Supreme Court to decide if 'under god' is unconstitutional...

Supreme Court to Consider Case on 'Under God' in Pledge to Flag

again, the Supreme Court will consider another 9th Circuit ruling.

the 9th Circuit ruled in the Newdow case that the words 'under god' in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

interestingly, Scalia may have to recuse himself because he has made he has publicly declared his view that the pledge is unconstitutional. although this raises the possibility that there could be a 4-4 split, I don't find that outcome likely. Such a split would leave the 9th Circuit ruling standing.

it has already been declared by the court that public schools cannot force students to say the pledge, but whether they must stand there quietly and listen to it is an interesting issue.

I think that those students who don't want to even hear the pledge could simply step into the hallway, and that schools cannot force students who so object to it to stand there and listen.

my 2 cents: personally, I never actually said the 'under god' part anyway. I always 'took a breath' when that time came.

These words were a later addition to the pledge, a wartime hysteria that was designed to put fear in our enemies that 'god is on our side, not yours." perhaps they should rightly be excluded.

but if the supreme court comes down with a decision that the words themselves render the pledge unconstitutional, then what do we do about our money??? will we have to change all the dollars and cents to eliminate the 'in god we trust' (all others must pay cash)???

it might be a good thing for the pledge to be redrafted to state, "one nation...indivisible...with liberty and justice for all", as it was originally worded.

by removing the 'under god', the pledge would have a more forceful effect of emphasizing our unity, which is our source of strength (not that god is shining only upon us). the 'under god' phrase interrupts the flow of the unity concept, and places undue emphasis on the judeo-christian god concept of divine providence.

The Supreme Court is probably not going to rule on the constitutionality issue anyway, but only address the specific, limited issues.

while most americans ascribe to judeo-christian theology, we have freedom of religion to become buddhists, pantheists or athiests. these voices are not loud, and therefore they are easily silented by the majority. our constitution should protect everyone's personal religious choices and not impose pledging to or honoring other people's gods, including the few who find the whole god concept abhorrant.

I'm glad the high court will consider this issue, and I hope that even if they rule that the words should stay, they should at least provide some protection for students who do not want to hear the pledge, and allow them to exit the room without repurcussion.

ADDITIONAL REFLECTIONS: after sleeping on it, I was thinking about the government's assertion that the saying the pledge is a patriotic act, not an endorsement of religion.

okay, fine. patriotism is good. public schools should teach our children to be good citizens.

but let's look at the pledge as a patriotic statement:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America"
-- so far, so good. Nice patriotic statement.

"and to the republic for which it stands"
-- okay, so essentially we are pledging allegiance to the US Government, in its representative form of a flag. another nice patriotic statement.

"one nation, (under god), indivisible"
-- here's the problem: the flag does not have any representation of god and does not represent a nation UNDER god. The flag is a representation of the unity of the 13 colonies as stars and the other states as stripes -- THIS IS WHY WE SAY INDIVISIBLE.
-- nowhere on the flag is a Michangelo-like depiction of God -- if there were, there would be outright objections from nearly everyone about putting a face on god.
-- the flag does not even have a bar running across the top, saying "GOD", and the stars and stripes UNDER it.
-- clearly, as a patriotic statement, the words "under god" do not belong when describing the flag.

"with liberty and justice for all"
-- unless, of course, you are an athiest, polytheist, buddhist, or any other -ist that doesn't believe in the monotheistic concept.

So, if the words were removed, no one would ever have an objection to the state teaching children that our nation is a nation of unity -- why else do we call ourselves the UNITED states?

We are not called the united states under god, nor should we be. america as a name is derived from Amerigo Vespucci -- and while he may have believed in god, the name "america" does not mean "america under god."