The ruling -- delivered on Flag Day -- means that the full oath will continue to be recited in the nation's public schools.

Five justices -- led by Justice John Paul Stevens -- said Michael Newdow, the father, did not have legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, a prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."

He added, "Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."

Led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, three other justices said that the Pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

At Newdow's request, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after he had made remarks in a speech critical of the case.

Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees and argued his own case before the high-court justices in March, never married the mother of the child and the two are in a battle over his parental rights.

The mother, Sandra Banning, has said she has no problem with her daughter reciting the full Pledge of Allegiance and argued that Newdow had no right to bring the case.

In his minority opinion, Rehnquist wrote, "To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance."

Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Pledge of Allegiance serves as a prayer in addition to a patriotic oath.

Newdow sued the Sacramento County, California, school district his daughter attended, claiming public recitation by students violated her religious liberty. While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, Newdow said it becomes unconstitutional when students are forced to hear it.

He argued that the teacher-led recitations carry the stamp of government approval. (March arguments before case)

Newdow declared that his daughter would be singled out if she chose not to say the oath, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, he said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

The Bush administration opposed the ban, and Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the pledge is simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

In June 2002, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals drew sharply divided public opinion when it banned the teacher-led Pledge of Allegiance for the nearly 10 million schoolchildren in the nine Western states under its jurisdiction. In striking down the pledge, the judges ruled "the coercive effect of the policy here is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren." (The 2002 ruling)

But the ban was put on hold until the high court issues a final ruling.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (02-1624).

Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Ten years ago, you would have been laughed at if you made the mere suggestion that there would be such blatant challenges to the acknowledgement of G-d in the public square. But then again, who would've known ten years ago that the multinational entertainment-media complex would simultaneously work to aggressively usurp our freedoms and liberties with respect to the issues of copyright and fair use (which have descended into UNfair useLESSNESS)?

But then again . . . L.A., in a capitulation to the ACLU, a few days ago agreed to drop the cross from their symbol.

I've seen the efforts to purge religion from the public discourse and the RIAA-MPAA campaign against consumers' rights as emanating from the same tree -- that is, part and parcel of a larger campaign to purge anything having to do with American character, values and traditions in favor of submerging same to the internationalist, secularist "New World Order."

I tend to agree with you W-B, as emanating from the same tree, which is basically dictating our rights.

The big question for me in this case is what kind of rights does the father have when he is not married to the mother. I wonder if he contributes to the financial responsiblity for his child, and since he is a lawyer, I am imagining he does. But the actual rearing of the child, appears to be the mother's responsibility, and I think the court has said the same thing, that the mother has the say in so far as values and freedom to be religious or not.

Now, is this because the dna from the father is not as important as the bearing the child, the nurturning and care of the child? Just wondering.

The Bush administration opposed the ban, and Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices the pledge is simply a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

I think most people of common sense would have to agree with this statement. I think it should go the other way too, if the child doesn't want to say it then fine.

I feel there's too much emphasis on the words of the pledge instead of their meaning. The idea is to teach children to be proud of their country, to love and respect it.

I'm originally from Canada and in a similar type of pledge we pledge allegiance to god and the bloody queen. I mean I like the old girl but she is just a symbolic figurehead, indicating our past moreso than our future.

The original americans settled here to escape religious persecution and the constitution came along shortly after. It's only natural to mention God in any document. As the president's office says the utterance of God is more of a ceremonial, patriotic gesture..again a reflection of the pride of country based on how we have gotten here to where we are today.

There was no need for this to go to the supreme court. The pledge is an important integral part of any country and shouldn't be used as a political tool by anybody.

W-B wrote : "
Ten years ago, you would have been laughed at if you made the mere suggestion that there would be such blatant challenges to the acknowledgement of G-d in the public square. "

Being forced to take a pledge, acknowledging a deity that you don't believe in, is HARDLY equivalent. You're missing the entire point. Would you be so cynical if the pledge were, "One nation under the RIAA"?

"American character" is a lie. It's this grand idea that we're somehow special because our parents decided to get it on within the borders. Those who cry out about the weakening of "American character" are the same ones who do the weakening.

