I am a christian and i believe in saying "under god" in the pledge, but because i live in America, a place where culture is so diverse and common, I cant label everyone as a follower of god because there are so many different religions and beliefs. I believe people should break free from their instinctual thoughts and learn to respect things they do not understand. Why should atheists be denied human rights? If they do not belive in a god than why do they have to say they do? Forcing someone to say "under god" in the pledge is hypocritical and extremely unamerican for it takes away freedom of religion. (the embodiment of why so many people wish they could live in the U.S)

Please reply... i would like to hear your opinion

Hmm- boy , I could see this debate getting off topic quick LOL

Short answer to question is "Duh, of course not, that is one of the most basic rights in our Constitution, not to be forced to recognize God"

I think of course, that it is sad that they messed up the original pledge in the 1950s and added it in the first place, had they just left it alone, there would be nothing to debate!

Even if you could force someone to say "under God" in the pledge, you couldn't make that person believe it. So what would be the point in making the person say it?

I don't think a student should be forced to say the pledge, anyway, even though it is a nice sentiment. Ultimately deeds, not words, determine the character and loyalties of a person. (I'd cite the person who originally said that if I knew who that person was.)

I agree with PE. Some people deride terrorists for blind fanatacism and yet still think it's patriotic to force students to say a pledge. A pledge oath to bind someone to a promise. Despite the good intent in the pledge, I don't believe anyone should be forced to say something that their sentiments may not entirely lie with or that they may not entirely agree with.

As a British citizen, the oddest thing about the Pledge of Allegiance is not the existence or nature of the supernatural entity under which your country exists, but the fact that born citizens not undertaking public office feel the need to regularly and public proclaim your allegiance to anything at all. Let alone your country, and let alone that some US states insist on it daily in publicly-funded education.

Heard on the evening news last night that our inane Republican state legislature wants to force all children to recite the pledge in public schools. Right now, by law, teachers are forced to lead the recitation. Children can opt out.

Perhaps we could also force recitation to gain entry to automobiles and trucks. How about before boarding public transportation? Hey, before making a credit card purchase, recite! That'll make us so darn religious and patriotic we could bust.

I'm so happy our government finds the forcing of behavior to be in our best interests. Yep, happy enough to buy all our Republican state legislators one-way tickets to Iran where they can force everyone to pray several times a day too. To the one true god, you know.

It's interesting how the US seems to pride itself on its "diversity of culture," "basic rights," "fair and equal treatment," while still managing to grasp on tightly to tradition for the sake of tradition.

I simply cannot support what in my view is such blatant and disrespectful disregard for the other religions that are held by our very own people.

Should they be required to say "under god"? Optional, as the Pledge should be.

Actually, in my HS, the pledge was optional. Not entirely sure about the rest of GA, though.

Optional or not, are schools the place to do it? Saying the pledge at some kind of "Patriots Club" I could understand, but in a school, even if optional, it smacks of brainwashing.

(Yay! This is my 500th post here! Thanks everyone for such a high standard of debate, without which I would have got bored ages ago.)

In my school days (almost old as dirt), bowing our head in a moment of silent prayer and reciting the pledge was a given homeroom daily routine no matter what. People have freedom of choice...they can stand up, sit down, leave the room, say the pledge or not, include the word "under God" or not...and they can even burn our flag if they so choose.

This is a free country, you can say it or not say it, but I don't think it should be taken out.

This issue has always confused me. Considering the near fanatical devotion that many Americans have to such things as their constitution and some elements and symbols of their history, I had always imagined that there would be a real outcry against the inclusion of the propagandistic "under God" in the pledge of alleigance. It was not put there for any high moral reason, it was put there out of the McCarthyist paranoia of the godless hordes of communism.

I am very surprised that anyone would want to keep this clause in considering
-Its sordid origin;
-Its violation of the basic principles of the country regarding state and religion
-Its setting one God above all others, a violation of another set of founding principles.

