Court debates changing pledge

Legislators were back in court last week still fighting over whether the Pledge of Allegiance should be recited in public schools.

Opponents of the pledge deem it unconstitutional because of the references to God.

However, saying “one nation under God” isn’t unconstitutional. It’s a way for citizens to show their undying support for a nation, a flag and all things they stand for.

Last summer, the court ruled in favor of Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who said his daughter shouldn’t have to say the pledge.

The court stayed by that ruling until last week when the House voted to condemn it.

The House has sense.

It realizes that Newdow’s theory will only lead to further catastrophes.”God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” will be unconstitutional. The third stanza of the Star Spangled Banner will be unconstitutional. Next thing you know, all currency will have to be reprinted because of the “in God we trust” inscription.

If Newdow is willing to pay for all these corrections, then so be it. However, the general body will not allow such foolishness to continue.

The phrase under scrutiny was added to the pledge in 1954 by President Eisenhower.

The country was worried that orations used by “godless communists” sounded similar to the pledge so they lobbied lawmakers to insert the words “under God”.

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin ruled the phrase is in violation because it “prohibits the government’s endorsement not only of one particular religion at the expense of others but also of religion at the expense of atheism.”

Perhaps he should take another look in the mirror because every day he is putting one religion at the expense of others.

Those testifying in his court say “so help me God.” When he took his U.S. judge’s oath, what did he say? Oh goodness, it was blasphemy.So help me God!

Dominique Drake for The Famuan