Absolutely. Forcing kids to take a daily loyalty oath is bad enough. Forcing them to aknowledge a deity they may not believe in is unacceptable.

If people do not want to say "Under God," that is their prerogative, but it should not be struck out to please the minority!!

What are we coming to???

They can just not SAY it if they don't like it. No one is forcing them to say it........ What's next, we have to cut out lines from the Star Spangled Banner because someone doesn't like references to "rockets" or little kids can't wear TV character shirts to school because someone else's mom thinks one of the Teletubbies is gay? Seriously, where does the line between personal discretion and external protection lie?

Ben.....I figured you would say that...I'm sure you're a full blown atheist.
So the minority wants to make the rules for the majority?
If you don't want to say it than don't, let the ones who do, do.
If you haven't noticed the rules are changing....those in the minority want the majority to accept their way of thinking and nothing else.
The foxes are are trying to take over the hen house.....again....
Jim@ccfiile.com

Another disturbed and sad attempt to dilute patriotism in this country. What is so hard about pledging one's loyalty to the very country that has given one, and countless others, opportunities to pursue freedom and all that comes with it including, but not limited to, the very right to not utter the words "under god". Why is so difficult to understand that the pledge is NOT discriminatory - it is requesting your simple devotion to the republic that is the greatest this world has ever seen. There is a simplre mechanism for change you don't like - go vote!

I think this is a very interesting discussion, and the evenly divided poll surprises me. I'm not yet sure what I think. When I was growing up, in both private and public schools, we "had" to say the Pledge--though I'm not sure we really HAD to; nobody in my experience questioned it, and I believe that if a student had refused to join in, it would have been awkward to say the least--but that was hardly conceivable. DO kids still say the Pledge at school? I must say that I'm instinctively with Ben on the topic of indoctrinating children to make what must be for first-graders, for example, a fairly meaningless declaration. But I am more against pushing children to recite, by rote, pledges of loyalty to anything, than I am against them pledging themselves to a nation under God. On the other hand, there is the appealing notion of a community of young people whose very education includes coming to know enough about their country and the wonderful concept of universal freedom (including freedom of belief) and justice that it is built upon, such that they would choose, knowingly and of their own free wills, to pledge themselves to these ideals. So they should, and traditionally do, have the opportunity to express that in a pledge. I guess, as long as no pressure is exerted upon children, they should be allowed to make a pledge, and leave out the parts they have a problem with, but be glad to celebrate those beliefs which they share with others. Can't the children themselves decide?

I just find it amusing that the majority of thse athiest parents that go to court about issues with a pledge that mentions God whom they feel does not exist... and yet still they will teach their kids about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy because its cute.

Myd.....good point!
Are people really atheists......don't think so.
Jim@ccfiile.com

This P C stuff is getting really silly. What is next, hm......Getting arrested for saying God bless you when someone sneezes?

I always say that, and I always mean it!

Tell you what, all you people upset about saying God in the pledge or acknowledging God on anything either written or oral, you can reach in your pockets and give me all your money in either paper or coin that says "In God We Trust".

I live in Framingham look me up in the phone book and you can mail me all your money.

Actually, I am not one for pledges especially the pledge of allegiance. It shouldn't be mandatory but up to your conscience to mention "God". I find it hard to believe that God would be with America in the first place when it defends the conduct of nations that kill, maim, and steal land with impunity. When one signs the song "He's got the whole world in his hands" please remember it is not The God of the Bible we are talking about.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The ONLY war that will be a righteous war will be by the one who sits on the White horse.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His war will be the ONLY righteous war.

Joe Rizoli

>>The Pledge of Allegiance was originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, the words "under God" came in in 1954.

In actuality the Pledge of Allegiance is actually against the Declaration of Independence. The Pledge mentions our nation is "INDIVISIBLE".
<<One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.>>

The part INDIVISIBLE is NOT TRUE.

Notice these cherished words of the Declaration of Independence, its first paragraph:

>>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.>>

Notice he words "Dissolve" "Separate" "Separation". We are DIVISIBLE when tyranny reigns.

Joe Rizoli

Nice research Joe. I can imagine the different perspectives from 1776, where this country was trying to escape a monarchy, to 1892 where we were still in the process of recovering from an awful war that was based on division.

On topic: God can be whomever you want him or her to be. If you want to say the pledge and think of Lady Gaga as God nobody will stop you or need to know. The point of the pledge in school is to offer a sense of unity in a group, to grade school student, larger than the community they can dream of. My 6 year old loves doing the pledge in school because the United States, her community, is important to her. God and who she may think God is is not an issue. I can guess to her God represents only something even larger than the community. I feel like a better parent for not taking this from her.