Religion is for the religious in appropriate settings and situations, it is not to be forced down one's throat, all that does is create resentment.

I am not American, so my voice is a cry from the wilderness in this debate, but to me, of course it should be removed.

How is it setting ONE GOD above another?! Does it say Yahweh? Jehovah? Allah? No. It says God, generic and inoffensive. It's just acknowledging The Higher power and what better label to give IT than the universally accepted term God. No matter what, some things will NEVER make people happy.

See, I thought that the whole idea behind America was freedom (and choice) is what WOULD lead to happy lives. You're position is basically that it not having the choice isn't harmful, so there's no reason to stop denying it. That is the antithesis of American values. To me you need a stronger rationale than



To override the core values of the Constitution.

But there are tradition that some in this country hold dear and don't want to see changed. It's not denying anyone their rights. There is no law saying that you'll be punished if you don't say it. I'm sorry if the term God offends a minority in this country, but this IS a democracy and hopefully those that want UNDER GOD kept in the pledge will have their voices heard. If you don't like it, don't say it. I'm sorry, but this issue is so mute. What's next? Taking IN GOD WE TRUST off our money? That's more offensive, in my opinion! You can't live without financial transaction. People want to erase God from this country and limit the faithful to their churches and synagogs and continue to belittle us. You mark my word, a day will come where those of faith will be openly persecuted and ridiculed and it will be acceptable. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth being an American because in my opinion, we're going down the drain...

When they added the phrase "under god" it just cheapened the whole thing for me. I won't be patriotic for a country that isn't even sensitive enough to realize that some people don't believe in supernatural beings. That's like amending the last line of the national anthem from "The home of the brave." to "The home of the brave and the unicorns".

Then it would be just some silly song.
Just like the pledge is now just some silly saying.

To you it's silly...

When the day comes that christians are in the minority, would they not be offended by our pledge that reads "One nation, under Jahovah, indivisible..." ?

If Jahovah's witnesses were the majority, does that give them the right to put their creeds throughout the governement?

In your opinion we're going down the drain by eliminating religion from our governement, in my opinion religion is silly. Luckily its a free country and we can both believe as we wish.

But if I really want to stand up for my beliefs, I would have to stop using money (oh, wait - i already have). Does attaching your creed to something of value (cash) make it worth more? Decidedly not. I don't value your religion, but I do value money. So why tie them together? And just so you know, because CONGRESS makes the rules about how our money is printed, and the Constitution states that CONGRESS can't make any rules respecting any establishment of religion - don't be surprised if the creed does come off the money in due time. I know my donations to AU have been working wonders like that for years now.

First off, Jehovah witnesses and Christians believe in the same God, Jehovah is just one of his many names. Second of all, acknowledgement of our founders and our history is very important to the vast majority of the people of this nation and just because some anti-God people out there are offended by traditional Americana, that's too bad. You're right, go to Congress and petition all you want. But I doubt seriously that it will do any good any time soon. There is huge sector of faith oriented Americans that are really starting to get upset with the way their traditions are being challenged and degraded and manipulated in the public eye and substandard and illiterate. The reason the nation is so divided starts right there...

Supernatural beings?

Well, let me get this straight.

You believe that coincidentally and on it's own, matter developed, planets and stars developed, Earth developed precisely the exact distance from the sun to accommodate life, and then on it's own - where Earth started as molten lava, life spontaneously spawned.

Then, this species developed the attributes to survive on it's own (when it's a fact, human babies cannot survive on their own), create technology and economies, and finally, created the internet so we could claim that in reality, we are God.

All by a stroke of luck where that streak has lasted and repeated itself for 200 million years.

Of course, we know everything about time and space because our 3rd grade science teacher told us. Some have determined, based on our 80 year life spans, that in the last trillion years, there are no other elements that we don't know about, there are no other dimensions we know about, and there are no other intelligent energy sources (whether it be in matter or structure) we don't already know about.

