Back when Clarence Thomas was being nominated to the Supreme Court, a lawyer friend of mine said, "It's a shame they got involved in all that crap about Anita Hill and Coke cans and renting porn. They should have just refused to confirm the guy because he's completely unqualified and not very bright." That may have been a harsh judgment but I haven't seen anyone — even those who are happy when the majority votes their way and Thomas is in that majority — seriously argue that this man is a wise scholar of the law.
I just read over the decision in the case involving the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Here's a PDF file of it.) I noticed a tiny, perhaps telling reference in Justice Thomas's opinion on the matter. It's in this sentence…
The Establishment Clause provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. [Amdt. 1] As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion.
"Probably"? How much clearer could it be stated? There is absolutely no wiggle room in that language, at least with regard to Congress being able to establish a national religion.
Thomas goes on to state that it would be okay for the states to establish state religions since it says "Congress shall make no law…" Gee, that's just what this country needs to pull together. Let's start telling folks that in any given state, one particular religion is better than theirs. I mean, it's not like people in other countries ever fight bloody wars over such things.