Replies

"If it isn't broken don't fix it." Precisely why the Pledge should have remained as it originally was, without "under God" in it. Precisely why the National Motto, E Pluribus Unum, should have remained as it was, instead of "In God We Trust." The Founding Fathers could have chosen a religious motto, but they chose a secular one instead. They knew what they were doing. The U.S. went through World War I and II and the Great Depression using the Godless Pledge and "E Pluribus Unum" as the National Motto, and what was the harm? What was "broke" then about them that needed to be "fixed?" The Founders also didn't put "God" on their coins, either, and the idea was thought to be blasphemy by some in those days -- even up until Teddy Roosevelt's time, who didn't like the idea either, thinking it cheapened the idea of God.

"If it isn't broken don't fix it." Precisely why the Pledge should have remained as it originally was, without "under God" in it. Precisely why the National Motto, E Pluribus Unum, should have remained as it was, instead of "In God We Trust." The Founding Fathers could have chosen a religious motto, but they chose a secular one instead. They knew what they were doing. The U.S. went through World War I and II and the Great Depression using the Godless Pledge and "E Pluribus Unum" as the National Motto, and what was the harm? What was "broke" then about them that needed to be "fixed?" The Founders also didn't put "God" on their coins, either, and the idea was thought to be blasphemy by some in those days -- even up until Teddy Roosevelt's time, who didn't like the idea either, thinking it cheapened the idea of God.

Bingo. This also supports the idea that the Founders and Framers believed in Separation.

Newdow arguing his own case bothers me. I hope he wasn't too egotistical or too ignorant to challenge the 1954 law changing the Pledge. That law was clearly based upon religious rather than secular concerns. If the Justices take one look at the debate surrounding it, the decision is at least 6-2 and might even be unanimous. At that point the Pledge reverts to the 1940 version.

If he only challenged the school saying the Pledge and not the 1954 law, they can't and won't review the law. At that point all bets are off. They won't want to throw the Pledge out of the schools, even though Congress can easily change it back.

-Eric

All that you say is true and my point is that I don't think the absence or presence of God in the Pledge Of Allegiance, has created strife between the religious and non-religious. However in the last several years, there has been a concentrated and orchestrated effort by atheists on the left to force secularism on the religious. Be it in their schools, their courts, and elswhere. This is wrong and I believe it is dividing people. These secularists do not do this to better society, they do it because they think the law should say that religious people are wrong and they are right.