What seems more absurd? Forces that certainly exist, but we can't understand, helping this process along? Or matter was created from nothing only to spawn life forces once again, created from nothing?

Personally, I am not religious and do not go to church. I'm an engineer who thinks in logical terms and deals in science on a daily basis. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how anybody with three brain cells they can rub together can determine everything we see is all that exists.

We have more reason to believe in a God, regardless of the form, than anybody has a right to believe in it's absence. So, if you want to believe in a 200 million year stroke of luck, go for it. But don't interfere with a more common belief - and more well founded belief - that we had help .

Don't like "Under God"? Then stick your head back in the sand so you can't see it. We promise not to interfere...

How are your RIGHTS being threatened in any way but not reciting the pledge BY force. Christians are still FREE to practice how they see fit. The last time I checked forced indoctrination of Children isn't exactly one of the Ten Commandments. Explain to me how making the pledge optional or removing it (the whole thing, not just the religious element) in any way infringes on religion. So far you've seemed content to just criticize those who would remove the pledge for their beliefs and ignored the fact that there really is no implication for christianity for doing it.

It has NOTHING to do with Christianity! At what point in the pledge does it say the Christian God? NOWHERE! It simply acknowledges the divine. It is not trying to indoctrinate children by reciting the pledge, it's TRADITION and a culture without TRADITIONS will deteriorate. OBVIOUSLY this is happening already. Look at COLUMBINE for starters!

Firstly, if you believe that the phrase "Under God" is not religion specific, then you are being naive. Yes, all religions (or most anyways) worship 'a god', but The term God clearly often signifies a Christian God. Allah is simply the world for God in Arabic, but the word Allah clearly signifies an Islamic God. Jehovah is just another name for God, as you say, but the term Jehovah clearly denotes a particular sect or belief.

"Under God", whether you like to admit it or not, is a religion specific term, and thus a potential insult to worshippers of other religions. That is, of course, as well as being an insult to agnostics and Atheists, who form an increasing percentage of this secularising society.

Secondly, you say it has nothing to do with God, and is all about tradition. Except of course, that this 'tradition' was an obvious propagandistic attempt to give voice to the 1950s paranoia about the red horde. As a tradition, it truly sucks. If you want a tradition, how about the original, unaltered pledge of allegiance? That seems to me to be far more 'traditional'.

Thirdly, eliminating 'under God' is not about persecuting religious figures or believers, it is about acknowledging the nature of your state in which church and state are separate, and one has the freedom to believe what one wills. THAT is a tradition worth preserving.

Lastly, what does the red herring of Columbine have to do with anything? Are you trying to infer that those kids went on a rampage because they were not respecting US tradition? That example is an irrelevancy.

What is substandard and illiterate?

Traditions should not be maintained simply because they are traditions. There are plenty of traditions that definitely SHOULD NOT have endured - should we go into naming them?

I'm not trying to get off-topic - but tradition does have some relevance to the Pledge - the tradition being that it was written WITHOUT any religious terminology. So if we're really gonna debate this on the issue of tradition, let's check out the tradition of writing public documents without any religious terminology. (The Constitution, the bill of rights, the pledge of allegiance, etc etc)


You have more reason to believe in a god....and you believe strongly - that's great. I do not have any reason to believe in a god. And a more common belief (and in your opinion, more founded belief) does not make a place for religion in our government. How could you argue that it is ok for our money to read "In god we trust" if it wouldn't be ok in your opinion for our money to say "In unicorns we trust"? What if the majority of the nation believed in unicorns? What if unicorns were the national animal?

But this topic has gone WAY off topic. The question was should "under god" be removed from the pledge - if you want students to pledge their allegiance (which isn't necessary anyway), then yes. "under god" was not the tradition of the person who wrote the pledge and "under god" cannot be left in by reason of tradition.




