Pledge of Allegiance ruled Unconstitutional

[Daniel270]

Well.. looks like it's finally happened...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Church___State_Issues

[ChadTower]

I don't believe in it, so you can't do it!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Why not just take out the "under God" part and be done with it. It was crammed in there during the Cold War and, well, we're no longer at war with the those "Godless commies", but rather a new bunch of pro-God Terrorists.

So, it seems to me, unless we take God out of the pledge, the terrorists will win!



mrC

[quarterback]

I don't believe in it, so you can't do it!

No, it was "I don't believe in it, so you can't make me do it"

a federal court judge ruled today, saying that the pledge

[ChadTower]

So tell the kids who don't want to say under god to not say them.  Or tell them to sit down and say nothing.

The basic result of this guy not wanting to do it is him forcing them to stop everyone from doing it. 

[quarterback]

So tell the kids who don't want to say under god to not say them.

[JB]

Why not just take out the "under God" part and be done with it. It was crammed in there during the Cold War and, well, we're no longer at war with the those "Godless commies", but rather a new bunch of pro-God Terrorists.

So, it seems to me, unless we take God out of the pledge, the terrorists will win!



mrC

Seconded.

[Dartful Dodger]

They might as well take out the "indivisible" part too.

[ChadTower]

No liberty and justice for all here.

[shmokes]

You've got the White House, both houses of congress by fairly healthy margins and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.  One little thing doesn't go your way and it's, "No liberty and justice for all..."

Cry me a river.  Since when did liberty and justice for all mean that half the people get their way 100% of the time?

[JackTucky]

Anyone who spends all this time fighting for something so silly really needs to think about what is important in life.

If someone made me say, "under God", and I didn't believe it, I'd roll my eyes and move on.

What you believe should be what's in your heart, not what your classmates recite every morning.

I think this guy is just some boner looking for attention.

If they made me say, one nation, under hot dogs, it would just make laugh, and hungry.  I don't believe we are united under hot dogs. But they are tasty.

Who cares?

I don't.  Don't care enough about religion to be offended by it.  Don't care enough about athiests to be offended by them.  Just care about being a good dad, husband, and having a good time.  And staying out of jail.  Wish I could avoid taxes.

Art

[Dartful Dodger]

Since when did liberty and justice for all mean that half the people get their way 100% of the time?

The majority of people is more than half.

[shmokes]

Jesus mary, if you're going to strain at gnats I'll rephrase.

Since when did liberty and justice for all mean that the majority of the people get their way 100% of the time?

And JackTucky, if your kids were in a class that said, "One nation under Satan...", or, "One atheist nation," something tells me that you would be singing a different tune.  Try stepping outside of your own shoes sometime.

[ChadTower]

You've got the White House, both houses of congress by fairly healthy margins and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.  One little thing doesn't go your way and it's, "No liberty and justice for all..."

Cry me a river.  Since when did liberty and justice for all mean that half the people get their way 100% of the time?

I have them personally?  Really?  So all of the things I've been asking for have happened?  America has cut foreign aid and taken on an isolationist foreign policy?  We built that giant 15 foot wall across the Mexican border?  Our troops are home from Iraq and Iraq is being left to either create their own nation, from their own initiative, rather than under our thumb?  The money we're saving in foreign aid is being poured into development of new nonpetroleum based energy technologies and distrubition infrastructure?

I must have missed it.

Until all of those things have happened, I don't have an effin thing.

[quarterback]

I think the idea of forcing people to recite any kind of "pledge of allegiance" is ridiculous anyway.

[allroy1975]

Even beyond that, requiring children to make a daily pledge of this kind is pointless. The most it's going to do is drill the words into their skulls and make them even MORE meaningless.  If you want them to appreciate what the USA is all about, then teach them or show them what it's all about.  Don't make them mindlessly repeat empty "pledges".

