Ever since the Supreme Court decided to hear atheist Michael Nedrow’s now-infamous challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, a firestorm of sound and fury (signifying nothing, of course) has predictably erupted once more over two baneful words — “under God.”

As if the foundations of the nation itself were under attack, politicians could be counted on to defend our nation in the only way they knew how — ostentatiously standing out upon the steps of the Capitol and reciting the Pledge with a noticeable emphasis under the verboten phrase.

Their reaction can hardly be faulted as unique — all over the country, ordinary Americans are reacting as if Nedrow’s challenge is to the core of America’s values, with nearly nine out of 10 respondents in an Associated Press poll saying that the Pledge should not be changed.

One has to wonder what makes such a triviality capable of producing so much emotional outcry, unless of course individuals believe the nation itself would collapse were a public endorsement of an ontological entity removed from an indoctrination pledge.

Such reactions betray an ignorance of the Pledge’s more ignominious origins — or the relatively recent introduction of the now-controversial phrase.

Although many people are already aware of the fact that the words “under God” were added to the pledge by Congress at the behest of the Knights of Columbus (a religious organization) in 1954 in order to distinguish America from the officially atheist communist states, few know that Congress explicitly justified such a reference to “acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism,” as stated in the original legislation.

The words “under God” were directly intended to distinguish the United States not simply as a Christian people but as a Christian nation as a sharp rebuke of atheism and communism.

But more importantly, it is questionable how many people would so ardently defend the pledge were they to know its true origins.

The pledge itself was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and radical socialist who had been driven out of his congregation the prior year for preaching such gems as “Jesus the Socialist” and “The Socialism of the Primitive Church.”

His intent in writing the Pledge was clear — to create not only a vehicle for civic education among the youth, but to create a form of public prayer — a loyalty pledge to the state.

Bellamy’s original wording — which he later reconsidered for being too extreme — ended with the words, “With liberty, equality, fraternity for all” — a clear indication of what he had in mind for pledge.

Curious, then, why those who don’t share Bellamy’s same dream of a socialist utopia stand so strongly for keeping its textual integrity unless their dream of a public paean to the state (and in the same utterance, God) is the same.

Will the nation fall apart if a snowball’s chances in hell prevail and the Court rules in favor of Nedrow?

Unlikely, as history bears out. In 1943, when jehovah’s Witnesses objected to mandatory recitation of the Pledge on the grounds they viewed it as idolatry (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette), Justice Jackson had this to say in the 8-1 decision:

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

Justice Jackson’s words are just as true today as they were 81 years ago, despite society’s collective short-term memory deficit. Yet if proponents of the Pledge feel it an important part of civic education, far better documents exist than a loyalty oath remarkably similar to that of the Soviet Union.

One piece in particular comes to mind: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”