So columbine is the result of us moving religion out of government? Please show some evidence to support this insinuation.

Oh and Jahovah's witnesses don't agree with you that the pledge includes their god too. They're the ones who won the first court case to forbid the requirement of reciting the pledge in schools.

That belief is not more founded, and in North America, is is quickly becoming not more common. Don't interfere with the increasingly popular and equally well founded opinion that it had no help at all.

I will not get this debate off topic, but suffice to say this: By exaggerations, personal interpretation and creative writing, I could write a very similar paragraph to the one you just wrote which utterly ridiculed anyone who believed in God. I won't, I will instead say that this is just your opinion, nothing more. You have every right to your opinion about divinity, I do not begrudge you that, but your opinion has no more validity than mine, and making statements like "belief in god is more founded" and the like is counter-productive to your case.

However, if there is a god, or if there is No God, is actually irrelevant to this debate. The debate is about the time and place for making reference to that God, and by all TRADITION, and by the codes of your country, the pledge of alleigance is not the place.

I think it's those that are offending by the term God are the ones who nick-pick over the term. Ofcourse this nation was found by Judeo Christians, and that's going to be a heavy influence in our culture. But I truly believe that the term Under God can be perceived as a generality. But that's up to perception, of course.

The separation of church and state is not at risk here. Which denomination is on the forefront, on the Capital steps dictating doctrine? None. But, some will welcome a Rev. when it suits their purpose. MLK was a spiritual man and widely respected and even has his own national holiday? If you are so afraid of the deteriation the separation of church and state, we should ban that holiday. But there would be many who would object...

Who would you have swear in the President?

Have him put his hand on a copy of The Lord of the Rings to take the oath?

Columbine is NOT an irrelivant example. If murdering innocent kids in school is NOT a sign of moral deteriation, I don't know what is.

Actually, it would have the same significance to me.




Murdering innocent kids in school may be a sign of mental illness, poor supervision, drug use...any number of things. And I definately wouldn't classify it as deterioration - religious people murder innocent children in the name of god all the time. So actually this would be par for the course if you really wanna NIT PICK about religion being such a great role model.

I think you are wearing blinders if you think "Under God" is not religion specific. I would love to see the coin reversed, having muslims claim that you should refer to God as Allah because "It just means God in Arabic, you are being too sensitive, it is not a religion specific term", then watching your reaction.

The separation of church and state is not at issue? This is a pledge of alleigance to the state, and now because of this revision, you are pledging to one nation, under God. I honestly have a great deal of difficulty in imagining a situation where the separation of church and state is MORE at issue.

While we are on the topic, I agree that the Presient has no business being sworn in on a Bible.

Your MLK point, like your Columbine point is completely irrelevant. MLK has not been given a holiday because he was a religious or divine figure. Columbine has nothing to do with religion or tradition.

This is a term, added during one of the worst days of the United States for purely propagandistic reasons, which offends both non-religious and non-Christian people. It is a violation of church and state, it is a violation of tradition.

Ah yes, here we go on the EVIL EMPIRE THAT IS CHRISTIANITY AND THE VIOLENT HISTORY THERE OF....

I'm not going to defend the indefensible. Don't put me in a category with a group of people I don't consider "on the true path"./



And that's NOT moral detrition? Many issues surrounding mental illness is family related, or rather, the lack of family involvement. Poor supervision goes right back to my first point. Families, parents rather, abandon their kids to the supervision of tv, computers and their peers and don't take a more active role in their lives because they're so self consumed. THATS MORAL DETERIATION. Lack of discipline. So the parents won't or don't know how to discipline their kids and the teachers can't because they'll get sued. So you tell me when this all started? I'd say about the time the 10 commandment came out of the class room and kids took a back seat to many parents priority. If you TRULY think all is well in this country then you are the one that's naive...

My problem was not where you blamed Columbine on 'moral deterioration', but rather where you tried to imply that it had ANYTHING to do with the debate at hand.

