A controversial debate is ongoing in America regarding the national pledge of allegiance. Exactly fifty years since the phrase "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, an atheist Michael Newdow is questioning the validity of the phrase and considers it to be unconstitutional. Newdow objects to the invocation of God in the pledge and has stated that he does not want his nine-year-old daughter exposed to the phrase "under God."

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a court hearing today and many supporters of the phrase including students, college professors, and Christian advocate groups are voicing their opinions in defence of pledging allegiance to "one nation under God."

The 'Knights of Columbus' a Roman Catholic men's organisation based in New Haven, Connecticut with about 1.7 million members, has filed a brief in the case in defence of the phrase 'Under God' into the pledge. The organisation was actively involved in the original petitioning to President Eisenhower and Congress for changes back in 1954 for the pledge's original adoption.

The group's brief is that with the exception of George Washington's second inaugural address in 1789 "every single presidential inaugural address includes references to God, whether as a source of rights, of blessing to the country, or of wisdom and guidance. If reciting the pledge is unconstitutional simply because it refers to a nation 'under God,' then reciting the Declaration of Independence ... is surely cast in doubt."

The brief points out that the Bush administration has filed in defence of the pledge, and the phrase is an indicator of patriotic acknowledgments of "the nation's religious history" and of the "undeniable historical fact that the nation was founded by individuals who believed in God," which is an empirical statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and state.

A report by the House of Representatives states "Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp." (In a 1954 letter, President Dwight D. Eisenhower thanked the Knights of Columbus for its role: "These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.")

According to a brief filed by the Christian Legal Society, a group of lawyers, judges and professors, the words "under God" support the concept of limited government and serves as a reminder that the "government is not the highest authority in human affairs" because "inalienable rights come from God."

However, according to an 'Associated Press' report, the Supreme Court may simply choose to sidestep the church-and-state dispute as they have an easy way out in the fact that Newdow who brought the original suit against his daughter's school system, did not actually have custody of her at the time. And since under American law a non-custodial parent cannot sue without the custodial parent's consent, the court could summarily dismiss his case.

The custodial parent Sandra Banning, a born-again Christian, has told the justices hearing the case that her daughter has no objection to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, nor with reciting it along with her classmates in school. And since Banning and Newdow, who were never married, are embroiled in a bitter custody dispute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Newdow had a legal standing to sue on his daughter's behalf in the first place.