Last time I checked, that's what religion does.  Start drilling it into their heads that god (santa, the easter bunny ...whoever) is watching them so they'd better be good or they don't get heaven (or presents or chocolate bunnies ....whatever).  For some reason we figure out that there's no easter bunny, no santa...no tooth fairy...but we never let go of god.  death doesn't come once a year.  so we don't really get the chance to see this one over and over again.  One shot and you go through the whole thing with this childish beleif and POW....you're in the ground being eaten by worms.  Oh well. 

I suspect heaven is there so we can meet our loved ones later one....so I don't totally understand why animals (pets specifically) don't have souls.  and when I say "heaven is there" I mean, the old dead guys made it up to make us feel better about losing loved ones.  "don't worry bobby..you'll see grandma again....uhhhh....in heaven!"   

Allroy

[JB]

Even beyond that, requiring children to make a daily pledge of this kind is pointless. The most it's going to do is drill the words into their skulls and make them even MORE meaningless.  If you want them to appreciate what the USA is all about, then teach them or show them what it's all about.  Don't make them mindlessly repeat empty "pledges".

Last time I checked, that's what religion does.  Start drilling it into their heads that god (santa, the easter bunny ...whoever) is watching them so they'd better be good or they don't get heaven (or presents or chocolate bunnies ....whatever).  For some reason we figure out that there's no easter bunny, no santa...no tooth fairy...but we never let go of god.  death doesn't come once a year.  so we don't really get the chance to see this one over and over again.  One shot and you go through the whole thing with this childish beleif and POW....you're in the ground being eaten by worms.  Oh well. 

I suspect heaven is there so we can meet our loved ones later one....so I don't totally understand why animals (pets specifically) don't have souls.  and when I say "heaven is there" I mean, the old dead guys made it up to make us feel better about losing loved ones.  "don't worry bobby..you'll see grandma again....uhhhh....in heaven!"   

Allroy

Precisely.

Same applies to the rest of the pledge. Keep them pledging their allegiance, adn they develop a REAL allegiance

[quarterback]

Same applies to the rest of the pledge. Keep them pledging their allegiance, adn they develop a REAL allegiance

I understand your point, and there may be people making the argument that we NEED the pledge to ENSURE the allegiance of our children.... but realistically, I don't see the recitation of the pledge producing any real results on the kids of the US.

The difference is that finding a religion satisfies a very common need that (some) humans have.

[JB]

Same applies to the rest of the pledge. Keep them pledging their allegiance, adn they develop a REAL allegiance

I understand your point, and there may be people making the argument that we NEED the pledge to ENSURE the allegiance of our children.... but realistically, I don't see the recitation of the pledge producing any real results on the kids of the US.

I don't see it being pushed very hard either, really.

It's not being done right, but the principle of the thing is there.

The difference is that finding a religion satisfies a very common need that (some) humans have.  It provides answers to questions that frighten people.  OTOH, there's no scary unknown waiting for you if you don't find a country to wholeheartedly pledge your loyalty to before you die.

Even people that aren't bothered about death have questions that need answers.

Religion has historically answered questions centuries before science advanced far enough to begin offering hypotheses.


Example: Where did everything come from?
Religion: God made the stars, the Earth, the plants, the animals, and the people.

Science: Well, there was the big bang, and that created the universe. We don't know what started the big bang, and under current laws of physics, never CAN know.
Of course, the big bang just blew out a lot fo subatomic particles. Eventually, those formed atoms. From there, things started sticking together because of gravity. Again, we don't know why everything wasn't evenly distributed, which would have prevented anything from pulling together.
And then it clumped together and made stars and planets.
And then something happened, probably involving lightning. Some molecules began copying themselves.
And got more and more complex over many eons, until we got where we are today.



Of course, once science advances to the point where it can offer a more accurate picture than "God did it" religion starts fighting it, because it runs counter to indoctrination.
Sometimes religion fights dirty too. Forces people to publically recant their opposing viewpoint then locks them up for life and such.

And some people just don't like the scientific answer because it's complex, incomplete, and not very accessable.