As has been pointed out to you, this is not a tradition, the tradition is the pledge WITHOUT the 'under God' as it was originally written.

I suspect at Columbine they recited the pledge of Alleigance in its modified version, including "Under God", so clearly THAT particular item, which is the purpose of the debate today, had NOTHING to do with the 'moral deterioration' which led to massacre.

Please stop pretending that the removal of two words, illigitimatly placed in the pledge in the first place due to propaganda and paranoia, will have any effect on the moral code of the country, or the state of its religious institutions.

This is about the people who are offended, both non religious and non-christian, who wonder why a state based on religious tolerance and freedom would them compel you to pledge to a religious figure. It is about the violation of the separation of church and state, and about the violation of traditions.

As my last comment on this thread....

I see nothing wrong with the term "Under God", I see it as generic and non specific to any one religion. If those that added it had other intentions, they were wrong, but as it stands, I don't think the average American takes offence to the wordage of our Pledge of Allegiance. Infact, most Americans have a fondness for the quote as it stirs up memories of their childhood in the classroom...

That's all she wrote.

Interesting. Then don't put me in a group that I don't consider "the true path". Marking American money with religious mumbo jumbo marks me as an American = believes in a god.


Actually, its not. Mental illness is a chemical imbalance - not moral deterioration.
Poor supervision is not necessarily indicative of moral deterioration.



Lack of discipline is not synonymous with moral deterioration. And there are plenty of moral reasons why a parent might not be able to supervise their child as much as they would like.




Go ahead and provide some evidence, statistics, etc. I don't believe you. Maybe start a different topic - since this one is slightly askew

I still don't really understand why it is thought necessary or appropriate for state school children to be asked or encouraged, let alone required, to pledge allegiance to anything , whether it be under God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, or Gavin the Great Cosmic Hamster.

I'm equally baffled as to why you pledge that allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, rather than just the republic, but having seen the way everyone over there loves all kinds of flags and buntings and decorations on my trips there, it seems to be in the spirit of the nation's people, so more power to you.

Politicians on taking office - certainly.
Services personnel - yup.
Judges, juries, trial witnesses, etc - okay.
Private individuals, whether in public or not - whatever floats your boat.
School pupils in state-funded education that are too young to understand what they are pledging or why, let alone to what or under whom - WHY?

If a pledge is necessary, and the nation to which allegiance is being pledged has rules on the separation of church and state, then I think it's a little contradictory to then start putting God back into things. But who said that a nation can't have contradictory elements. No other nation ever has managed total consistency across the board, though I daresay America comes as close as anywhere ever has.

I know you see nothing wrong with the term, but many others, who's religion does not conveniently conform to the current usage, do have a problem with the term.

In the end, I dont understand the problem. I have heard no good arguments for keeping the two word phrase in the pledge at all.
-Tradition: Clearly if we seek to hold with tradition, we must remove the phrase, put the pledge back to the way it first was, and respect the secular intent of this and other government documents/icons.
-Principles: The government has a policy of separation church and state, more than a policy actually. In theory one cannot be compelled to swear alleigance to a particular theory, religion or divinity associated with the nation, because there is none.
-Principles2: The nation was created on threedom of belief and tolerance of religion. Mixing a pledge to the nation with a pledge to a Church of God is entirely conrary to that.
-Origins: The phrase has no noble or enlightened origins, it comes as stated earlier from the worst kind of fearmongering and propaganda in recent American history, a symbol of the worst excesses of the Cold War.

So in the end, can anyone give me any constructive reason at all why the United States should keep "Under God" in the pledge?

Anyone who interprets ‘under God’ as a reference to the Christian God has a bias heading into this discussion. It’s simply not stated or referenced.

We could amend it to read ‘under our beliefs in a higher being’, which would hopefully satisfy the non believers as well (and good luck explaining that to a 7 year old). If you are forced to say this then when it comes time to repeat those words then just say nothing or substitute what you feel appropriate.

