The Supreme Court will hear arguments today in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow et al. This is the case in which a parent, Michael Newdow, managed to get some federal judges in California to rule that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it includes the words “under God.” The argument is that the pledge violates the First Amendment restriction against the establishment of an official religion by Congress.

It’s unclear to us that Mr. Newdow even has standing to pursue his claim. As the school district points out in its brief, Mr. Newdow doesn’t have legal custody of the child in the class where the pledge was being said. The child’s

mother does, and she has no problem with the practice. As for the child herself, the school district says the student is a Christian who regularly attends church, believes in God, and has no problem with the pledge.

If the high court goes ahead anyway and rules on the constitutional issues at stake, it will have to deal with arguments that the solicitor general of America, Theodore Olson, has put forth on behalf of the Bush administration and the Congress that in 1954 decided to add the words “under God” to the pledge in order to mark the distinction between America and the godless Soviet Union.

As Mr. Olson argues in his brief, “When read as a whole, the Pledge is reasonably understood, not as establishing a state religion, but as celebrating and affirming the Nation and the historical forces and ideals that formed its unique character.…The Pledge is not a prayer or other type of overt religious exercise, and its reference to ‘one Nation under God’ is not sacred text. Like singing the National Anthem or memorizing the Gettysburg Address, reciting the Pledge is a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.”

What Mr. Newdow and his allies are trying to do, Mr. Olson argues, is “transform the Establishment Clause from a principle of neutrality into a mandate that religion be shunned.” The solicitor general’s brief says, “the First Amendment prohibits only the ‘establishment’ of religion; it does not command complete estrangement.”

Thanks to an earlier Supreme Court case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, no school can compel students to say the pledge. Students may be quiet, remain seated, or even say the whole pledge without the words “under God.” It’s hard for us to see how this amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

The case has implications for New York. Here in New York City, as the schools chancellor, Joel Klein, recently reminded principals, “The Department of Education requires all public schools to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day and at all school-wide assemblies and school events.” His memo further noted that “participation in the pledge of allegiance is entirely voluntary and no student or staff member shall be subject to discipline, retaliation or ostracism for not participating.” And he noted that “students or staff who choose not to participate may either stand or remain seated while maintaining a respectful silence.” So a decision in the Elk Grove case could either validate or strike down the practices followed in New York City public schools.

As the Olson brief notes, those who find the presence of the words “under God” unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance might well also find unconstitutional the language in the New York State Constitution. That constitution states in its preamble: “We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this constitution.”

As much as we believe the justices should leave the pledge alone, we recognize as well that for parents and students who do not share the religious beliefs of the majority, this can be a difficult, indeed, heart-wrenching issue. One reasonable way to handle the situation would be with school vouchers and charter schools that would give to parents of all religious persuasions far greater choice as to where to send their youngsters to school and under what auspices.

One irony of this case is that the same liberal advocacy groups that are in court siding with Mr. Newdow — the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League — have been opposing at the same court the school vouchers that would make it easier for him to send his daughter to a school where she wouldn’t have to listen to a pledge that refers to the very God in which she believes.