The Supreme Court’s Monday decision on the Pledge of Allegiance &045; which keeps the phrase &uot;under God&uot; for now &045; had supporters of the pledge cheering, but we predict this isn’t the end of the issue.

The justices skirted the central issue &045; whether the phrase &uot;under God,&uot; added in 1954, is constitutional &045; by ruling on a technicality. The court said the man who brought the case on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter could not legally represent her because of custody issues.

While the court may have been right to rule on the technicality, that doesn’t solve the problem of whether the phrase can be in the pledge in the first place.

Michael Newdow, who sued to have it removed, said the phrase violates the separation of church and state doctrine.

It probably won’t be long before Newdow &045; or someone like him &045; is back before the Supreme Court arguing against the phrase again.

The &uot;under God&uot; addition has a somewhat colorful history, since it was added during the Cold War to distinguish Americans from &uot;godless Communists.&uot; And while that phrase is certainly not the only thing that separates our capitalist society from communism, it was an outward sign during a difficult time.

But the phrase has evolved into a symbol much like the &uot;In God We Trust&uot; motto featured on U.S. currency. The phrase does not designate any one religion, and it is, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, more about ceremony and history than about religion.

To remove &uot;under God&uot; from the pledge now would open a Pandora’s box. Besides &uot;In God We Trust,&uot; what else would be changed?

When the issue comes back before the court &045; as we can only predict it will &045; we hope the justices rule for the phrase remaining in the pledge.