Wow, that was harsh! I've seen few such statements from you Tom! I'm really surprised.

I debated contributing any more to this thread as it appears to be very "volatile" in nature! Everyone is getting attacked for their entries! Oh well, I felt it only fair to point out a few things:

The pledge (with 'under god')fails not one, but two of the traditional tests for Establishment violations. First, laws are required to have a "secular legislative purpose." What possible secular purpose is served by a law which, as did the one passed by Congress in 1954, does nothing more really than add a religious reference to a pre-existing text? Also, President Eisenhower's remarks upon signing the bill into law make clear that his (and hence its) purpose was entirely religious. Pres Eisenhower said "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

2nd, there is also the "neutrality" test which states that laws are not permitted to advantage one sect of religion, or religion over unbelief. Is it not obvious that government teachers affirming daily that our country is "one nation, under God" fails this test also?

Many have stated in this thread that so long as school children are not forced to recite the pledge in school, no harm is done to them personally. The Establishment Clause is not really about the rights we have, it's about the rights government doesn't have. For instance, government doesn't have the right to start running television ads declaring that "Jesus Saves", to build huge Hindu temples on federal land, or to conduct church services in the name of our government, whether or not people are compelled to stay glued to their TVs or go visit Delhi.

Really, I cannot see third-graders that reside in strongly religious communities suffering hateful or demeaning stares from teachers and their pals by exercising their right to NOT cite the pledge of allegience in school with the words "under god." How many third-graders do you know that would dare to stand out in a crowd at all let alone in school?

Others seem to worry about what type precedent this ruling might set. Does the ruling mean that we all have a right not to hear religious views that might offend us? I believe NO, I think it only means that we're entitled to expect that representatives or agents of a government which is supposed to represent us as a people not speak for one religious group in a way that excludes others. Does it mean that any mention of God that is found in the Declaration of Independence (or other government or public documents) is to be barred from public classrooms? I believe no again; Government is barred from endorsing religion, not from acknowledging its existence. In my personal opinion, that does not preclude courses in yes PUBLIC school on each religion especially when it comes to learning customs of different people-a balanced teaching environment is a healthy one. Just so long as one is not emphasized over another. Fair attention to all.

Personally, I attended grade school after the change was made, but my sisters attended before the change. They were shocked and confused at the time and everyone stumbled over the words for the first following the change. MY mother was furious that President Eisenhower thought he had the right to speak for the nation in approving 'Under God' to begin with. My teachers instructed the students to say the pledge, but we could omit the words 'Under God' by being silent during that portion ONLY if were uncomfortable in reciting those words. No one looked around to see if anyone stopped talking during that portion because NO one wanted to stand out. The children in my class were a mix of christians, Jews, atheists, you name it, we were a mixed bunch. I think back to those days and feel appreciation for a teacher that could sense that perhaps some of her students' religious beliefs might not allow them to feel comfortable with the language but they still wanted to profess their loyalty to THEIR country. No one wanted to NOT say the pledge of allegience, after all, it belongs to all of us and we as a people (in general) are loyal to our country and love to profess it. We would not refuse to say it simply because of a single phrase added by one president.

Yet, personally I am in agreement with the ruling but doubt it will stand the test of time. I feel the pledge should be without the phrase and remain in its intended form so that no religious belief (even if I personally agree with that religious belief) is contained within. That is not to say that life as it started out here in our country was perfect or that our forefounders could foresee all that was to come. In general, there have been many improvements sustaining personal rights in clearer terms and even adding some that in my personal opionion were overlooked.

Ok, let everyone take their shots, as I'm sure they will.

By the way, wasn't the pledge originally written by a socialist? I remember learning that in school, and I've read it again recently, but I don't recall the source.

Tracy