And "Internationalism" is really the only way we're going to progress as a race. The world is a big place, and the US is hardly a majority. The sooner your religion can adapt and stop being so afraid change, we can all get along.

In conclusion, your attempt to lump together a giant bloated corporation and freethinking "secularist" people only shows ignorance of the situation, and only serves to weaken the resistance. In fact, it's the mixing of religion and government that's equivelent to the RIAA's campaign, not athiest arguments.

Rocknrollwoman, you don't have enough information available to question the father's parenting skills, so your post is based entirely on speculation. Be that as it may, it also has NOTHING to do with the boycott against the RIAA. Both your responses solve nothing, and ultimately undermine our progress.

Pinemikey: "There was no need for this to go to the supreme court. The pledge is an important integral part of any country and shouldn't be used as a political tool by anybody."

A pledge about something you don't agree with, and goes against the supposed foundations of this country? I think that has every right and MORE to go to the supreme court.

Sure I'm an old crank but I just get so sick and tired of people referencing a deity. I'm not the first to think religion is a sickness (or crutch). Just like drugs, alcohol, chocolate and cheetos. Romantic love is mental illness.

Bah humbug

If god feels good, do it. But shut up about it.

Looks like someone has a case of the Mondays.

Jeez, I believe in God but even I know the pledge is a ceremonial commitment you make to the COUNTRY , not necessarily to God. If you don't want to say God , say your Aunt Bertha or something. Again, politizing crap swamping this website.

So we should all have bowed down to one disgruntled parent because he was trying to get "one up" on his X-wife? Give me a break... I think common sense prevailed here.

"One nation under the RIAA"?
Unfortunately it is becoming that way.....

Political correctness is gradually replacing common sense in our government.

Oops..sorry for my ignorance the God reference was added in 1954..but I still feel that uttering the pledge is acknowledging your commintment to the country and your fellow citizens, not necessarily to God. Remember in Oh God with George Burns and John Denver? Good ole George gets on the stand and says "So help me , me"

"Led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, three other justices said that the Pledge does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by the government."

What a bunch of bull. It most certainly does. The phrase "under God" means just what it says. In pledging allegiance to America, being forced to affirm that the nation is "under God" establishes that that nation is "under God" and thus technically violates the separation of church and state.

But does it all really matter all that much? Sure, having to invoke God in the pledge ain't all that big a deal in and of itself... but it most certainly is NOT in spirit of the supposed separation we are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

And before you blast me for being a godless heathen, be certain that I am not a devout worshiper. I may be, then again, I might not be... but THAT fact does not matter. It is nobody's damn business what religion (if any) I practice.
It IS my business (and yours) to fuss when the freedoms we are granted by the Constitution are violated.

Shmoo

Jesus is coming...


hide the weed!

If God is not the source of our inalienable rights, then there's no one left but the state. For the state to be the source of our rights is a scary thought. That is why God, or G-d for our Jewish friends, is an integral part of a free society.

The Court did what it should have done. It followed the law. The Court is not above the Congress. Congress put "under God" in the pledge. The Court is below the Congress in authority. Why? Because Congress has the constitutional authority to remove each and every member of the Court! Therefore the Court should follow the law, not make law.

One of the things Thomas Jefferson fretted over was that it was too difficult to remove judges, and they became a law unto themselves. They enhanced federal power at the expense of state's freedoms. Jefferson was very right. But, historically, we see that those who believed as Jefferson did have largely lost the battle.

If you read the Federalist Papers, it was stated that we should not be "one nation," as the pledge says, because that was federalism. The founders thought of the individual states as nations in their own right, and did not want those rights abridged. But, as I said, Jefferson's side has lost the argument.

We were always and still are under God, but we were not originally meant to be "one nation" in the way we think of the USA today.

Per 'autodidact's' post: This is what I see, hence my earlier points. Just as "the State" views one's rights as being given and taken away on whim (as opposed to the "inalienable rights" as "endowed by our Creator"), so we see the RIAA and their ilk manifesting that type of ideology with respect to their vision of copyright law (that is, hopelessly rigid, exclusivist and absolutist, with the "rights" of consumers being likewise given or taken away at whim).

