Yep (via Instapundit):

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.

The court will hear the case sometime next year.

And if they rule in accordance with the law, which is their job, it is patently obvious that the 9th Circuit's ruling should stand.

Here's the opposing argument:

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor general Theodore Olson told the court. It is far-fetched to say such references post a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson wrote.

Bullshit.

Our religious heritage is one of plurality and freedom from religious persecution. It's one of the most important rights in the Constitution, right there in the First Amendment, that the government doesn't play favorites with religious beliefs, including whether or not there's a god. Our religious heritage is about guaranteeing that anybody in this country can believe any damned thing they want.

But the Pledge doesn't say, "I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, founded predominantly by people who believed in god, but some who didn't, a nation in which most people believe in god, but some believe in many gods, and others don't believe in any god at all, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

That would be an "official acknowledgement of our religious heritage".

The atheist who filed the suit said this:

"Those who deny the existence of a supreme being have been turned into second class citizens by a government that continuously sends messages that 'real Americans' believe in God," Newdow told the justices in his appeal.

Amen.


Update: The story is currently the lead on the CNN website, which leads with this paragraph:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case involving whether schoolchildren can be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance voluntarily, putting a family's custody dispute at the forefront of a constitutional legal battle. (emphasis mine)

What utter bullshit. The case is most certainly not about whether schoolchildren can be allowed to recite the Pledge voluntarily.

It is about whether or not representatives of the state should be leading schoolchildren in recitations of the Pledge.

Get your fucking facts straight, CNN.