>>OK...there is a fair interpretation on your part. Now, how is the pledge counter to the Establishment Clause?
>
>I'm not sure I care.

You better care if you are going to make the argument it is un-constitutional.


>
>>The question is, which framers am I referring to?
>
>I'm thinking either framers of the constitution or the pledge. Which?

Which framers of the constitution? Specifically, I was referring to the architects of the reconstruction amendments (13, 14, and 15).


>
>>It can be relevant. I happen to think the framers did intend an abstract reference to God.
>
>If you're talking about Jefferson and company, yes. Very abstract. However, given the fact that the framers (largely deist) did not believe in an omincient being overseeing and interacting with human affairs, I'm fairly sure they would have objected to such an amendment to the pledge.
>

How about the reconstruction framers? Also, why wasn't a const. convention convened to adopt a specific pledge that did not have the phrase "under God"?


>If you're talking about the framers of the pledge, you must be talking about those who amended the pledge in 1954 to include a reference to God. I think Eisenhower (who signed the change into law) was pretty clear about its purpose there:
>

No...that is not binding authority for this issue.


>"the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty"
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0628/p04s02-usju.html
>

Actually, one thought is that a bunch of folks slid this one by Eisenhower, that he really was not clued into the issue.


>Belief in the Almighty is a fairly concrete, and not accurate with respect to non-monotheists.

Then they can choose to ignore. Or, begin the ground work for a const. amendment.