I am the source of my inalienable rights. So there :~

i'm a godless heathen...so what. I'm proud of it. Religion has been nothing but a method of which power is granted to the few at the demise of the many throughout all of history. The terrorist attacks are no worse than the crusades

You know, I'm sorry but I don't see any link between freedom, american values and the Pledge of Allegiance. To me it's just a bunch of people trying to push their faith on the children of others.

I just wanted to ask those questions to the posters who believe that God is the best source of morale, rights and laws. Since you believe so much in the Word of God, maybe you could help me decide how to follow it.

It is mentioned in "Exodus, chapter 21 verse 7" that I can sell my daughter as a servant. Unfortunatly, there is no price... and it's all pretty old. What's the current value for them in the US ?

Since I'll sell my daughter, I'll need slaves. It's okay, God allows it as written in "The Levitic, Chapter 25, verse 44". I just have to go get them in a foreign country. I'm not american, does it mean I could have any US citizen as a slave ? Or do I still need to go get a Mexican or a Canadian ? The holy book is not very precise about it.

But whatever happens, I'll make sure none of them works on Saturday. "Exodus, chapter 35, verse 2" says that anyone who does so must be killed. I know a lot of people at the local mall that work on Saturday (or even Sunday). Should I carry the divine justice to them next weekend ?

To believe that everything that is good finds its source in God is sketchy and outdated. Western european countries are way more secular than the US, and they show more compassion to the sufferers (better welfare system, health as a basic human right, free schools). As I said in the beginning of this post, God in the Pledge of Allegiance is just proselytism. It's not the last barrier against barbaric secularism.

"The Court is not above the Congress. Congress put "under God" in the pledge. The Court is below the Congress in authority. Why? Because Congress has the constitutional authority to remove each and every member of the Court!"

You know absolutely nothing about constitutional law. Your analysis is 100% wrong.

Read Marbury V. Madison (1803)

I agree with mroop on this one. We have a tri-umvrate (even if I can't spell it correctly, we still have a 3 part govt. Each with theoretical power over the other... kinda like paper scissors rock.)

The Founders meant it to be that way to give some checks and balances to the government.

"Sell me your children" --Jake Blues

That is correct. Checks and balances. Balance of power. All that good stuff!

Marbury V. Madison (1803)
Established that "The Very Essence of Judicial Duty" is Deciding What Laws Conform to The Constitution.

"If courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

So as I said the supreme court doesn't blindly takes orders from the congress. It makes sure those "orders" don't violate the constitution. So even if the congress decides to put the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court can still decide that it violates the constitution and that it is not applicable.

As you said it's all part of the checks and balances. As much as the Supreme Court doesn't sit alone on the top, neither does the congress...

autodidact: "If God is not the source of our inalienable rights, then there's no one left but the state. For the state to be the source of our rights is a scary thought. That is why God, or G-d for our Jewish friends, is an integral part of a free society."

Ok, do you people read what you post before posting it?

Umm, last time I checked, it IS the state that dictates our rights, not your imaginary deity. When's the last time your God came down and made sure that people weren't copying Metallica CDs? I hope my point is self evident, because I'm sick to death of arguing with theists when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

God has nothing to do with society, especially one that has a clearly outlined SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I capitalize, because it seems that theists cannot get this through their head. Belief in a supreme being has NO PLACE IN US POLITICS. The US is screwed up enough without adding religious hypocratsy into the mix.

"G-d for our Jewish friends".... Give me a break...

I enjoyed the people who said that the Pledge should not be used as a political tool. Pine mentioned that Under God was added in 1954. It was added as a political statement in the height of McCarthyism. It was The US against the "Godless communists." It was also the same time that In God We Trust was added to currency. Should our money be a political tool also? Oh, wait... it already is, having bought all of the politicians.

For those that are so adamant about leaving God in the Pledge and on our currency, try this. Take a deep breath and think about the Pledge with the word Allah in place of God. Would it still be some kind of amorphous reference?

Is there any doubt to anybody out there that God is clearly a reference to the Judeo-Christian diety? That clearly makes it a violation of the 1st Amendment and the establishment or promotion of a specific religion.

The only reason that they have remaind in the Pledge and on the currency is because they have never truly be challenged in the courts, and now the courts have cowtowed to the conservatives by not ruling on the case.

