The widely-recited Pledge of Allegiance could read: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

The elimination of “under God” could happen after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to uphold its ruling that these words are violation of the separation of church and state.

Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science, said the original ruling in Michael Newdow v. U.S. Congress made the words unconstitutional, the three-judge panel said. The decision has been put on hold by one judge in the majority for the entire 9th District Circuit Court to review.

“The ruling was inevitable because we are very concerned about the connection between religion and government,” Schmidt said.

The ruling has drawn a swift response throughout the country and the state on whether the words in the pledge should stand, he said.

State Rep. Barbara Finch, R-Ames, said it is good for us to review certain issues like the pledge, but she said she does not feel the justices understand the true significance of the unifying statement under God.

The ruling will eventually end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, said State Sen. Johnnie Hammond, D-Ames.

“The decision is probably correct, but it will probably be overturned,” Hammond said.

Finch said she is happy we are discussing this during the week of the Fourth of July with all the patriotism to help us remember what the holiday means to all of us.

“I believe [the pledge] is the creed of the nation and it is a unifying statement, and if you listen to the words beside just reciting them you will understand the unity,” she said.

Hammond sees the pledge as a symbolic gesture towards the flag and the country.

“If it makes people feel more loyalty to our country or have an appreciation for our country, then it is fine,” she said.

Schmidt said Michael Newdow, filer of the original suit protesting the pledge, has similar lawsuits pending – for example, one proposing the elimination of the words “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency.

Schmidt said he was not surprised by the ruling, because it was coming from a very liberal court that has had a “pretty patchy” history.

“The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has more of its cases reversed by the Supreme Court, so they seem to have more ideas the justices of the current Supreme Court disagree with,” he said.

Schmidt felt the decision should – in some aspect – reflect American society’s views, and America is saying that “under God” should be included, but he believes the issue is “not too high” on people’s list of priorities at the moment.

“At a time when the U.S. is facing truly dangerous threats to our survival, health and economy things like this have gone down in interest,” he said.

Schmidt said this case is just the beginning – people should expect to hear more on this issue.

“This case is like the first shot in a war,” he said.