[shmokes]

Example: Where did everything come from?

Science: We don't know what started the big bang, and under current laws of physics, never CAN know.

Heh....seems only fair to say:

Religion: God made the stars, the Earth, the plants, the animals, and the people.   We don't know what started God, and under current laws of....erm...supernatural parents with magic powers who don't want us to have access to very much information, never CAN know...    

Oh yeah, and the earth is approx. 6000 years old.

[JB]

Example: Where did everything come from?

Science: We don't know what started the big bang, and under current laws of physics, never CAN know.

Heh....seems only fair to say:

Religion: God made the stars, the Earth, the plants, the animals, and the people.   We don't know what started God, and under current laws of....erm...supernatural parents with magic powers who don't want us to have access to very much information, never CAN know...    

Oh yeah, and the earth is approx. 6000 years old.

No, religion says NOTHING made God because God always HAS been forever and ever.

Oh yeah... and that to question this answer is to doom yourself to eternal damanation because although God loves everyone, he doesn't mind sticking people in pits of fire for asking questions.

[shmokes]

When you say god loves everyone, don't you mean she loves all her children and doesn't mind sticking her children in pits of fire for asking questions?

[JB]

Maybe... 

[ChadTower]

Drilling and repetition and rote memory is how most things are taught to children.  That's how they learn math, science, history, English... hell, that's how they learn to hit a ball.

[Grasshopper]

Drilling and repetition and rote memory is how most things are taught to children.  That's how they learn math, science, history, English... hell, that's how they learn to hit a ball.

Well that's only part of the story. You also have to teach children how to think for themselves i.e. logic, reasoning, creativity etc. Actually these faculties are probably innate but good teaching helps to bring them out.

And it depends upon the subject. There is for instance very little rote learning in maths. If you tried to pass a maths exam simply by learning a maths book by heart you wouldn't get very far.

[Grasshopper]

Forcing children to mindlessly recite a pledge whatever the wording is pretty lame IMHO. Even if all the god stuff is taken out it is a bit dubious to pressure children to take part in 'patriotic' exercises.

It is not universally accepted that patriotism is actually a good thing. Some people believe it can lead to nationalism, xenophobia, a belief that you're superior to other peoples and cultures, and even racism in countries that are not racially diverse.

If there must be a pledge then it should focus on values which are associated with America but which are universal and not solely American such democracy, freedom of expression etc.

[ChadTower]

You know, whenever I recite the pledge in my head, it doesn't have "under God" in it.  I was taught the pledge by my grandfather, and went to very traditional type schools, both public and private.  I don't think I ever had to use the words "under God" as a kid, when I was in the US.

[ClubNinja]

You know, whenever I recite the pledge in my head, it doesn't have "under God" in it.

[ChadTower]

When I was feeling particularly Canadian, I would usually say "I pledge allegiance to the flag that Michael Jackson is a ---Bad words, bad words, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when saint censors you?---..."

Very, very quietly.

There was a whole pledge to Michael Jackson's gayness and flammability.  I wish I could remember more of it now.

[TheVengeance]

Is this nation not worth fighting for?

Some of what I am reading in this thread sounds like red commie talk.

The USA is the best <censored by saint> country in the world.

Yes, it is in disarray.
Yes, it is under attack on all fronts.
Yes, it is run by thieves and liars.
And Yes, it is corrupt.

But, I will die fighting before I give up what my ancestors fought and died for. This is our f'n country. We are it's children.

I am all for the pledge of allegiance in our public schools. "Under God" doesn't offend me as much as the last part..."With liberty and Justice for All".

...because we know that is a lie. A bigger lie than the sham that "Under God" is offensive

[Thenasty]

my motto is " If you don't like it, get out".

Why stay if you don't like it. Would you go to that restaurant again if you did not like what they serve you ? No, you stay out. If you don't like to eat fastfood, you stay away from it. You don't like to eat meat cause your are a veggie, just don't.
You don't like Marilyn Manson music, don't listen/buy it.....Simple....

