"Michael Newdow, an atheist, was offended by the phrase "In God We Trust" on the coins of American currency, believing that the phrase was a state-sponsored statement of religious faith - illegal under the separation of church and state. He argued that he had a right to raise his daughter "without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers."
Some of the judges in the 2002 ruling agreed that Newdow had a right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Newdow explained his view of 'freedom of religious exercise' by asking whether Christians would be glad if the atheists were in the majority and if the atheists inserted into the pledge of allegiance the phrase "one nation under NO God." In an interview with Connie Chung, Newdow stated, "The Constitution says the congress will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion which means that the Supreme Court says, and as you have said, nobody should be made to feel like an outsider. And I would only ask everyone of those people to ask themselves, if they had to say every morning when they pledged allegiance to the flag, that we were one nation under Sun Myung Moon, or one nation under David Koresh, or one nation under Jesus, or one nation under Mohammad, how would they feel?"
Thus Newdow claimed that the reference to God is meaningful, and hence the court should recognize, and correct, the resulting religious bias. Meanwhile, the "under God" clause is often defended as "ceremonial deism," acceptable because it is religiously meaningless."
I read this and thought Newdow was right on the money. We should definately take "God" out of the Pledge.
I use the "under law" as well. I also told my grand kids to use it as they have to mouth the pledge every day (my grand kids are all Atheist).
ha..the reason god's in there is...
they (fundies here) hate when 'christian' any party sides w/socialism