Should "Under God" be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance?
North Texas Daily, 3/12/2003

YES!

Sandy Taylor
Intern

The nation's current pledge affects me much like Bush's Columbia tragedy speech in which he closed with, "and may God continue to bless America."

I thought this attempt to stir up patriotic sentiments was worthless because it failed to include the entire country and ignored the truth that we don't all believe that God blesses.

His comment divided Americans, just as the pledge does, by disrespecting non-believers' freedom of religion.

Patriotism and religion are separate entities.

Both serve to unify experiences, but when meshed together as one, they destroy the pledge's purpose to unite and inspire identification with our country.

Someone will always object to being identified as living "under God" and won't recite the pledge due to those two words.

Indeed, religion is a personal choice that we appreciate in America, as is the choice to exit the room when the pledge blares over an intercom in our schools and at our sporting events.

It's unsettling to me that the pledge segregates people, when it is supposed to bring us together.

To some, religion is private and not a public affair. The unmodified pledge invades that privacy and corrupts the "union" of the states.

I respect people who have faith and also think non-believers should receive the same respect from the government.

All Americans need to be represented by the pledge and given the opportunity to connect with our country.

Society has changed a great deal since the pledge was written. Removing "under God" will not result in complete unity, but will allow us to further our journey toward liberty and justice for all.

NO!

Andy Hogue
Journalism senior

Congress authorized the [current] Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

Originally published by a Christian Socialist in a youth magazine, President Dwight D. Eisenhower asked that "under God" be added to solemnize it.

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war," Eisenhower said.

There was little to no court challenge.

After all, the people at that time understood mentioning "God" is not equivalent to saying "Church."

Have we forgotten that God exists outside the realm of our religious boundaries?

The liberal, California-based Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in 2002 ruled "under God" unconstitutional.

But, on the other hand, the Fifth Circuit ruled federally-funded race-based scholarships illegal in the '98 Hopwood decision.

That didn't stop much, and neither will the Ninth Circuit's recent ruling.

If statutes of limitations apply to criminal cases, then I don't see why an appellate court can reverse a '50s ruling without congressional mandate.

It's been almost half a century. "Under God" is a part of our culture.

Why don't secularists and atheists simply smirk while we "naive believers" have our cake?

Leave it be! It's not doing any harm unless it is changed to "One nation under Christendom" (in which case even I would be against it).