Reading Dan and Amy Penird's hysterical letter about Michael Newdow's case against the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, one is misled into thinking that Mr. Newdow is simply an anti-American crusader bent on preventing a patriotic recitation by children.

Of course this is patently false, but it is noteworthy that the Penird's letter - as well as the Web site to which they direct you - do not make any mention of the crux of Newdow's argument.

Mr. Newdow is in fact making an effort to return the pledge to its original form; that is, without the “under God” pledge which was capriciously inserted by the government in the '50s as a deliberate “poke” at the Soviet Union, which had configured itself as anti-organized religion (if only to replace all the existent churches with a substitute “religion” in form of the “cult of Stalin”).

Newdow's methods of making his point, it should be noted, has been decried by several atheist organizations as unnecessarily distracting and picayune, but the point he's trying to make is that the insertion of this phrase is:

� no longer necessary in light of world politics;

� decidedly not representative of the diversity of contemporary American belief systems, which include increasing numbers of nonbelievers, and

� against the original form and intent of the original author.

It is sad that the court did not have the moral courage to make an unpopular but ultimately correct decision, but that is increasingly becoming the case and the price America is paying for the current administration's kowtowing to the Religious Right. I, for one, will not be signing that petition.

Karl Logan

Auburn