Thanks to the war in Iraq, a very important lawsuit that had previously been on the front pages threatens to slip under the nation's radar. With all the talk of liberty being thrown around and with all the discussion of what it means to be a dissenting American, it is vital that an open dialogue be established on this issue.I am talking about the suit brought by Michael Newdow, who was very unhappy that his daughter's class said the Pledge of Allegiance, since he is an atheist. He does not feel it is constitutional to recite something that describes our nation as being "under God" in a public school, due to the mandated separation of church and state.

In June, a three-judge panel from the 9th District U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with him. They decided that public school systems under their jurisdiction should no longer recite the Pledge -- in its current form - collectively in their classes. The congressional reaction was instantaneous, fiery and indignant. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said, "Of course, we are one nation, under God." And after their passing of a 99-0 resolution in support of the Pledge, it was clear his counterparts in the Senate feel the same way.

At the end of February, the same court refused a request by the Bush administration to reconsider. This means the case could be headed to the Supreme Court.

It is absolutely vital this ruling be upheld. What is most frustrating about this issue is that no one on the pro-Pledge side has really given a coherent argument. Sure, there has been plenty of passion and plenty of indignant, self-righteous posturing. But no one has actually explained why schoolchildren in a country that is supposed to have a clear, impregnable demarcation between religion and public institutions should be reciting a pledge that mentions God.

Since the Pledge is so ingrained in our collective consciousness, no one feels the need to explain it. People intentionally overlook the fact that "under God" was added in 1954. This was when our entire nation was acting completely irrational - due to the fear of the Red Menace - and wanted nothing more than to distance themselves from Godless Communism.

Those who think the ruling so odious may not see the need to defend their beliefs in a cogent, logic-based way, but I do. The first step is to realize there is nothing harmless in the two little words, "under God." But imagine a second-grader whose class recites the pledge every morning. Are his views on God at this larval stage in his spirituality anywhere near developed enough to question something everyone else in his class is eagerly reciting?

More importantly, is it right for him to be exposed to any view on God, no matter how popular, in a public school? How is it any of the school's business to explain under what deity or deities (if any) his nation lies? What possible argument is there in which the benefits outweigh the constitutional and ethical issues?

It is very worrisome - not to mention irritating - when one of our two legislative bodies can vote unanimously for something and members of Congress can only explain their views through trite, ultimately meaningless statements like, "Of course, we are one nation, under God."

Now, given our leaders' reluctance to make any modification to the Pledge of Allegiance, I might be going too far by addressing the Pledge as a whole. Believe me when I say that I would be more than satisfied if this current decision is upheld. But I really do not think it will be. Nonetheless, while we are on the topic, there is no harm in looking at what the Pledge means, with or without the two words in question.

Put bluntly, it is a bad idea. The notion of pledging allegiance to a flag is dangerous. A flag represents a nation and nations can change. The United States is supposed to stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does it?

Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different answers. The point is, by pledging allegiance to a flag, one is depriving oneself of the ability to think freely and to put one's energy into ideals rather than nationalities. I would have no problem pledging allegiance to the causes of freedom, equality or justice - each term has a dictionary definition that I happen to agree with. Each term represents an ideal that is constant and clear in meaning.

Countries, on the other hand, are unreliable. Even if "under God" was taken out, I would personally feel uncomfortable reciting the Pledge of Allegiance simply because nothing as fickle as a nation deserves my undying loyalty.