Pledge of Alligence

I recently read this article about Pledge of Alligence issue. Basically

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Below is my comment

If we take away the words "Under God" how would we influence children and guide them into the light? Do you know how much harder it is to teach religion to an adult who can think on their own? How would we guide the sheeps to the lord our god? Why do you think we make the pledge mandatory and add the words "Under God"? This act of striking down God's name will have dire result which last into eternity.

Why Can't We THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Quote: Enemy is whoever gets you killed, no matter which side he or she belongs.

I am an atheist myself, I just think it would be easier to see the points by stating the view from a religious point of view.

People are illogical, we don't argue with reason, especially when it comes to religion. At least, the religious people are doing this out of kindess, in an effort to save us from what they believe to be eternal pain. Yet being discriminated by kind intention is not much different than being discriminated from prejudice.

Let me summarize some points that were raised:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and the words "Under God" is definately religious.
2. Forcing children to say the words "Under God" is a breach of freedom and constitutional rights on children who doesn't believe in god or children who blieves in multiple gods.
3. A very good sign of loosing an arguement is that the loosing side will try to drag various irrevelent issues into the debate. It is called side-tracking. The decision to teach Intelligent Design or not is a seperate issue from our pledge article.
4. Taking away the words "Under God" does not deny the existance of god. It just means the new pledge will not affirm nor deny religious existence.
5. Pledge should bring the country together, ironic how it is dividing us.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
so many people access this article and ask the same question, I decide to post a brief history and wording of The Pledge of Alligence below:

There are a total of 2 revisions to pledge of alligence. The original one was created by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on 11 October 1892. It goes like this:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States of America." The reason given was to ensure that immigrants knew to which flag reference was being made. Congress officially recognized the 2nd version of Pledge on June 22, 1942:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

In 1954, a campaign was initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus. Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to change the pledge to include the words "under God". The reason given was to distinguish the US from the officially atheist Soviet Union (cold war at the time).

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

This last version is the current one we are using. It is also the one involved in the current law suit due to the words changed in 1954 - "under God".

[Politics][Religion][Thoughts]