Quick hit about the “Under God” phrase inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance in about 1954. Its constitutionality is still being litigated our West, and an old case is still alive on the issue. A judge issued a ruling saying the phrase “Under God” is unconstitutionally religious under the circumstances in which school children are being compelled to say it.

The USA was fighting “godless communism” at the time, and we were in a feverish mood to affirm how we were superior, and how God was on our side.

And so the innocent Pledge of Allegiance was used as a tool for the promotion of Judeo-Christian religion, in the heat of the moment. “One nation, indivisble” became “One nation, under God, indivisible”.

And so, the “Under God” was inserted as a political exercise, using religion for political purposes.

When I was a child in the sixties, recitation of the Pledge every day in school was mandatory. I said it all the time.

When I became an adult and thought about liberty issues, I rejected the pledge as modified in 1954. Whenever I find myself in a situation to say it, I either say nothing or I omit the “Under God” phrase.

I am offended at the forces of religious coercion in the USA. The Pledge was corrupted for political not religious purposes, and organized religion should be on the same side as the ACLU on the issue.

It should be offensive to religion when politicians cheapen religion in such a way.

By the way, the argument that little schoolchildren can assert a “right” to refrain from saying the religious pledge is an argument that does not resonate. Children are not capable of resisting such thing, peer pressure and all, and the coercive environment of compelled classroom attendance. If children were so capable of rational thought in the area of religion, then why not in many other areas as well?

Also, I would argue that adults are not capable of rational decision making about religion, so why do we think kids are? Just kidding!

In the excerpt below, you can get a little taste for what happened in the court case. Notice the quote from a judge who said that the phrase “Under God” is religious, for it would insult religion to say that the phrase is not religious. Why would Americans of faith fight so hard to impose religious slogans on their fellow Americans? It’s the old Evangelical spirit, I suppose. Of course the pledge is religious now.

CNN.com - Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional - Sep 14, 2005

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.”

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

…

“Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words ‘under God’ contain no religious significance,” Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. “The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity.”