So your basic arguments are:
It is divisive.

So as a country then we should all be united? Then lets get rid of all religions. As that surely does not unite all of us. I mean to have all those people belieiving different things, now that is truly divisive.

You say it was not there before and should be removed.
Well then you hit upon the real core fix. Congress can change it back correct. But unless I miss my guess that would require votes from people willing to say that God had no part in building this country or sustaining it, and thus all reference to a being that is supreme to us should be removed. I don't think you have the votes.

So what are you left with, lets see liberal Judges. A solution where the minority over rules the majority. That is really going to be fruitful down the road. This is what is causing major divisiveness.


>>Alex you tell me exactly where in the constitution does it say to remove God from the pledge. And if you give me the pat answer of "separation of Church and State", then you had better look deep and hard at what that phrase was refering to.
>
>Come on! You are more intelligent than that!
>Establishment Clause?
>Establishment of Religion?
>
>There was no mention of religion in the Pledge before 1954. It was added because of the Communist Scare. It is not a question of removing your God from it. It is divisive and should not be there.
>
>Would you be willing to change it to:
>"one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ?
>
>How about:
>"one nation, under Quetzalcoatl, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ?
>
>Would that be offensive to you? Or maybe divisive and/or discriminatory, making you a second-class citizen because it forces you to pledge allegiance to a god you don't believe in?
>
>Why would that be so and you don't consider it offensive and divisive for the 15-18% of the population that is agnostic or atheist? Why should those people be marginalized?
>
>The Pledge is all about uniting people. As it stands now it is divisive.