We need a better test case

In all the furor over the Pledge case, it's mostly been going unnoticed how, for liberals, this case was a no-win situation. Basically, the case pitted feminist concerns against freedom of religion. I don't doubt that the Supreme Court ended up focusing on the father's right to bring up a lawsuit instead of the issue of separation between church and state because they wanted to dodge the issue altogether, but that doesn't mean that the issue of whether or not he has a right to sue on his daughter's behalf is a side issue. For the father, needling his ex-girlfriend and trying to interfere with her right to raise her daughter in her religion was a central issue.
Trish Wilson is the go-to person if you want to read about how divorce and child custody need to be central concerns to liberals and feminists, and she has alot of analysis on how the court system is getting weighed down by "fathers' rights" lawsuits as a tool in a campaign to harass and oppress women for refusing to live according to their ex-husbands' wishes.
I don't know if it was deliberate or not, but Michael Newdow was awfully clever in picking this issue if he wanted to pester his ex-girlfriend. How better to garner support for fathers' rights than to convince a bunch of otherwise feminist liberals that his freedom of religion is being oppressed? And yes, forcing kids to praise a Christian god every day in school is outrageous, but we need to focus on the issue at hand. Women's rights are not up for sacrifice for other liberal issues. As disappointing as it is for those of us who feverently believe that the separation between church and state needs to be bolstered, the Supreme Court made a good decision.
So, what to do? Well, we need some organization and a decent test case. The ACLU needs to consider supporting a case of custodial parents who have an issue with the Pledge. And, it might help, P.R.-wise, if the parents had religion but still had issues with the Pledge.