Under God: An excellent essay by Leon Wieseltier in TNR takes on the Newdow case recently argued before the Supreme Court (transcript not up yet). He is unsparing in his treatment of those who would push ceremonial deism only as a means to keeping religion in the public sphere:

For the argument that a reference to God is not a reference to God is a sign that American religion is forgetting its reasons. The need of so many American believers to have government endorse their belief is thoroughly abject. How strong, and how wise, is a faith that needs to see God's name wherever it looks? (His name on nickels and dimes is rather damaging to His sublimity.)

But he's not ready to make either Newdow or atheism his god:

I do not mean to exaggerate the virtues of Michael Newdow: There was something too shiny about him, too dogmatic about his opposition to other people's dogmas. Atheists can be as mindless as theists. From his comments at the Supreme Court, there was no way to tell how thoughtful Newdow's arguments against theism are, or even what they are. And when Newdow insisted that there is some injury to him when his daughter "is asked every morning to say that her father is wrong" by praying in class, because "the government says there is a God and her dad says there isn't," he failed to grasp one of the ends of education, which is to make children unlike their parents.

There is much to disagree with in the article, from both sides. But Wieseltier has performed a valuable service. He has written something compelling about a wholly idiotic case. I had until now shrugged my shoulders and chuckled that the case would even be heard. There's an argument to be made here for the "hidden" law of society, which would say, yes, "under god" is silly, but it's enough to keep the religionists happy, so long as we never point out how meaningless it is. In other words, there is no merit, I think, to Newdow's case that incidental exposure to god is injurious. (Recall that one can opt out of the pledge.) Nor is there any merit, really, to keeping god in the pledge, or to keeping "In God We Trust" on our currency. But Newdow, like the religionists, wants the government to tell him that he's right, or at least as right as anybody else.