If at first you don't succeed, try and try again — until you find a judge who agrees with you.

Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. No more than a year after the Supreme Court dismissed his case on the premise he lacked legal standing to sue, Newdow was back in familiar territory. Last week, he was able to find a federal judge in San Francisco to hold the recitation of the Pledge in public schools unconstitutional.

Here we go again.

I decided to discuss the case with my students during a lesson on religion and politics. I first asked them how they would define "imposing one's religious views on others." The usual responses were given, such as "a legislator who votes pro-life for religious reasons." This same response was provided for gay marriage. Then I asked whether their logic regarding religion could apply to a "secular humanist." The discord among students continued.

After a while, I decided to ask them whether a legislator who voted to reaffirm "under God" in the Pledge was "imposing his views" on the people of this nation.

The discussion became less contentious.

Don't get me wrong. A number of students indeed had some objections with the two notorious words. But, most had viewed the phrase as being intrinsic to our society's most basic principles and not an endorsement of religion.

A majority of these undergraduates do not hold their views in solitude. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, during oral arguments, asked Newdow to remind him what the vote was in Congress in 1954 to include "under God" in the Pledge. He said it was unanimous. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the recitation of the Pledge in public schools unconstitutional. Shortly after, Congress reaffirmed the phrase with a House vote of 416-3 and a Senate vote of 99-0. Two of the nay voters were from California — the bastion of this litigation.

Maybe I've gone astray, but these votes seem to be anything but divisive. And public opinion appears to support this assertion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted a few years ago revealed 89 percent of those surveyed believed the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge while only 10 percent said it should be removed.

Before some of the readers of this column take it upon themselves to remind me of what they've learned in an undergraduate political theory class regarding the evils of tyranny of the minority by the majority and the dangers of public opinion, I would like to preempt these remarks by saying I too have read these influential works in political theory.

I have also read The Federalist Papers.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in depth about the role of Congress and the judiciary in government. He argued Congress has the power to sustain the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch in government. But, where is Congress to reign in our nation's activist courts — specifically those located in the Ninth Circuit?

Jurists have increasingly substituted social and cultural norms for reason — as advocated by Hamilton — to decide legal questions afflicting our nation today. Legal decision-making now rests on balancing competing interests — these interests being constitutional principles and political correctness. Regrettably, political correctness often prevails.

An importunate citizen has commenced the debate over the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, a handful of appointed judges on the West Coast have continued this litigation, and it will take nine justices at the helm of our nation's court system to resolve the conflict of laws.

Whether "under God" remains in or is removed from the Pledge, there will undoubtedly be some despondent people in this nation. Nonetheless, life is often a zero-sum game — someone must gain something at another's expense. The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to renounce our nation's history, constitutional principles and commitment to the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?

Darryn Beckstrom ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.