You don't lke what you read here, "GET OUT". Simple......don't make it hard.

[ChadTower]

But that is the problem... now, if people don't like the food, they sue to make the restaurant serve something that they do like.

[Thenasty]

But that is the problem... now, if people don't like the food, they sue to make the restaurant serve something that they do like.

I meant what you ordered, it did not taste as you expected....You know the usual biatching....To much Mayo, no Pickles, to dry bla bla bla....

[mr.Curmudgeon]

All this hoopla is for naught anyhow. I believe it goes before the Supreme Court now, and of course, with Roberts on the bench...it'll never wash.

Don't fret, the pledge will most likely stand. Even though the "under God" part was never in the original pledge.

mrC

[ChadTower]

How did Roberts manage to get more than one vote?

[Thenasty]

"The Flag Code specifies that any future changes to the pledge would have to be with the consent of the President. "


He will never change it......just because some1/hundreds says so....
Bush maybe will tell them to listen to Thenasty and to "GET OUT"

[fredster]

Come on, one guy gets pissed and he makes it difficult for everybody else.  Geeze.  It's unreal.

In any argument, there are always WINNERS and LOSERS.  It's a digital thing okay?

If the majority has to bend to the minority all the time, what freaking sense does that make?

What country has "liberty and justice" for all?  What system do you people think is soooo perfect it's better than ours? 

[ChadTower]

If the majority has to bend to the minority all the time, what freaking sense does that make?

That is how America works now.

[Thenasty]

I don't like HALAL meat, so I don't buy it and you don't see me asking to remove it from being sold....

[Dexter]

Personally, I reckon "one nation under Canada" solves the problem.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How did Roberts manage to get more than one vote?

He didn't...my point is that his apparent philosophy (if one can be drawn from his complete lack of forthcoming at the hearings)...maintains the conservative bent of the Supreme Court. They'll strike this ruling down if they accept the case on appeal.

This current Chicken-little syndrome be damned.


mrC

[ChadTower]

So realistically, since Roberts is replacing a conservative vote, nothing changes.

[fredster]

That's Correct Chad

Nothing at all has changed.

[ChadTower]

It will when they fill O'Connor's seat, though.  That will be one of the ugliest fights ever.  Roberts personally got lucky when a conservative seat opened up in the middle of the Democrats filibustering his nomination, so they could just roll over on him and focus on the liberal seat Roberts was originally filling.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It will when they fill O'Connor's seat, though.  That will be one of the ugliest fights ever.  Roberts personally got lucky when a conservative seat opened up in the middle of the Democrats filibustering his nomination, so they could just roll over on him and focus on the liberal seat Roberts was originally filling.

Well, it should get nasty if Bush nominates someone outside of the mainstream. Anyhow, I think Roberts getting through is a combination of two things, luck and skill. He's good. I personally have not had alarm bells going off...his statements are evasive and I am extremely displeased with the WH's refusal to release all the pertainent documents on Roberts - I mean, he *is* applying for a frickin' lifetime position - but I think he seems intelligent enough to weigh factual evidence and discard personal philosophy.

I have more of a problem with his "pro-corporate" tendencies, as opposed to his potential social-conservatism (I even get the sense that he may end up being more socially liberal than Bush supporters would like). But, like others on the left have said, he's probably the best we're going to get from Bush.

O'Connor's replacement will be an entirely different story. Bush is spiteful, and I imagine he'll see this Roberts appointment as a "mandate" to force his own philosophy down our throats with that nomination.

I hope the Dems play their cards right on that one, if that's the case.

mrC

[ChadTower]

The only cards the Dems have are the same ones they usually play.  They'll delay, refuse to vote, do a lot of yelling, screaming, and generally just try to string the process out to 2008 while hoping a Democrat wins the White House.

[Dartful Dodger]

The only cards the Dems have are the same ones they usually play.

