If you have ever gone to school, then you have most likely recited the "Pledge of Allegiance" numerous times. Did you ever notice the part of it that said "under God?" The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist; it was to be said in the public schools around the daily flag raising. In 1954, the words "under God" were added to the pledge to make it not only a patriotic oath but also a public prayer. This paper is concerning the arguments over the most recent change of the Pledge, which took out the phrase "under God." The paper will be discussing two articles opposing one another over the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are entitled Under God Divides the Indivisible and One, Nation Many Gods.
             My first argument is from the magazine Humanist, titled Under God Divides the Indivisible, written by Barbara Dority. She is pleased with the change of the Pledge. She believes it was a courageous ruling. Dority believes that the government was commending religion, sending messages to the unbelievers that they were outcasts, and that the one's who did believe were superior members of the community. The main point Dority is trying to make is that the people have a right to choose their own religion or choose to have none at all; the government should not try to persuade them either way.
             My second argument is from the magazine Reason, titled One Nation, Many Gods, written by Cathy Young. She is against the change of the Pledge, saying that the ruling is "outrageous and crazy." Young believes that the only reason the courts decided to take the phrase out of the pledge was to avoid a culture war over a minor issue. She does not see that this phrase is excluding the non-believers; it was just a statement that went for all religions. Not to exclude only atheists and agnostics (those who have disbelief in God and believe it is impossible to know ...