David...You might want to read Joe's post over again.....
>>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.>>

The word "dissolve" means it's divisible, can be eliminated.
When a Govt. becomes tyrannical it can be brought down by the people.
That is what the Declaration Of Independence says (not my words).
Lincoln was actually wrong....The South had the perfect right to withdraw from the North, and become independent.
Jim@ccfiile.com

If a teacher lead the children every day in a pledge that included the words No God Exists, would people be fine with that if students were not required to say it? When the pledge was changed in 1954 to add Under God, it changed from a pledge of patriotism, to a violation of the freedom of religious conscience. We need to restore the pledge and our National Motto to the pre-McCarthy era injection of religion. Religious viewpoints should stand on their own merits without the help of government promotion. Individuals should have the free will and freedom of conscience to practice their religion, but they shouldn't be able to use our shared civic laws and institutions to advance the view that we are under the supervision of supernatural agents over the view that we are not.

And individuals, evincing their personal and ephemeral moods and principles, do NOT have the right to disrupt the mission of this glorious experiment, which is The United States of America! Cue the band.

David...You missed my point....Did the South have the right to secede?
Yes!
Read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.....again.
Oh, by the way....lincoln was a Separatist....he felt that the races should be separated.
How do you think Liberia in Africa was formed....the capital was Monrovia....sound familiar. Do a search "was Lincoln was a Separatist". Most of the History about Lincoln is wrong by the way...and the reason for the Civil War....Had nothing to do with slavery. It had to do with $$$$$$.
Jim@ccfiile.com
Truth about Lincoln...
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/001219.shtml

Now Jim, back off a little. A great deal has been written about Lincoln. And it is clear that on the personal level, he was entirely against the enslavement of any people by any other people. His political goal was to preserve the Union, and when he was elected, and when the South fired on Fort Sumter, it was clear that it would take a terrible war to preserve the Union. That he did not see the future of racial integration--and that his death prevented him from the opportunity and the responsibility of handling that--is a moot point. And the South did not have a right to secede. That is absurd, a-historical, and was resolved once and for all (one hopes) by the War. The literature on this topic is vast, and no link to a website will give us the "truth" about Lincoln. A lifetime of study (scholarly, serious study) will still leave us unsatisfied as to answers, but fascinated as to possibilities. Which is good history.

Here is some information about Abraham Lincoln:

The Mark Weber Report: Myths About Lincoln and the Civil War

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120125/the-mark-weber-report-myths-about-lincoln-and-the-civil-war

You can download the MP3 file and listen to the information.

Joe

As I said, there is a VAST bibliography of works on and about Lincoln. Most of the serious, carefully-researched material is not primarily available via internet links, but from books and archives. The link you posted, Joe, is unserious and ridiculously biased, and does no service to anyone--not to Lincoln, not to the reader, not to the legacy of Lincoln, which any reader can come to know by reading Lincoln's own words, available in multifarious published sources. That his ideas on race were less progressive than our own is hardly surprising, given the tendencies of Western Civilization at the time. But his progressive mission is clear, and it is silly and inaccurate (and unfair, I believe) to pretend that he was not a significant force in making this country, and the world, more conscientious and BETTER in terms of furthering the project of universal freedom, equality, and justice. Frederick Douglass recognized that, as everybody should.

David.....Lincoln was a Separatist....plain and simple.
Jim@ccfiile.com

David....We're not going to win, as we show you our information you discredit it, what can I say? Did you listen to Mark Weber....excellent talk. You haven't given us one credible unbiased source. You can talk up a big storm here but you expect us to believe you because you say there are sources that say this and that. You don't have any, just dreams, you want us to believe. We've done our homework now do yours.
When it comes to history people are going to believe the version they feel most comfortable with. Problem is when you learn the truth past history is not comfortable, it's downright shameful.
Most of our history is off by quite a bit. But than again the victors our the ones that write it.
Jim@ccfiile.com

I am very surprised at the split results in the poll. I was pleasantly surprised when we moved to Natick that they still say the Pledge of Allegiance in the schools. I find it very refreshing. Many schools in Mass do not. If we take 'Under God' out of the Pledge and 'In God we Trust' off our money, etc you can watch this country slowly but surely continue to go down hill. If you do not believe me just wait. No, I am not a pessimist, just a realist.

To be honest, I'm not really sure it matters either way. As a Framingham High School student I am offered the opportunity to say the pledge every morning, but no one is forcing me to. I have never seen a teacher force a student to recite the pledge. That said, what about the seperation of church and state? I'm pretty split on this one.

