>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.

I'm leaving all the other stuff out, so that I can focus on the key issue here. The case was about the Pledge being recited in school. As you note, kids have been allowed to opt out for a long time. (If I remember correctly, that took a Supreme Court decision.)

However, the remaining issue is the one of a representative of the state (the teacher or principal) leading the students in language that asserts God's authority over the country. It's not enough to just allow students to opt out of saying it. When the government representative in authority leads it, it's a mandate.

From my perspective, this is no different than the teacher or principal leading the Lord's Prayer, which, fortunately, has been prohibited for a long time. However, I know that you and I disagree on that issue as well, so I doubt we'll find agreement on this one.

Having said all this, I should add that while I agree with the court decision, and have left out "under God" for many years when I recite the Pledge, I think this particular issue is minor, in the ultimate scheme of things.

Tamar