As the Supreme Court of the United States considers the case of a California atheist who believes the phrase "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance recited by schoolchildren, area residents largely believe that the case should never have reached the courts and an overwhelming majority believe the phrase should remain. Congress unanimously added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 following lobbying by religious leaders during the anti-Communist Cold War. Baptist minister Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892. Last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with atheist Dr. Michael Newdow, who argued that requiring schoolchildren to say "under God" amounts to indoctrination, and western schools removed the words from the pledge. Newdow's daughter attended an Elk Grove School District school in California; attorneys for the district appealed to the Supreme Court. "I feel that the Supreme Court shouldn't have any say so," said Regis Lowman of Dunbar Township. "Individuals should decide whether they say 'under God' or not. There's no reason they have to say it. They can skip right over it." "It's one of those issues that never should have gotten to the Supreme Court," agreed David Shively of Scottdale. "The 9th Circuit stepped out of its area. It should not have ruled on it. I'm for leaving it in. It's become an issue just because of that weird ruling out there in California. "It's not a religious issue. It's recognizing that our country was founded on Godly, Christian principles. It's not favoring one religion over another," Shively concluded. William Earnesty of Connellsville said, "I believe it should stay. If you don't agree -- which is what this country's about -- you don't have to say it. I remember when I was in high school, some kids didn't say it, they just stood there. I raised my kids to say it, and even if the court takes it out, they'll still say it and don't get in trouble for saying it, or we'll be in court again." "I think it should stay," said Terri Molinaro of Connellsville. "It's been there and it should stay there. I hated it when they took prayer out of schools. I thought that was the wrong move. I really think it should stay. I have no problem saying it. If people have a problem with saying it, they just don't have to say it." "I'm very much pro that issue," said Jes Hutson of Uniontown. "We need a lot more religion in our lives, directed to God or whoever your chosen one is. If someone doesn't want to say it, keep silent, but I'm pro, pro, pro." "I think it should remain," said Nancy Hyatt of Dunbar. "It's been there all these years. I think the people who are against it either weren't brought up with religion or something else. In my opinion, it should stay in." "I would leave the words 'under God' in there. I don't think they are very consequential and they certainly don't establish a religion," said Michael Comiskey of Connellsville. "I think they're likely to rule to keep the words in there. They may dispose of the case on technical grounds, but if they rule at all, they'll rule to keep them. I think the 9th Circuit Court should have ruled otherwise. I think there are more important issues to discuss." The Rev. Keith McIlwain of Dawson takes a different view. "I see his point, why he's so upset that 'under God' is in the pledge. I love America. America the state is very different from God. I can understand why people would not want to pledge to both." McIlwain has specific reasons for his objection to the phrase. "I have a problem when anybody thinks that a nation with our extreme problems, extreme violence, lust for war, love for the death penalty, the epidemic of abortion, I have a difficult time calling this a nation under God. I come from a different place than the atheist man (Newdow), but I agree with him." The Supreme Court should rule on the case by July.

---

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)

---