Take religion out of the pledge

To the editor:

David Limbaugh's column on the most recent legal ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance ("Latest ruling is kicking God further out the door") is not designed to make me appreciate his powers of argumentation.

The pledge was composed in 1892 (original text: I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.)

By 1924, it took the form which it was to have for 30 years (1924 text: 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.)

In 1954, the phrase "under God" was inserted.

Limbaugh writes, "If the pledge's opponents ultimately prevail, the government will not be adopting a neutral stance toward religion, but one that prefers atheism -- kicking God further out the door."

I am an opponent not of the pledge, but merely of the inclusion of "under God." I submit that the 1924 text was neutral toward religion. How can a formula that does not mention religion be anything but neutral toward religion?

If Limbaugh wants an idea of a formula that favors atheism -- I would be against such a formula -- imagine the result of inserting "definitely not under God." Religionists apparently think any opinion which does not suck up to religion is hostile to it. Limbaugh seems to not know what neutrality is or what it requires.

DONN S. MILLER, Tamms, Ill.