The child spends 10 days of every month with the father. To me that shows that he is clearly a substantial part of the family unit, contributes a great deal to the parental and financial raising of the child. The Supreme Court stated that his lack of parental control was the reason for killing the case. They are actually setting a precedent here that any parent with less than full custody cannot seek a hearing before the highest court in the country.

I hate to deviate from the whole RIAA issue, but I'm throwing in my two cents on this.

This country was founded on Christian principles. I could cite the endless references from the Mayflower Compact, to the numerous state constitutions that mention God, to the hundreds of quotes concerning Christianity and the Founding Fathers. But why rehash?

The point is this. There is no "seperation of church and state". It's not in the first amendment. What's in the First Amendment is a protection against a national church, similar to the one that was in England. That is the intent of the First Amendment. It is not to drive God from our lives.

But the last 60+ years, have seen every anti-God group come out and warp that amendment, and Thomas Jefferson's letter using those words (out of context I might add), to further a moraless, self-centered life.

"Seperation" is so overplayed and misused that it's become commonplace. Misuse and incorrect interpretation is how the RIAA has twisted the term piracy into a new meaning. It's how politicians twist everything they say to spin something to their point of view. It's how everything Christian is now degraded and put down, while every other religion is supposed to be tolerated.

Enough already. This coutry has roots steeped in Christianity. Anyone who believes otherwise has not done an intenese look into this country's past.

As for the Court's decision? I could care less. It was dumb enough that a parent without even 50/50 custody was allowed to take up Court resources for this case. It was his opinion, not his daughter's. his daughter admittedly prays to God and doesn't want to stop saying the Pledge? It just shows how self-serving this parent really is.

God and the Pledge? I've got more important things to deal with like the secularist movement and the New World Order.

mroop, which came first, the Constitution, or Marbury v. Madison? Which came first, the Federalist Papers or Marbury v. Madison? I said clearly that Jefferson lost the argument. I believe Jefferson was more correct. The country accepted the Court's ruling, but they might not have done so. The victors write the history.

My position is a minority position. That doesn't mean it is wrong.

Now, as a practical matter, it used to be a very rare thing that the Supreme Court would declare a law unconstitutional. Now it seems a common thing, both in state and federal supreme courts.

So even if we accept Justice Marshall's conclusions about the power of the court, I believe that they are abusing that power. That the balance of power has shifted far too much toward the judiciary -- they feel they can, in effect, write law without consequence. That is just what Jefferson warned about, and it is what I'm complaining about.

"Umm, last time I checked, it IS the state that dictates our rights, not your imaginary deity. When's the last time your God came down and made sure that people weren't copying Metallica CDs? I hope my point is self evident, because I'm sick to death of arguing with theists when they don't have a clue what they're talking about."

NeoDeltaI, the state dictates our rights because God has allowed them the power to do so. This will not always be the case. I will not argue about His existence. When He decides to take control in the affairs of the world, there will be no argument. Until then, you are free to disagree, and as far as I'm concerned, you are free to say the pledge or not say it. That is because I respect your right to your beliefs, and I do not believe in forcing religion on anyone. Nevertheless, the pledge, by law, states that we are a nation under God. If that cramps your style, well, I could say I am sorry, but I'm really not.

For the purposes of argument, let us assume that either there is no God, or that he is absent from the scene, as folks like Jefferson seemed to believe.

Does this mean that belief in God is irrelevant? Would leaders of the state, who control our rights, not act differently if they believed they would face a future Heavenly judgment, compared to leaders who believed they were accountable to no one? This is one of the key differences between our presidents, of whom the vast majority have been believers of some stripe, and people like Mao, or Stalin, or even Saddam (who took on the mantle of religion as a political prop, but no one believes was sincere). If you ever lived under a government of atheists, you would change your philosophy.

No sir, it is YOU who haven't thought this through will sufficient clarity.

this is getting out of control, get a life and stop burdening the courts with bull

I haven't visited this site in a couple of weeks... Anyway.
From the Declaration of Independence
"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"

Rights come from the Creator. Whether it be God, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, or Mother Nature, they come from some form of a supreme being, not the government.

