under whose god?

I've been reading some more about the Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case, concerning the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, now being heard by the Supreme Court.

I myself waver between agnostic and atheistic views. I do think that mentions of God on our currency, in our courts, and in the Pledge are divisive, since they exclude those who explicitly do not believe in a higher power or being. Additionally, although the argument has been made that "God" does not necessarily refer to the Judeo-Christian God, I think it is implicit. Yes, Allah is just an Arabic word for God, but if I were Muslim, I might not necessarily accept that the "God" that the US government refers to is the same as my God. If I were Hindu or Daoist, I might wonder if monotheism were being thrust upon me.

That having been said, I was a little worried about this case. Earlier media coverage seemed to portray Dr. Newdow as a fanatic, who would not be capable of arguing the case rationally. When Dr. Newdow, an ER doctor who passed the bar exam 2 years ago, decided to argue the case himself, my fears seemed justified. A Reverend Lynn, director of an organization dedicated to the separation of church and state, asked to speak before the court, because he also feared that Dr. Newdow would not do an adequate job of presenting the case. Looks like we were all wrong.

According to law.com:

Newdow showed he had mastered the case and his emotions, making a forceful presentation that could teach veterans some new argument tactics.

Newdow, in a risky maneuver, had asked Scalia to recuse because of a speech he gave last year that appeared to tip his hand on the Pledge case. Without Scalia, who usually dominates questioning during oral argument, Newdow and the other advocates spoke for unusually long stretches of time without interruption.

"She does have a right not to participate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. Newdow quickly replied that in the 1992 graduation prayer case Lee v. Weisman, the Court had found the atmosphere in schools "coercive" for students who might otherwise not participate.

Newdow was also quick to respond when Rehnquist tried to counter his point that the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge was divisive. What was the vote in Congress in 1954 to include the words? Rehnquist asked. It was unanimous, said Newdow. "That doesn't sound divisive," Rehnquist said, and Newdow shot back, "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office."

I was a little confused by the last exchange, until I discovered that apparently, eight states still have laws barring atheists from holding office.

Sounds like Dr. Newdow just might know what he's doing. Unfortunately for him, and for us, it probably won't matter, given the right-wing tilt that this country has taken in the past few years.