[CecilRhodesGhost]

The "one nation UNDER GOD" portion was added later to the pledge. I can't see the need for outrage here. This is simply courts affirming the separation of church and state.

[Dimensio]

Shhh...we need to maintain the illusion that the "under God" segment was in the original pledge as written by its socialist author and not later inserted at the opposition of his family in order to create a symbolic mark against "godless communism". That way people who oppose "under God" sound even worse.

[faintpraise]

Congress should restore the pledge of allegiance to its original form.

[Sabertooth]

This is simply courts affirming the separation of church and state.

1. There is no such clause in the Constitution.

2. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law," so why should it apply to state or local legislation... or to school districts?

3. The Constitution derives its authority from the Declaration of Independence, in which it was recognized that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." In pursuit of the protection of those rights while assembling a national government, the Bill of Rights was ratified. How does mentioning "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance conflict with the Bill of Rights, with which the Founders understood we are endowed by our Creator?

[FormerLurker]

This is simply courts affirming the separation of church and state.

I challenge you to show me where in the US Constitution there is any mention of "separation of church and state".

Incidently, you've apparently picked an appropriate screenname for yourself..

[ohioman]

You are full of Shiite! In fact, your idiot opinion is quite haunting.

[maxwell]

The "one nation UNDER GOD" portion was added later to the pledge. I can't see the need for outrage here. This is simply courts affirming the separation of church and state.

Nope, I think it's more a case of Newdow taking a big ol' ego-trip and p!ssing in the punchbowl...

Principles and whatnot are one thing, but his elementary-school child being "injured" by having to hear (but not forced to participate in, notice) the Pledge? PLEASE. This is all about Newdow's ego-trip and trying to force his personal belief system on everybody else. Kids have no rights; the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT APPLY to kids.

Any judge with a lick o' sense would kick Newdow out on his presumptuous atheist a$$.

[rwfromkansas]

There is cause for outrage because the court does not understand the meaning of th First Amendment. It does not support a separation of church and state.