Except for minor misspellings of Michael Newdow’s surname, and quoting the “Creator passage” from the Declaration (a declaration of war, by the way, not our Constitution), I thought Steve Skutnik’s commentary on the Pledge (Wednesday, April 7th), covered many issues rather well. However, there’s yet another to consider.

Surely God is nothing if not the centerpiece of sincere religious belief. Thus, when believers are directed to utter the words “under God” in a way that conveys no religious meaning whatever, they gravely diminish the importance of their God. So much so, in fact, that they can be said to be taking their God’s name in vain.

But if recent news accounts are accurate, Mr. Newdow has driven some Supreme Court justices to respond in precisely that way: namely, to assert that the phrase “under God,” when uttered in the Pledge of Allegiance, carries no clear religious meaning of any kind.

Whether this rather widespread opinion prevails or not, one thing is clear: Countless children across the United States have been directed by teachers and other authority figures to “take their Lord’s name in vain” virtually every day since that troublesome and blasphemous phrase was first inserted. That was some 50 years ago.

John W. Patterson

Ames