>Ok, let everyone take their shots, as I'm sure they will.

I, in fact, agree with what you say, this state-mixing of nationalism (I tend to like the concept of nationalism), but this interjection of religion and "God" into state matters I don't care for, and I do not think it's what our founding fathers intended - it tends to ostracize people, and is disinclusive rather than inclusive.

That is contrary to our Declaration of Independence (where not once is a religious bias noted, in fact it goes to great lengths to be secular, and seperates church and state quite strongly). In our nation, we have aetheists, we have multitheists (e.g., many Native Americans), reincarnative beliefs (Hindus, Buddhists). The religious fervor that washed the nation alongside McCarthyism is as wrong as McCarthy was, plain and simple, by definition of the Declaration itself. No single style of theistic belief should be, or was intended to be, considered "the only right one."

Countless wars and lost-lives have struggled with this "belief" matter and twisted it in all manner of ways. "My belief is right and yours is wrong, so I will kill you." "My belief says I should kill you and all your people." Etc. Everyone from the Crusaders to Hesbollah has been caught up in this unproven, emotional mass-hysteria madness. The basic underlying problem is that adults inculcate or socialize their youth into their own beliefs and often their own hatreds, and thus the beliefs become perpetuated indefinitely by lineage. Would that children were to exposed to all manner of possible peaceful beliefs, and left to make their own selections, I would foresee the planet being a better place.

However, back to the issue: I also would say that once things like "God" in the Pledge become instilled in everyday usage, they become heritage and tradition, and it is not possible to remove them without approaching revolutionary velocity (at least, that is, until mankind graduates to a higher level of cosmic understanding). So we're stuck with the Pledge as it is, like it or not, and we may as well not be overly concerned over things we have negligible control over. If the "lawsuit gentleman" wishes to expend his time, money, and emotions in his indulgence, legally that's his prerogative and right by law, however foolish it may seem to most of us. I suppose it may inspire some individuals to ponder or "meditate" over their belief systems, if nothing else, as I think a lot of people rarely even consider their beliefs.

But basically I believe the gentleman has a fair point - it is not possible, at this point in time on our planet, for any one belief to be the "correct one," since the precepts of any one religion or belief, including aethesim, cannot be proven or disproven. In that sense, they are all basically untenable, and merely "faiths."

Now my turn to hear it <g>