I’m guessing that after the words are stricken from the pledge we’re going to see a movement to not celebrate the 4th of July, after all it is a celebration of the signing of the declaration. That document, and all it stands for, is predicated on the laws of nature and of natures God. So I could easily make an argument that our founding was based on a belief in God and the pledge is merely reflecting that ‘one Nation, under God’ is simply a reference to our founding (although that may have not been the original intent of ‘under God’).

Do you see where this can lead? And if you don’t think it should be stricken from the Declaration of Independence but feel it should be removed from the pledge than I’d like to know why? And if you say because kids are forced to say it then you’ve missed the boat entirely (and the other thread is addressing that issue quite nicely).

Billie Jean couldn’t have been more right. This is a Democracy and currently the majority of Americans do believe in a God.

Whether interpreted as the Christian god or any other god, there are a number of faiths and personal philosophies which recognize no god or higher being. However obtuse people might like to portray the God in the Pledge and on our currency, the fact of the matter is that it is bias in favor of those with certain beliefs and it's promoted by the government.

If "under God" remains in the Pledge I absolutely do not think it should be required of students to say it. I would prefer it be removed so those children with faiths or philosophies absent of deity worship won't single themselves out for other children to ostracize.


The Declaration of Independence is a historical document that children are not being asked or required to recite on a daily basis. There is a difference between a historical document and a daily ritual.


Democracy doesn't mean that the majority can force anything they like upon a minority or treat a minority unequally. Were that the case African Americans and women might still be without voting rights today.

I accept your argument as long as you realise that the moment that 50%+1 of Americans do NOT believe in God, we have exactly the same justification to remove divine figures from government, currency, tradition, institutions and practice outside the churches. And further, when that happens you will have no justification to complain.

When that happens, and given the rates of secularisation of US society, it will happen before long, then "The US is a Democracy, and the majority of Americans don't believe in God."

It is always easy to argue the morality of the majority, so long as you are part of it.

ok, one last thing that I don't understand. You have a classroom of about 20+ kids reciting this simutainously. If little Johnny, who doesn't believe in God and is compelled not to say those two words at the same time the other students do, I doubt any kids would notice him refraining from saying "under God", while the others in unison do. You give kids to much credit.

That's all fine and well for a class of 20 or more students, but that isn't the required class size of all schools is it? I don't believe in forsaking any students just because most students might be in a large enough class that the other students won't notice. Furthermore, I don't support there being a government requirement that forces students to have to conceal aspects of who they are so as to prevent any form of verbal or emotional abuse at the hands of other students.

You seem to be suggesting that students should simply try to sneak by with a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding the Pledge. Not requiring students to participate at all or removal of religious references would prevent any student from being required to declare or conceal anything about their personal beliefs.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, no one kid is going to stand out if they don't say two words in unison with a classroom. I don't think they should be ashamed for not saying or believing it. But on the other hand, the students who wish to say it shouldn't be slighted either.

You should know I am all for diversity, Abs.

If it is required of students to say something with religious bias, it is those of separate beliefs who are being slighted, Billy Jean. Why should one group have to hide anything anymore than another? Neither students with a belief in a god or those with differing beliefs are slighted by taking an approach of "no comment." Advocating a Pledge with clear reference to deity worship on the other hand very clearly slights those students with separate faiths and philosphies.

But it's generic! I don't get how the word God concerning those of different faiths can feel slighted?! And concerning those that are Athiests, I'm sorry, but you're the minority.

As a lesbian, so are you.

"In heterosexuality we trust"


(Mods - I'm being facetious)

It may be generic, but whether you claim it's the Christian god or any other god, it is very clearly a form of deity worship. This is not reflected by those who are atheist, Buddhist, Taoist or necessarily pagan. As to the minority, part of our democracy is the protection of minorities from unequal treatment, Billy Jean. Whether atheist, latino or homosexual, minorities are protected from unequal treatment. Just because you find yourself in one section of an American majority doesn't give you any more power to slight one minority than it does another majority to slight a minority you may be in.

perspective,

And that was supposed to advance this debate how?