They don't play at all, they just let things happen then complain about it afterward.

Their strategy is fine with me, I get what I want, they get to complain, everybody wins.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's Correct Chad

Nothing at all has changed.

Fredster,
But that won't stop Conservatives from playing the victim with this 9th circuit ruling. Just watch the "So Called Liberal Media" over the next few days...they'll be acting as if the sky is falling.

Nothing at all has changed. Exactly.

Chad,

The only cards the Dems have are the same ones they usually play.  They'll delay, refuse to vote, do a lot of yelling, screaming, and generally just try to string the process out to 2008 while hoping a Democrat wins the White House.

Well, if the cause is just, then more power to them, that's their job as minority party if they disagree with the nominee. They could do that now with Roberts, so I think his appointment (without filibuster) will prove that they are not solely partisan actors (all the time).

You've got to give them a break on some aspects of these hearings. The Bush administration is one of the most secretive bunch of officials to have graced the halls of the WH in an extremely long time. The Dems main beef with the GOP and WH re: Robert's is the lack of background provided on the guy. Even though I would most likely vote for Robert's myself at this point, I'd have an extremely difficult time doing so because of the unnerving precedent is sets for future nominees. This isn't a game, it's the highest court in the land.

I mean, what next? Will the next nominee receive their hearing as they stand behind a curtain? "You can't see who they are until you vote for them! Nah, nah, nah naaaah nah!"

Dartful,

They don't play at all, they just let things happen then complain about it afterward.

Again...makes no sense. Dur. Shouldn't you be out playing in traffic?


mrC

[ChadTower]

I don't consider refusing to vote as doing their jobs.  I see it as analagous to a doctor refusing to treat patients or a cook refusing to make food.  It is their JOB to vote.  If they don't like the issue, vote no, but do the job and cast the vote.

[Stingray]

But, like others on the left have said, he's probably the best we're going to get from Bush.

I have to reluctanly agree with this assessment.

-S

[ChadTower]

It's not like the guy is a scumbag.  He is a good man with whose views you happen to disagree.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't consider refusing to vote as doing their jobs.  I see it as analagous to a doctor refusing to treat patients or a cook refusing to make food.  It is their JOB to vote.  If they don't like the issue, vote no, but do the job and cast the vote.

Politicians, on both sides, do what it takes to "win", sometimes that means holding up a vote by not voting. Them's the rules. If you don't like them, lobby for change. I don't completely agree with it, but then again, we've never had such a power-mad administration as this one. Checks n' balances have served this nation since its founding, and as such, I'm more apt to leave certain things in tact. Even if they don't always seem fair.

It's not like the guy is a scumbag. He is a good man with whose views you happen to disagree.

Who are you talking about? Roberts or Bush? If Roberts, how can you glean, from the somewhat limited info available to the public via the media, that he is a "good man"? Did you do you're own non-partisan research? Did you look into his soul? I can see saying that he is "intelligent" and/or "modestly conservative"...but a "good man"...that's the kind of B.S. Bush says about everyone....even Putin.

If Bush, well, then obviously I disagree, since I think he gives scumbags a bad name.



mrC

[markrvp]

Well, it should get nasty if Bush nominates someone outside of the mainstream.

You apparently are in denial about what is mainstream America.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You apparently are in denial about what is mainstream America.

Not true. If you look at the country's timeline, America is undeniably progressive in nature. Civil Rights, Women's rights, etc...

A large number of those "liberal" votes are from poor voters looking to continue their government handout or from Union Workers who don't want to have to compete for their jobs.

Source? or conjecture?

Those cities have their own views on morality and what is acceptable which are not in line with the mainstream majority of Americans. 

So you think rural means mainstream?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Roberts or Bush?

Roberts.  Bush is an idiot.

I base my assumptions on the fact that no one, not even the Democrats, have questioned his integrity, character, or reputation.  If he had any sliver of a questionable history they (the Democrats) would have made dogmeat out of it.  Since they have not, and since there is also no reason to asume he is not a good man, it is logical to assume he is a good man.

