Here We Go!

I stopped saying under God in the Pledge of Allegiance a long, long time ago. The phrase was added during the Cold War—Eisenhower administration (I think)—to confront Godless Communism. I stand with Roger Williams on the separation of church and state. Yahoos galore repeat the cant about the godly (and Christian) Founding Fathers and most couldn't identify Roger Williams if their lives depended upon it. Roger Williams would oppose the inclusion of under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, just as he opposed the idolatry of the Cross on the English flag. Robert N. Bellah wrote a brilliant essay in the 1960s about the civil religion in the United States. Most of the Yahoos can't tell the difference between the sacred and secular elements of life. No matter what the Court rules, I will still remain silent when I reach under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. If this be (fair & balanced) apostasy, so be it.

Supreme Court to Decide Pledge of Allegiance Case
6 minutes ago (10/14/03, 9:34 CDT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) said on Tuesday it would decide whether the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which millions of American schoolchildren recite every day, amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The justices agreed to review a controversial ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the pledge must be banned in public schools because the phrase one nation "under God" violated church-state separation.

The appeals court's initial ruling in 2002 caused a political furor nationwide, with President Bush (news - web sites) calling the decision "ridiculous" and the U.S. Senate unanimously approving a resolution supporting the pledge.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge as part of a 1954 law adopted by Congress in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

A California law requires the pledge to be recited once each day at public elementary schools, although no child is required to join in.

Atheist Michael Newdow sued in 2000 and claimed his daughter, who attended the second grade at a public school near Sacramento, had to listen to the teacher-led pledge and that it constituted a "daily indoctrination" with "religious dogma."

The justices will hear arguments in the case early next year, with a decision due by the end of June.