Whatever it may mean to different people, it is an important part of American culture.

Well, on some level, so is Al Capone, but...

I don't have any kids, but I post my response here as a kindred spirit (ha! irony!) with the gent who is the plaintiff in this case.

The estimates vary quite a bit, but it seems like something between 5%-10% of folks in the US fall under the umbrella of atheist or "no-specific-deist-belief". More reliable estimates may be hard to come by because, IMO, many folks who are in this ballpark, belief/nonbelief-wise, are reluctant to categorize themselves in this regard. In turn, I think there are many reasons for that, whether it is a personal discomfort with the notion of being an atheist or a more pragmatic reason ("conservative senator's aide exposed as an atheist!!" read all about it). I have friends with kids who are *functionally* atheists, but who essentially keep a very low profile on this --- lest neighbors forbid their children from playing together among other reasons.

The old ecumenical/assimilationist rejoinder is that we should "respect other people's beliefs". Well, I don't think it works that way. It's downright hard to respect somebody's beliefs when you find them extremely puzzling and hard to fathom. So, I guess the more realistic behavior is to respect other people's right to maintain those beliefs as long as they don't try to injure you and or annoy you with those beliefs.

I somehow seriously doubt that the plaintiff in this case goes from door to door on Saturday mornings trying to convert his neighbors to atheism or that he leaves atheistic leaflets under people windshield wipers. If his life as a parent is close to what I have observed, he probably spends a lot of time talking with his daughter about the beliefs and church-going habits of her schoolmates and struggles with how he'll react if and when his daughter decides that she wants to go to church, too. He is surrounded by a lot of mass culture that he finds pretty alien -- he watched "Touched By An Angel" once then got roaring drunk just for fun. So, maybe he isn't going to go try to convert the neighbors or Kill His Television, but is there a reason he has to abide state-sponsored "under-godness" when one of the great virtues of this system of government is supposed (distinctly un-Taliban) separation of church and state?

Anyhow, my hat's off to him. he probebly didn't make many friends. And, for folks who find the ruling objectionable, you can just relax!! With this Supreme Court in this year's United States, the ruling doesn't stand a chance.

I watched a little local news story about the ruling. They interviewed a woman who said - and I quote - "There are just so many people in this world who are blind. We need God in our schools...". Lady, if you are out there reading this, please mark this atheist down as highly offended by your statement. (Although, I formed the strong impression that almost anyone who didn't belong to this woman's denomination might qualify as "blind" and can sign up to be offended, too!)

Anyhow, I submit that it was people like this sanctimonious, ignorant slut who successfully sought to insert "under god" in 1952 and this could be a *big* reason why some folks, myself included, would be pleased to see it go away.