[fredster]

So you think rural means mainstream?

Depends on what you think is "rural". 

I don't think what people think in Detroit, LA, NYC, or Chicago is mainstream.

[ChadTower]

Where I grew up, the main stream opens up into the marsh, which eventually opens up into the inlet, which opens up into the bay, which opens up into the Atlantic Ocean.

The big city is the ferry terminal, a couple restaurants and bars, a small hotel, and where the houses are on intersecting streets.  It is also where all the wharves are and where all the fishermen launch from and return to with their catches.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Since they have not, and since there is also no reason to asume he is not a good man, it is logical to assume he is a good man.

Well, I start off from the assumption that everyone is an @sshole...they then have to show that they are *not*. Most just end up proving me right. 

Where I grew up, the main stream opens up into the marsh...

See!   

mrC

[ChadTower]

The Humor is not with you today.

[Crazy Cooter]

Back to the topic...

If instead of "under god" it said "abortion is right" or "abortion is wrong", people would flip out.

[ChadTower]

I am not screaming about Muslims praying.

[Crazy Cooter]

The legal precedent was set a long time ago in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  It bars the government from taking actions that promote or endorse religion or a particular religious faith.

I swear I read somewhere that the guy only wanted the words "under god" removed (which is how it used to be receited), but somehow it turned into this.  Maybe not.  I don't understand why it was ever added anyhow.  What's the problem with removing it and going on with our daily lives?

[didn't mean you were screaming, people I know are  ]

[JackTucky]

And JackTucky, if your kids were in a class that said, "One nation under Satan...", or, "One atheist nation," something tells me that you would be singing a different tune.  Try stepping outside of your own shoes sometime.

You're wrong.  I don't believe in religion. My wife does.  She takes my kids with her.  So they believe.  If the pledge said Satan, my kids already have their own opinion.  They wouldn't like it.  They would come home and ask me why they say Satan.  I'd say, cause the pledge is wrong.  Say it anyway.  leave out the satan part.  Have a nice day at school.

Me, I wouldn't care either way.

No one can program my brain.  Now I want to go get a mountain dew so I can hang out with hot chicks playing volleyball all day.

Art

[ChadTower]

I swear I read somewhere that the guy only wanted the words "under god" removed (which is how it used to be receited), but somehow it turned into this.

[Crazy Cooter]

It was changed when "under god" was added, why can't it be changed back now that it's ruled to be in violation of the 1st amendment?

[ChadTower]

Because the pledge is not in violation of the first amendment.  Mandatory recitation of the pledge in public school was ruled in violation of the first amendment, not the pledge itself.  That is why mandatory recitation is going to be eliminated instead of having the pledge changed.

Without mandatory recitation, the pledge is just something people say, and is itself protected by that same first amendment.

[Crazy Cooter]

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No law respecting an establishment of religion.  Therefore a law mandating recitation of the phrase "under god" violates the First Amendment.  A law mandating recitation of the rest of it does not.

So as currently written, the pledge violates the First Amendment because of the "under god" bit.  Take that out and you have a winner... just like it was before that part was added in.

[ChadTower]

It is the rule mandating recitation that was ruled unconstitutional.  They have two options:

Change the pledge or repeal the rule.

They have no power to change the pledge, therefore they must repeal the rule.

[Stingray]

This whole thread is going against my constitutional right to be frivilous. I'm going back to the cheerleader thread.

-S

[Crazy Cooter]

Ripped from another site:
...the Pledge was amended in 1954 to include the words "under God;" legislation to add the motto "In God We Trust" to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" [out of many, one] was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956.