I understand this, ABS. If this was such a detriment to democracy and the seperation of church and state, then why aren't all of you out picketing infront of the White House in droves? If this was SUCH an issue and vital to the cohisiveness of our nation, you'd have a million man march of sort. The fact is, YOU DON'T and the fact is, the God fearing people of this nation ARE the backbone of this nation. They're soldiers and farmhands. Most of middle America are God fearing, average, church going people and want to keep UNDER GOD and IN GOD WE TRUST and God in general in this nation.

You know, the more and more I debate with you people the more and more I'm realizing how little (except for Gay rights and the current war) I have in common with the Democratic party- Leftest-liberals, if those that speak here truly are a representative of them.

When Muslims come to North America and learn the English language, why do they not refer to their God simply as 'God?' After all, if they are speaking english now, God is simply the English translation of Allah.

Perhaps it is because the word Allah has a meaning beyond simply 'a god'.

Similarily, when one refers to 'one nation under God' (note capitals) it is not unreasonable to assume, (and many do) that the word refers not to Allah or Jehova, but to God, the Christian God.

Add to that, everyone who knows their history knows that when the words were inserted into the pledge, they were completely intended to refer to the Christain God, separating good upstanding Americans from the godless hordes of the evil Reds.

Lastly, Athiests are a minority. Athiests and Agnostics together are a very strong minority. Given the drop away from eligion of North American society, it will not be long at all before they are a majority.

However, even if that is the case, are you seriously saying that "Sure it may be insulting to some, but who cares, they are a minority in the country"? Funny that, I shall have to remember that next time I ever hear you post anything at all about anything that does not agree with the majority opinion.


And its not like we are suggesting a new law or principle that conforms to this ideal of protecting this minority, because it already exists! The separation of church and state is a fact, not a theory, and this violates it.

Abs you missed my point. I certainly understand that children aren’t being required to recite the Declaration. But the entire document was predicated ‘on the laws of nature and of natures God’.

And I’m sure you know that when you’re ‘debating’ or setting up your ‘argument’ then you often cite the building foundations of your argument very early as was done in the Declaration (clearly in the first paragraph).

And that statement in the Declaration, ‘the laws of Nature and of Natures God’ is simply setting up the reasoning for the rest of the document and telling us all what we now take as common sense: that under the natural order of humans, we’re all equal, no one is better suited to rule over anyone else.

They used it as part of their argument to found our country. I’m just suggesting there is historical context in the pledge. That ‘one Nation, under God’ can be interpreted as the principals upon which this country was founded.



If that was directed at me then it’s a huge assumption since I’ve never stated my beliefs. I do believe we need to cherish the principals that this country was founded upon and those principals clearly involved a God. Wether I believe or not I can still respect those principals.

So unless a million men (or people) picket in front of the whitehouse for a minority cause, that cause is illigitimate?

I never claimed it was a central and vital issue upon which the survival of the nation depends. So now something has to be cataclysmically wrong in order for it to be 'really wrong'?

You know what? Nobody burst into flames or blew up a building because they were forced to recite two words planted in the midle of the pledge for propaganda value. But they do ignore the pledge, not recite the pledge, and feel slighted by their exclusion. They do this because it is wrong by the laws and principles of the land, and they are confused about they hypocracy of what they are taught.

It is not a life-saving/ life-ending breach of the principles of the United States, but it is still a breach.



Is that a fact or an opinion? A reality, or just what you kind of hope is the case?

According to the 1997 Pluralism Project at Harvard University, 63% of Americans associate themselves with a faith group of some kind. That is not what I would call a strong majority. Not all of those are Christian, and of the Christians, a small majority are non-practicing.