The U.S. Supreme Court did its country a great disservice Monday by refusing to rule on the constitutionality of the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Say what you will about the “activist judges” of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, at least it had the backbone to do something wholly unpopular to try to correct one of our country’s mistakes.

When the 9th Circuit ruling was first announced, our own Sen. Chuck Grassley weighed in on the situation. After calling the ruling “crazy,” Grassley went on to say, “This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election.”

Perhaps this is the reason why the U.S. Senate passed 99-0 a resolution in support of the pledge. However, the overwhelming support for the words “under God” will never make them permissible.

When President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act to revise the pledge, he essentially married our country to God when he proclaimed, “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

Clearly the original intentions of adding “under God” have been forgotten and twisted into something which is harmless, and as such, ridiculous to contest.

The federal government never denied the intentions of the revision of the pledge in 1954. The sole purpose of adding “under God,” 62 years after it was originally written, was to further distinguish us for the godless Commies with whom we were at war. We wanted to send a clear message that we were a country of God-fearing citizens, nothing like the atheists of the Soviet Union. Fortunately, the Cold War has ended. Isn’t it time to remove the words which now serve no purpose but to alienate atheists of this country?

Well, the Supreme Court didn’t think so. Instead of ruling on the issue, they sidestepped it altogether claiming Michael Newdow didn’t have the legal authority to bring the case because he doesn’t have custody of his daughter. Newdow is currently in a custody battle with his ex-wife.

Outside of the realm of early education, people like me are ridiculed for our stance on the issue. When the 9th Circuit ruled on the issue, its decision was met childishly at best. Simple disagreement was not present. Members of our federal government antagonized the judges by calling their ruling crazy, outrageous, nuts, and stupid.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) epitomized our country’s inappropriate outrage when he said, “I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid. That’s what he is, stupid.”

As a journalist, I’ve found that when people don’t have any good way of disputing someone’s position on an issue, they resort to name-calling.

If adults who are supposed to be distinguished representatives of our country react this way about the Pledge of Allegiance, the social pressure to conform in this respect in early education must be a hundred-fold.

In the end, what good comes from this? Why is it so important to keep these words in the pledge? Proposing the removal of “under God” is not an attack on religion. Relocating a statue of the Ten Commandments away from a courthouse rotunda is not an attack on religion. Why do so many vehemently resist these kinds of changes?

The same people who condemn gays and lesbians for putting their sexuality in everyone’s face will not hesitate to squeeze their private religion into every nook and cranny of the public sector. Remember being asked if you “agree with Dave?” Well, I don’t agree with Dave and would appreciate a conscious effort to keep private religious matters exactly that — private.