I just got done answering a poll about whether the US should omit "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and naturally I said that it should be omitted. To me it isn't just the fact that I don't believe and God or religious figure has a place in the US government but the fact that the general population feels that the current pledge is the original. After proving to the many other people that answered this poll that "Under God" was in fact added in 1954 and showing them what the original pledge was, there still was no budge in their stance. I asked questions like "What about getting in touch with the heritage of the Pledge?" and "What is so bad about the original version?" but to no avail.
The religious people in this country still feel its better to have God in everything because of how important God is to this country (at least that's the opinion I hear most). Well I decided to delve into the constitutional issue of the legislation of such phrases as "Under God" and "In God We Trust". I figured since the pledge of allegiance and what is put on our money is legislated and endorsement of religion would have to be taken up by the Supreme Court. And low-and-behold it has. The case is Lynch v Donnelly and was brought before the Court in 1984. The case is directly related to the use of religious symbols during holidays but Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in his dissenting opinion, offered his explanation as to why some religious reference is allowed to be legislated. Here is his quote:
...I would suggest that such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.
What struck me was the fact that the Justice seemed to be minimize the meaning of God when used in such practices such as placing "In God We Trust" on our currency and "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. Based on the arguments that most religious supporters of those phrases, they tend to feel the use shows a reverence to their Almighty. In reality the US government stance is that God has no religious meaning and is more a tradition that shouldn't be broken.
If this is the stance of the US government then if I were to a believer then I would want them to take the phrases aways instead of fighting to keep them in law. Since there is a diminished recognition of a higher power to the point of lacking any religious content then I would ask the government to not mock my God.