I've been waiting for this day since middle school.

Do you all realize that that those two little words were added by congress under Eisenhower in the 50's? It's not even part of the original Pledge. God should have nothing to do with patriatism or pledging allegiance to this country. What if it was "under Allah"... how would you feel then? This is purely and simply a constitutional issue... and has not a damn thing to do with the state of this country. It's as American as it GETS... upholding the Constitution. Kids being forced (not that they legally can be... read the findings of the court regarding why this suit was brought) to recite the pledge have their rights infringed upon by those two words. Simple as pie. Violation of the Establishment Clause. Look it up.

I have issues with the fact that it's REQUIRED BY LAW in thie state of CA that public schools begin each day with "appropriate patriotic excersises"... but that's a whole other can of worms.

Did you all even bother to read the courts findings??

Here they are in PDF.

edit: check out this quote from the findings...

"Moreover, the legislative history of the 1954 Act shows that the "under God" language was not meant to sit passively in the federal code unbeknownst to the public; rather, the sponsors of the amendment knew about and capitalized on the state laws and school district rules that mandate recitation of the Pledge. The legislation's House sponsor, Representative Louis C. Rabaut, testified at the Congressional hearing that "the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and it's origins," and this statement was incorporated into the report of the House Judiciary Committee. Taken within it's context, the 1954 addendum was designed to result in the recitation of the words"underGod" in school classrooms throughout the land on a daily basis, and therefore constitued as much of an injury in fact as the policies considered in Wallace and Santa Fe. As discussed earlier, Newdow was standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitues a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter."

Read it... really... it's fascinating...