Replies

If you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":
1) historical evidence that "under God" is unconstitutional *evidence from the founding to the year 1900 in a continuous stream of similar attitudes against it*
2) judicial precedents from the same time period, both at the state and national level

I'm learning a lot here, and admit, it's not "my issue". Lot of knowledgable people here about the Constitution and the pledge.

Personally, I like the words, and don't feel like we're "imposing" religion because the two words are bland and general.

But some people feel otherwise. they feel "imposed" by these words, which a school, apparently, tells its kids to say (Still working through this one). God is a religious concept, so the Constitution would be relevant here. No one's saying it isn't.

"Under God" was added in the 1950's. People seemed to be satisfied with the Pledge before.

As for the laws, you'll know more than me. For one, we will learn plenty from others because there will be plenty of analyses by lawyers, everybody. Just a hunch. :)

This sure has hit a nerve. Congress denounced a court decision, is there precedent for that? And on the same day it was printed! Had they read it? Why not wait a few days? I think, besides the issue itself, it has much to do with the internet.

I just graduated high school. We had the pledge over the intercom. The principal made it clear nobody HAD to say it if he did not wish to. Why have people say it if they don't believe it or believe they are performing idol worship like the JW's do? I was never forced to say it, but I did so out of respect. I often omitted "indivisible," because I do not believe that. Nobody looked at me funny. Atheists could simply omit under God. It is their right. Instead, they have to make a federal case out of the issue and let half-baked judges that wouldn't know the Constitution if it was in front of them tear down this country for them.