[Mr 5 0]

First, a few facts:

The California ruling simply stated that the words 'Under God' cannot be included in the teacher-led Pledge of Allegiance recited by the children before class.

The man (an atheist) who brought the lawsuit already had his daughter opt out of saying the Pledge (her constitutional right) but the father objected that she was 'harmed' and her 'rights' were violated by simply having to hear the words 'Under God' spoken aloud in class by her classmates.

The looney left strike again, folks.

Unfortunately, past U.S. Supreme Court decisions have led to this one by the often-overturned Ninth District federal court, including the 1962 decision that outlawed public prayer in taxpayer supported schools. This new ruling was inevitable.

My opposition isn't so much to this specific ruling as it is to the absurd idea that we all must become atheists while standing on the grounds of a public school . This turns the 'Freedom of religion' clause of the constitution on it's head.

I thought the Supreme Court's ruling forbidding valedictorians from invoking God during commencement addresses, or football players saying prayers in the locker room before a game was wrong. These actions (the students exercising their First Amendment rights) did not breach the unholy firewall of Church and State that is always bandied about in these debates.

I don't buy the idea that this makes it a 'religious exercise' in any way, but as it refers to a Deity, albeit a generic one ('God' has many meanings for many people) the court stated that the words 'under God' (which endorse a religious belief in theism) can't be in the pledge as led by the teacher (an agent of 'the state'). Hmmmm. Why not?

Unfortunately, the Pledge of Allegiance is a teacher-led recitation and with the 'Under God' phrase included it becomes problematic because the leftists have used our constitution to thwart most Americans from an honest expression of patriotism and/or simple faith in the creator that our forefathers mentioned many times in the Bill of Rights - should they be standing in a classroom - and their very words possibly 'offend' one person.

It's PC gone crazy and at least it's now obvious to all.

It's a mess but at least it generated a nice display of public anger (and politician's grandstanding) over the left's steady push to make expression of faith near-illegal on the public square, as it were. Basically, this decision just goes too far for most Americans to swallow. About time.

The Pledge of Allegiance may be a 'state'-led exercise of patriotism in schools but who really objects to having their child honor their country? Not me.

The inclusion of the words "under God' simply reflect and acknowledge that this country was founded on Christian principles - and too bad if atheists don't like it, it's a fact.

Read the Federalist Papers or any bio of the founding Fathers like Hamilton, Jefferson or Franklin. Some were Deists and some were devout Christians but all were God fearing to some degree. They prayed during the debates over the constitution and most attended church. These are facts. America was a country founded on a religious base, although the founders were careful to not make religion any sort of legal necessity for citizenship and gave us freedom of religion - or no religion at all if we choose.

The Pledge is optional; no child has to recite it if they or a parent opt not to do so. For an atheist parent to object to their child simply hearing the words 'Under God' as a rights violation is absurd and shows how far out the looney leftists have brought us.

Unfortunately, when you have years of previous Supreme Court rulings that have banned 'God' from schools in one way or another, this kind of nit-picking outrage was bound to happen.

Now, I hope the Supreme Court will take the case, overturn the stupid ruling and clean up the mess it's made.

Meanwhile, we're all free to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, 'Under God' and all. I know that this Fourth of July, many will, proudly and loudly and I'll be one of them.