The Pledge is recited in public schools. Students are expected to comply. It puts non-believers in an awkward position where they either have to say something they don't believe, not participate or recite the alternate wording and provoke an argument.
It is my opinion that the phrase violates the First Amendment requirement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Congress changed the Pledge to include the phrase "under God" and by doing so violated that Amendment. The phrase establishes the existence of god and therefore establishes a religion. Tom Reese > That is just the problem, why should it be, if you don't believe in God > you should just laugh quietly, it's only > a Zealot who has to be right who could be offended. > > Tom Reese wrote: > > >Tom C wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Let's take one case the ACLU is involved with... to the best of my > >>recollection. The case in California (I believe... I'm typing from memory > >>not the transcript), where an athiest has sued a school district because > >>his elementary school age daughter is made to feel uncomfortable when the > >>Pledge of Alegiance is said because it contains the phrase 'under God'. > >> > >> > > > >That phrase is objectionable to a lot of people and should be eliminated > >IMO. Suppose all the atheists recited the line as "one nation, there is no > >god". Can you see the possibility of that becoming a problem? How about if > >one group tried to shout their phrase louder than the other group? > > > >The phrase does not belong in an oath to government allegiance. It excludes > >people who believe do not believe that there is a god. > > > >Tom Reese > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > >
