When writing The Pledge of Allegiance in 1891, Francis Bellamy did not include the words "Under God". For that reason, I think that Congress did not have the right to change the pledge in 1954. Do I believe it makes non believers feel that they are outsiders or that believers have a political upper-hand in out society? No.
A recent court decision stated that the pledge as currently written is unconstitutional. I agree that it is unconstitutional because it is not our original pledge. It is very wrong that Congress decided to change a pledge written for our country. The Pledge of Allegiance should stay the way it was originally written. I feel that it is disrespectful to Mr. Bellamy to change his words. .
The court ruled that the pledge makes non believers feel alienated in the political community and believers feel like they are insiders and favored members of the political community. To me, this is a very, very exaggerated view of what adding "under God" did to the pledge. The court ruling makes adding two words to be a much bigger deal than it should be. I do not feel that anyone should be alienated or favored by the phrase being added. The reasoning behind the ruling, to me, is invalid.
A good reasoning for the ruling would be that Congress had no right to change, or add, words into another man's piece of work. What gave them the power to change something so important to out nation?.
Francis Bellamy's original pledge should still be out pledge today. It should not contain the words "under God". Not because it makes people feel isolated or privileged, but because it is an infringement on a man's original work. The author of our Pledge of Allegiance was not Congress, it was Francis Bellamy!.