'Under God' still needed in Pledge

\Recently I had come across a peculiar story in the newspaper. It stated that a state senator from Nebraska, Ernie Chambers, was actually suing God and it got me thinking about Mr. Michael Newdow and his situation. He was the person who started the whole petition against the phrase "one nation under God" and hoped that it would pass, bringing in effect its permanent removal from the Pledge of Allegiance. Personally, I think that the phrase should remain where it is.

As said before, there are people who strongly believe that the dismissal of the reference toward God held in the Pledge of Allegiance should be in effect. They have defended this belief, saying that the use of "under God" in unconstitutional and that it is contradicting and violating the rights guaranteed b the First Amendment. In short, the First Amendment says that you have "freedom of religion, speech, press, assemble, and petition"

I think the Pledge of Allegiance is actually pro the First Amendment. The pledge was written by a Socialist Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892. He was merely practicing his freedom of speech by writing out his beliefs and loyalty to his beloved nation, leading to the government adoption of it.

I don't think that the mentioning of God in the pledge is disrupting our rights found in our First Amendment. It's not like you are forced to say God. It's more of a personal decision made by you and you only to say God. If you want, you can replace the word God with one nation under Allah or Shiva, etc. Or, you could even decide to fully leave out the word God. I know, it's not a elaborate reason as to why it should be able to stay where it has been since June 14, 1954, but when it all comes down to it, it's your decision as to what you do. If God isn't a part of your religion, you can switch the pledge up and make it accommodate to you and your beliefs. That's the meaning of the word freedom.

Janelle Boxall

Sugar Grove