Sfoliver, I do not believe this is a forum for questions of the Law of Moses. You obviously have misread the context. If you have sincere questions about the morality of these laws, I would suggest you take them up with a rabbi of the orthodox persuasion. Perhaps they could explain to you the moral purpose of these statutes in the context of the body of Law given to Israel, and the historical situation in which Israel came to be a nation. In some cases we don't know how some of the laws were intended to be applied, so there is likely some argument. When it comes to Jews and the Torah, there is always argument.

You ask what application these laws have in the United States? None that I can see. In their day, in that cultural ethos, they were relevant. Today, they have no more usefulness than laws about the feudal system.

I personally do not work on the Sabbath day. I find that to be a blessing of God. What you do is up to you.

You can read the Bible intelligently, or you can read it ignorantly. The fact that some people use it ignorantly is not proof of its lack of veracity or usefulness, any more than the fact that some people make errors in mathematics proves that calculus is useless.

What hbkfan said is absolutely true. Although our nation was founded as a Christian nation, it was a non-sectarian, lowest common denominator kind of Christianity. It was Christianity in the broadest sense, that allowed for many variations. They did not mean to abridge the rights of people to worship or not worship as they chose.

Children in this country are not FORCED to say the pledge! Compare that with any godless communist country, where children are not only forced to pledge allegiance to the Great Leader, but brainwashed into believing the Great Leader really has their best interests at heart.

Freedom of expression, as outlined in the constitution, does not mean forced expression, and children are not forced to say the pledge. But if the Court attempts to take the pledge out of schools, it will be an adbridgment of freedom of expression, as enacted by duly elected representatives -- who fixed the wording of the pledge in the first place.

Godless humanists in the West are so lacking in any sense of proportion. If they want to complain about abrigation of rights and the enforcement of worship, then they should be complaining about dictatorships around the world where "worship" of the scumbag dictator is enforced and children are conditioned to honor the leader and only the leader.

The US is not such a place, and if our people continue to believe in unalienable rights granted by the Almighty, it will never be such a place.

"abrogation" not abrigation. Oops. That probably wasn't my only spelling error, either.

"mroop, which came first, the Constitution, or Marbury v. Madison? Which came first, the Federalist Papers or Marbury v. Madison?"

Which came first, slavery for black people or freedom? Which came first, women denied the vote or women being given the right to vote?

I'm not sure what your "which came first" argument has to do with anything. I was simply debunking this statement as false logic:

"The Court is not above the Congress. Congress put "under God" in the pledge. The Court is below the Congress in authority. Why? Because Congress has the constitutional authority to remove each and every member of the Court! Therefore the Court should follow the law, not make law."

Congress is not above or below The Supreme Court.

Completely correct, mroop.

Congress is the legislative branch of our country. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. It is not somehow "below" or "above" another branch of government.

Furthermore, the ability to remove the members of the court is indeed part of the system of checks and balances. The Court has the ability to overrule laws passed by Congress (which is the case, Marbury v. Madison.) That's the balance.

HBKfan's opinion on this is exactly what I would have said. What the heck is neodelta talking about?

:-:~ Phantom

blah blah blah blah. "blah blah blah blah". who give a turd ??? 10/4 flbgbt

I couldn't agree more, flibbertygibbet. I'm hoping that everybody has used up all their piss and vinegar for this thread at least. BTW you have a cool name. It makes you want to pronounce it, knowing you'll probably spit all over yourself trying to do it.