History (also ripped):
The resolution to change the Pledge was introduced into the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut. He proposed to add the words "under God" as "one nation, under God." Note the placement of the comma between "one nation" and "under God." As part of its deliberations, the House Judiciary Committee solicited an opinion for comma placement from the Library of Congress. Three proposals were considered:

one Nation, under God
one Nation under God
one Nation indivisible under God
The Library of Congress reported the following recommendation:

". . . Under the generally accepted rules of grammar, a modifier should normally be placed as close as possible to the word it modifies. In the present instance, this would indicate that the phrase 'under God,' being intended as a fundamental and basic characterization of our Nation, might well be put immediately following the word 'Nation.' Further, since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there would seem to be no reason for a comma after Nation; 'one Nation under God' thus becomes a single phrase, emphasizing precisely the idea desired by the authors . . ."

The Judiciary Committee and the House concurred with the Library of Congress, adopting the single phrase. The Senate co-sponsor of the resolution was Sen. Homer Ferguson, who said of the joint resolution during Senate debate, "Our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God . . ." Evidently, it was so important for this Congress to officially acknowledge the United States as a nation founded on a belief in a God, that even comma placement was debated to ensure the proper meaning was conveyed! With insertion of the words "under God," the Pledge has now become both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

It seems to me that someone should stand up in congress and say: "Kids should be given the opportunity to be patriotic.  If that means reverting back to the older version... then let's do it."

Anyhow the site is: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1999/May99/lynn.html and is a pretty quick read on the history behind the pledge.

[shmokes]

Thanks for that info.  I knew the dates and so on, but didn't know all that. 

One thing that irritates me is the people who refuse to consider my comments earlier as valid.  You've got JackTucky speculating on what it would be like to be an atheist or some other non-christian and how it wouldn't bother him at all.  He's an agnostic with no interest in it.  He doesn't see it as harmful.  But indifference is easy for someone who doesn't care about the issue.  Many people could not care less if an Amendment were passed nullifying the Second Amendment.  Indifference would be easy for them too.  Many people couldn't care less if every square inch of forest land in America were bulldozed and replaced with stucko mini-malls.  You think that just because this isn't an issue that happens to be important to you that it's not actually important?  If it's not important to you, why do you weigh in on the God people's side.  Why don't you say, "Well, it seems pretty reasonable to put it back the way it was intended, especially considering the serious question of constitutionality."

There's all kinds of people talking about how petty and whiny the anti-god people are being, but any one of you would fight tooth and nail against replacing the word God with something you fundamentally don't believe in or agree with, like Satan or changing it to "One atheist nation." 

Can you honestly say (this is to the God people, not JackTucky) that were it not the other way around...had Congress, in response to the fundamentalist soviet christian scare, CHANGED the pledge of allegiance in 1954 to say, "One Atheist Nation....," that you wouldn't be fighting to have that changed -- if not changed to "under God" at least removed so that it is religiously neutral. 

Would you really like to explain to your five or eight-year-old that, "Well, Billy, while you have to recite that in class, it just means that the Nation believes there is no God....Our family thinks there is one, though."

"But dad, why do we say we don't believe in God, if we do?"

"Well, it's just the pledge of allegience.  You don't have to say it."

"Uh huh....our class gets up and says it together every morning.  Mrs Patterson says to put our hands on our hearts.  Everybody says it."

"Yeah, but we believe that there IS a God Billy.  So you don't have to say it if you don't want to."

"Why don't they think there's a God?  Is it okay to say it if I want to....?"

"Well, of course, Billy.  It's okay to say it, but I want you to remember that there is a god and he loves you very much so you shouldn't say that part of it."

"What if people laugh at me?"

"Well, I think sometimes people laugh at kids for being different.  And they shouldn't do that, but it's more important to do what's right than to worry about what other kids think of you."

[HaRuMaN]

Personally, I reckon "one nation under Canada" solves the problem.

Canada's like a loft apartment over a great party...   

[ChadTower]

Honestly, I'd rather that they never placed that clause into the pledge to begin with.  This nation wasn't founded under god, it was founded on the right to worship as one chose, or just as importantly to not worship as one chose.

Of course, that didn't help all the natives that were slaughtered when they would not convert.