>Ultimately, this is the distinction I was making.

I understand. I even said your assertion is correct. That does not change the fact that the pledge is declared in law, does it? That also does not change the fact that, declared by our US Government, that we are one nation under God? Agreed?

>The biggest mistake you can make is to find a source that happens to back up/be sympathetic to your position and trot out those statements as your own...

This is simply a straw man. Ignore the web page if it makes you feel better, that does not change the fact that the pledge is in the law, does it? Thats all my point was.

>I don't have to nor is it my job to prove your points.

No, it is your point. Its commonly accepted that a belief in a God is the defintion of religion. You claim otherwise; prove it.

>Therefore, you are the one who bears the burden of proving the point, not me.

And I have. Instead of addressing my proof you said (again) that its my job to prove it. Please point out where my proof in my previous post fails, or accept it.

>Buchannan smacked it back by saying Theism is a generic belief in a God, not a specific religion that endorses a specific God. The guy could not defend his own point. And FWIW, you can't either...

A generic belief in God is a specific religion. Unless you are ready to prove other wise, your appeal to Buchannan's authority is laughable.

>As far as these 2 defs are concerned, I don't if it is correct or incorrect. I am not sure it is relevant...

It is entirely relevant. YOu claimed that a belief in God is not a religion. The defintion of religion says otherwise. Do you agree?

>Instead, you need to juxtapose the phrase 'Under God' and make an argument WHY the Establishment Clause is violated.

I am not that far yet. Please stick with me.

>You are arguing this point from how you feel

Lol. My adherence to simple defintions and citing of the US code where the pledge is declared does not come from my feelings.

>>Which makes it a religion. By defintion. Agreed?
>As far as the Establishment Clause is concerned, no....

How so?

And I did not say "By the establishment clause", I said "By defintion".

You claim to be a student of logic. Please pay attention to where I am in explaining my reasoning before jumping ahead.

Which makes it a religion. By defintion. Agreed?

>>"I know of folks who do not adopt an institutionalized religion, but believe in God."
>Mike, I choose my words carefully. If I meant to say (qualify) institutionalized, I would have. Don't try and put words in my mouth to prop up your argument. You know I will not let you get away with that...

Than what you said is wrong, by defintion. People who believe in God have a specific religion. It is a personal religion, though not institutionalized. Do you agree?

>From that, you can not make the irrational leap that they have no, or do not profess a specific religion.
>USING YOUR WORDS, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD SAY THAT.

Using commonly accpeted defintions.