newdow's questionable right to sue would have laid a shaky one at best.

No matter what your opinion on the matter, it is clear that a decision must eventually be made. The issue has the potential to affect millions of schoolchildren, and the fact that Newdow's case made it to the Supreme Court indicates it is a question of national importance. When a ruling comes, it will likely be the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and controversy.

We have little doubt a case similar to Newdow's will eventually make its way through the courts, and when it does, we hope it is treated with prudence and deliberation. A question of constitutionality like this one deserves nothing less.