One nation under who?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the controversial case regarding the inclusion of the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge on two grounds: 1) these words were avoided in the original version, and 2) Congress chose to add the words in 1954, without giving any substantive reason.\nThe Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in August of 1892 by Francis Bellamy, actually replaced the Balch Pledge, which was then the prevailing flag salute. Dr. John W. Baer, author of "The Pledge of Allegiance, A Centennial History, 1892-1992," presents a fine historical timeline for the Pledge on a Web site (www.pledgeqanda.com) that he created in response to the recent controversy.\nAccording to Baer, Bellamy explicitly avoided using the word "God" in his pledge because he was aware of the wording of George Balch's pledge, "We give our Heads and our Hearts to God and our Country." Being a Baptist and a Freemason, Bellamy valued the separation of church and state in American society, a belief accentuated by the exclusion of "God" in the Pledge.\nWhat's more, in 1954, a year of immense pressure from groups like the Knights of Columbus and the American Legion to add "under God" to the Pledge, David Bellamy, Francis' son, sent a letter to Congress stating that the addendum would be against his father's wishes.\nA recent article in the Taipei Times stated, "The words were inserted into the pledge in 1954 as the U.S. was locked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the phrase 'Godless communism' was a staple of American political life." This puerile flex of the American political muscle may have been popular in 1954, but today, it is as weak as ever. Given the fact that every American is not theistic, it's about time that political leaders reverse the unfledged decision to include the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. \nSo this isn't about political correctness. This isn't about trying not to step on too many people's toes. This is about the purity of the original text. \nWhile all the pundits wax on about the pledge's historical significance -- and furthermore, God's historical significance in the founding of this nation -- they are pushing their own double standard when one understands the true history behind the pledge. \nThe McCarthyist era isn't a history we particularly promote remembering with reverence. \n"Under God" is an issue that one can't deny frames this country's beginnings, but then again, there were many "shared beliefs" about ethnicity and gender that in modern times we have come to understand as needing some qualifications. \nIf we want to fight for "framers' intent," go right ahead, but it clearly wasn't the author's intent of the pledge to have it promote a certain belief agenda that perhaps not all Americans share.\nSo if you want to say the Pledge, say it however you desire, but not with government sanction.