Ho Tamar,

>>>... one nation, indivisible, ...
>>>
>>>As soon as you insert "under God" in there, you've just divided it.
>>
>>Hmm.. Doesn't the english defintion for the word 'under' have an inclusive notion contained in it?
>
>I don't think so. To me, "under God" is shorthand for "under the rule of God" or "under the watchful eye of God" or some other similar phrase.

That may indeed be your take but that's neither the law (as I understand it) nor a bad thing (in my opinion <g>).

So, we have dueling opinions. Why should your trump mine? Particularly when mine is in the majority and you have an existing legal remeday of being allowed to not speak those words?

How does that "leap" to scrubbing the very concept out of society for the alleged 'damage' it has done to some apparenely very weak-minded non-believers?

> When you add that to the Pledge, you are dividing the nation into those for whom that phrase is a comfort, and those for whom it's uncomfortable.

Tough beans. <g>

There are many things in this society that make folks uncomfortable. I suppose all sides could line up their pet peeves, don't you? <s>

How does the word "uncomfortable" suddenly become a reason for changing law? This is pretty much central to what I see as "the liberal (non-god) agenda" I often assert.

I have every right to make assertions that cause you to be uncomfortable, as do you. Why are you trampling my constitutional rights to say thing you do not agree with? Or are you in agreement with those who want to silence freedom of speech? Or are your rights greater than mine..... <s>

An even balance is all I want.