Okay, here is the only logical thing I think of to say about this...

The Pledge of Allegience was written by some one who inspired by seeing his flag wave in the wind. I guess. Anyway, he wrote the pledge. Then Eisenhower changed it. I don't think people's work should be changed. So I think they should take it back out again. Plus we do have the whole 250 year old "seperation of church and state" thing going on. Fuck it, I hate you all. If you like the words under god then you are fascist and should be killed. If you don't like it then you will burn in hell for ever, and deservedely too, heathen.

Court preserves wording...
 

Updated: 10:51 AM EDT
Supreme Court Ruling Keeps 'Under God' in Pledge
But Decision Doesn't Address Whether Phrase Is Constitutional
By ANNE GEARAN, AP

WASHINGTON (June 14) -- The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase ''one nation, under God,'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California athiest could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

I'm extremely relieved and glad the Supreme Court made this decision.

:( :( :(

That about sums up how I feel about it too. :(

From what I've read, it did not address whether or not the "Under God" was constitutional or not. The ruling pretty much said that the father did not have the authority to sue on behalf of the daughter.

Interesting -- so it's a standing issue. I'll have to read the opinion.

That's right. They didn't rule on the actual issue. The father is in the middle of a custody dispute with the girl's mother and the court said there wasn't enough proof that he was the legal guardian and therefore, he couldn't sue on her behalf.

Interesting way for them to side step the issue!

Dee

Who really cares one way or the other?

It doesn't bother me with, it doesn't bother me without.

It's our country, our flag... be proud of it.