The Supreme Court, with equal measures of wrong-headedness and cowardice, overturns the Circuit Court's decision on the pledge on the grounds that Newdow doesn't have standing: The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state. The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge. The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her. The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. No need to "sidestep the broader questions." Let's face them head on. Solicitor General Ted Olson is right that forcing children to recite a pledge which describes our nation as "under God" is comparable to putting "In God We Trust" on the money. We shouldn't be doing that either. But compelling our children daily to recite a pledge distinguished our god-loving and divinely-beloved nation from the godless heathen communisits is particularly outrageous.