The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of church and state caused outcry across the nation. The good news about it is that it probably won’t stand.

The court &045; widely known for being full of liberal activist judges &045; has more of its decisions overturned than any circuit. And it’s already talking about reviewing its own decisions.

That’s fortunate, because the logic used in coming to the original decision is hard to support.

The basis for the case, brought by the atheist father of a second-grader, is that students shouldn’t be exposed to religion in school. But that’s a tough thing to guarantee; if you start giving people the right to not be exposed to something, you take away others’ right to express themselves when others are present.

Already, any students who don’t want to recite the Pledge don’t have to. And anybody who doesn’t want to listen to it is welcome to step into the hall. But if schools are to truly prepare students to be adults in a diverse world, it’s not a good idea to keep them from being exposed to things like religion, even if they or their fathers don’t agree with it. Even on a purely secular level, understanding religion and the role it plays in our society is important for any educated person. To say someone shouldn’t be exposed to it is ridiculous.

Those who support the Pledge do no harm by acknowledging that many Americans believe in God and that our founding fathers based our country on Judeo-Christian principles. Those architects of the Consitution, when they designed the separation of church and state, were worried that churches would control or influence government in a substantial way, not that two words of a symbolic pledge would mention God.