I remember when the "under God" clause was added (I would have been in 4th grade, I guess). It seems to me there was some discussion of its constitutionality or at least its appropriateness at the time. I certainly remember being uncomfortable with it in spite of having been brought up a Christian. I wasn't uncomfortable enough or committed enough to not say it. But then I've never thought that things like the Pledge that are said by rote have much meaning. In much the same way when I used to go to church reciting the Lord's Prayer had little meaning to me.

Having learned the pledge without the "under God" I have always felt that it affects the flow of the pledge. I think we tend to say "... one nation [pause] under God [pause] with liberty..." mostly because it is an addition which us oldies (although I'm not THAT old) had to insert into what we already knew. If it had been written that way originally it seems to me that the phrase "one nation under God" would have been said without a pause.

Dr. John W. Baer in The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History notes that "Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,'." I find that telling. It means that they certainly were thinking of the Christian God, not some generalized god. To me this lends support to the majority court opinion in this case.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a previous court case (or has there been?) on this matter. Given the other state vs. religion cases that have come up over the last 50 years why has this one not come up until now? Alas, I'm virtually certain that this ruling will be overturned.

Link fixed. --JoeClone, 27-Jun-02.