um..
we ARE " one nation, under God." seriously.
We are .. to change it up a bit.."one of many nations, under God".
It's not a declaration (or recognition) of church by the state. Far from it. It's just a patriotic way of saying that we exist under God. No mention of "one nation ruled by God".. or "one nation, one church"I know it's not a popular thing to say right now, but I pray, and I pray daily. I'm selfish when I pray, or I'm generous, but I still pray. Does it matter? Not to anyone but me and God. Does it harm anyone? NOPE.
This whole issue is one of many that has offended me in the past few years as a symptom of a much greater disease. Too many people are taking things out of context, using their own personal interpretation of ..."insert topic here"... and using the courts to make sure that everyone else is FORCED to think the same way.This disease is manifesting itself in race relations, politics, sexual preference and even child rearing.
Do you worship God? G-d? Buddha? Allha? Mohammed? Ganesha? Do I care? nope. It's about whatever keeps you warm at night. It's about whatever you feel YOU need to get you through the daily grind.
I have no problems with this ruling. The complainant had his day in court, and he lost. He's not a custodial parent, and so he shouldn't have any standing. So what if he contributes money or whatever to her upbringing? He does not have the legal right to speak for her. That's the law.
I think that some of the quotes from the Bible here are taken out of context, both chronologically and logically. The quotes mentioned were rules for the nation of Israel (as translated from the time they were handed down. Scholars disagree on when exactly that was). They were God's rules for Israel, not the United States, or the Repubic of China, or ..hrmm.. what is Canada?
seriously.. is it the Republic of Canada?No offense to any Canadians.Just a side note.
Anyhow..the "laws" that were discussed were specifically set down for the Israelites, NOT for the entire world or just any group which chooses to read them. Any of us with any common sense can see that. Twist away, but it still doesn' t change this basic fact. That's the contextual problem I have with them being brought up here.
The logical side is simple. These are different times. You hear all the time of laws that have been on the books (secular, US laws mind you) that get used once, and immediatly get struck down. It does happen, it SHOULD happen,if for no other reason than times change, and laws should adapt or be rendered void.
When this whole debacle started, I can remember saying "oh hell, I bet this guy just wants to have his 15 minutes".. just my opinion. I've got more if you don't like these.
ttmmm

I kind of figured this would happen, we needed someone with a stronger basis for the complaint than Newdow had. Speaking as a PAGAN, I find it offensive that every state function I attend is dedicated to the Judeo Christian God. I find it even more offensive that such dedications are usually followed with prayers "In Jesus' Name". I feel like the state officials and the government is declaring that the only religion the state recognizes and supports is Christianity. If you think I'm being too sensitive, try going to a hearing that directly relates to a religion other than Christianity. See how Witches, Hindus, and Buddhists are treated by the city council that just pointedly invoked Jesus Christ as their one true way.

We aren't a nation of one faith. We in fact have 2400 different faiths in this nation, including atheism which recognizes no god. To have our state government, our state functions, our courts, and our legislatures make covert or overt declarations of faith is to set up a government system in which some faiths are excluded at best, persecuted at worst.

I have no problem with private citizens expressing faith publicly, but when the robe of office comes on, when the gavel bangs, when that private citizen steps up to speak as a government official, I would prefer he remain religiously neutral. One does not need to shout his faith from the rooftops to act as his faith dictates.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5

Freedom of religion is just that. FREEDOM. The FREEDOM to do whatever you feel is going to work for you. It is NOT the freedom to force anyone else who doesn't believe the same way you do to NOT declare their choice. If they said " in the name of Jesus, the true and only approved choice of the State" then maybe I'd agree. But they don't. They merely follow a tradition of asking God to bless the meeting. If you don't agree, that's fine. Say a small prayer to whatever deity you choose ( or don't choose).
To say that you want religious freedom, and then USE that freedom to quash others is not just ironic, it's wrong.
I halfway agree with what godless-heathen said. The half in agreement says that yes, the 'robes' of office, be it a business suite or a judges robe, should not be used to create a one dimenisonal forum of support for one God or another. However I'm still not seeing any strong support provided for how just saying "one nation under God" (or a comparable phrase) is FORCING anyone to do anything, or how it is a way the state is doing anything but following a tradition that is time honored and rich in our culture.There has been NO substantial proof offered....that *I* have seen anyhow.. that any freedoms have been denied or stepped on merely by saying the words "in Jesus name Amen". Opinions aside, these words have actually turned into a rote phrase to end a prayer, and a lot of times, it seems the person is just speaking automatically.
We have started the superbowl with prayer. We have started sessions of Congress with prayer. This country was not founded on "exclusive freedom of religion". My belief is that when freedom of religion was established, it meant that you could be a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Methodist, or a Mormon, and not face any prejudice. It has grown into a more general acceptance of groups like Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Wiccans and others. It did NOT (IMHO) mean that a group could say "I don't worship or believe in your deity, so you shouldn't be allowed to publicly state your own position". Freedom is about being able to choose, and it should stay that way. Maybe I'm just not tolerant enough? Yeah, right.
just my opinion...
ttmmm