Under God reflects U.S. history

   Often Texas shines in the spotlight for embarrassing moments: the Alamo, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the play of the Texas Rangers. (Okay, okay, some of us would cite the election of George W. Bush.)
   But California, thankfully, always bests Texas. We can count on it.
   A Californian has challenged the practice of school children being required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Most grievous to Michael Newdow of Sacramento is the phrase: “One nation under God.”
   Newdow believes the phrase “interferes” with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter, whose custody is solely in the hands of the girl’s mother, Sandra Banning.
   Banning said Newdow has no right to control their daughter’s education. The couple is not married.
   The Supreme Court agreed last week to rule on the constitutionality of the phrase, but only as it applies to public school children’s reciting the words under the direction of a teacher. A hearing is expected to come in January or February with the decision due by June.
   A negative decision could affect Texas, which made the Pledge a requirement. State Sen. Jeff Wintworth, R-San Antonio, wrote the bill, saying the questionable phrase “under God” does not establish a religion.
We urge the Supreme Court to view the ramifications of a decision to cease the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
   The phrase, under God, was not initially a part of the Pledge. Congress added the phrase under question in 1954, a reaction to the Cold War and the threat of atheistic communism.
   A Presbyterian minister in Washington convinced President Dwight D. Eisenhower to push for the acceptance of the words “under God.”
   Since then, school children all over the country have learned and recited the Pledge every morning.
   We are a country of diverse religions, but can we not agree God’s name being mentioned does not necessarily mean the Christian God?
   Any parents who do not wish such a plight on their children should be allowed to sign a request to dismiss their children from reciting the Pledge each morning.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Newdow, surely what will follow is a challenge against the use of God’s name within the government, including the printing of money.
   Frankly, the Supreme Court should dismiss the cries of this disgruntled man. Regardless of our religious beliefs, our country was founded on religious freedoms, and those religious beliefs overwhelmingly lean toward Christianity.
   Parents should have the freedom to control the education of their children, including religious teachings. But those same parents do not form the majority, and in this country, we pride ourselves in allowing majority rule.
   Newdow’s request falls just after the focus on the gubernatorial election in California. So the state now suffers from another embarrassing moment.
   Thank God, Newdow doesn’t live in Texas.