Just in from AP "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."
News LinkMichael Newdow, the same man who brought the case to the supreme court last year, is back with the same argument. How could this be? Because the court threw the case out on a technicality. I just rolled my eyes when I heard that reasoning. He is back with 3 families that have full custody of their children. Well, nothing like a hotly divisive issue to give Roberts a baptism by fire! They should have known the case would be back.
I actually believe the pledge should revert back to the original, without the words "under God". If you believe in God, great, praise Him, her, it, however you believe God exists. If you don't believe in God, what good is it to say you think the country is under God? Does it make them less of a citizen? Does it make them less patriotic to believe only in what they can see/feel/prove? Why drive a wedge into patriotism?
Similarly, why should someone swear in under oath with a Bible if they don't subscribe to that religion? It makes no sense at all. They should be swearing by their own integrity, under penalty of perjury. Bearing false witness is already a sin according to the ten commandments, so isn't this procedure sort of redundant for Christian's sake?