Tamar,

>>IAC, it does not matter since the gov't is not mandating that you worship a specific religion.
>
>Even the words of the first amendment itself don't indicate that "mandating that you worship a specific religion" is the only criterion. Here it is again:
>
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
>
>The second part says they can't mandate a religion; the first part says they can't establish a state religion, whether or not it's mandated.

No it doesn't.. The first part says that Congress won't create a state religion or laws about the 'internals' of any religion (IOW, they preclude themselves from 'meddling' in religious issues whatsoever) and the second part says that they (Congress) won't stop people from expressing their faith.

You strip God out of society and you've violated the second part. What's not plain and simple to see about that?

IOW, your right to NOT speak doesn't give you the right to make me stop speaking.

Why are people like myself being called 'bigots' because of this do you think? Tolerance? <g>

Your right to not say the whole Pledge or any part of the Pledge that you disagree with does not give you the right to force me to say it or not say it the way you like.

As John says, your remedy is already in place; you simply do not have to say the Pledge. It's the extra step that is irrational IMO. If you don't like the words, don't say them. The government will not 'force' you to recite the Pledge. As I've pointed out before Karol teaches 2nd grade and she's more than happy to allow a child to either sit at their desk (quietly - hard for 2nd graders. <g>) or to step outside if they are of such a persuasion. More often than not it's the parents who cause all the rukus.

>
>And, of course, there's tons of case law on exactly what the phrases mean.