David....my research is the stuff most people shy away from because it's the truth people can't handle it.
You present the sanitized version of life I present the hard nose in your face truth.
Most people can't handle it.
Jim@ccfiile.com

David I wil do everything I can to check out your references, unlike you for me .

Joe

Joe, I did go to the site you referenced. Though Mr. Weber presents several verifiable pieces of information which have long been accepted by Lincoln scholars and historians, the site was not viable as an historical resource. Mr. Weber's use of his information is explicitly to back up a larger, unsavory agenda (that's where scholarship ends and crookedness begins). And of course I also followed up with other links. So in any case, I did indeed check out your reference. But I did you a bigger favor than you did me, by steering you to the Goodwin book, and to Lincoln's own words. My only hope is that you will not just pick and choose and re-construct only what you want to find in these materials.

Well David I did you a favor and went into Harvard Sq today and picked up a copy of Goodwins book. Got it used.

Ok the FACTS as provided by David Nolta book request, the book Team Of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

This book backs up some interesting beliefs of Abraham Lincoln "to save the union"

He did believe that:
"the Constitution did not give Congress the power to interfere with Slavery where it was already established" pp91.

Lincoln understood both sides in the slavery issue he "defended slave owners and fugitive slaves" pp 92

Lincoln made provisions that people on "Government business could bring their servants" and to "mitigate fears of Southern Slaveholders.....to deliver unto slave holders "all fugitive slaves escaping into said District" pp128.

As to Colonization Davids book agrees with the Rizolis stating that " Lincoln still believed that classes of freed slaves should be colonized on a purely voluntary basis at some place or places in a climate congenial to them" pp 406.

That "place" would have been Central America or Liberia

Lincoln spoke to a group of blacks "that it was far better for us both therefore to be separated" Therefore the colonization plan.

Lincoln mentioned that a "sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and "placed at his disposition" and that "he needed a contingent of intelligent, educated blacks, such as the men present, to promote the opportunity among their own people" pp 469.

Joe Rizoli

Are you guys saying Lincoln wanted the word God eliminated from public school students reciting of the Pledge of Allegience?

If you don't want to say the pledge - PLEASE do not say it...
If you do not want to say UNDER GOD - omit it...(if you are really sure there isn't a God)
If you want to live in this great country of ours that allows you the choices above and don't want to pledge alligiance to our flag I guess that is fine too. Just don't tell my children and grandchildren that they can't do it by making a law against it. Let that choice be theirs to make.

Thank you Linda. Thumbs-up for you. Personally, I LOVE saying the Pledge of Allegience. It means a lot to me. And I am hopefully instilling that same meaning in my kids as well. And I want to add that when WE say the Pledge, or sing the National Anthem, it is ALWAYS with our right hands over our hearts. Always. You don't see that very much anymore, and it saddens me. I wish people didn't take this country for granted so easily or so often. Even the right for us to debate these issues is a gift - given to us by the founding fathers, and maintained by our service men and women all over the world and at home who put their lives on the line every day.

GOD BLESS THE USA.

David...I'm reading her book as we speak....Lincoln was a separatist if you read between the lines.
He does what every politician does,he tries to make both sides happy.
Funny how you don't mention the part about sending the slaves back to Liberia.
You must of missed that one, In the other sources I've read.
Emigration seem to come up in the conversation with some black men he had a meeting with. By the way only five% of whites had slaves.
Lincoln knew the racial divide would never be solved
Jim@ccfiile.com

And again: Helloooo! I've already said that you don't have to read between the lines! You don't even accept when someone agrees with you!! Generally speaking, Lincoln does not seem to consider most blacks as the equals of most whites. In retrospect, that is a sad and problematic fact, but in this he was like many, many of his contemporaries in the North and the South. What we DON'T agree on is 1) how complex it is to determine what Lincoln really thought, much less to summarize it (nothing plain and simple); 2) how complex Lincoln's position actually was, and how it evolved (nothing plain and simple there); 3) speculations as to how Lincoln would have confronted the situation of the free blacks, especially in the South, had he lived; 4) Lincoln's legacy in this regard: in emancipating the slaves, in refusing to accept a dissolution of the Union, in welcoming blacks into the army and into the White House and into his personal life (all documented) his was, as I said above, a HUGE step forward in terms of progress and the fulfillment of the American (and global) dream of freedom and justice for all.

David.....Progress?? Freedom and justice for all??? Another hundred years would go by before any real progress would be said to be worth talking about.
Enough said for progress and the dream you think Lincoln had.
Jim@ccfiile.com

He died Jim. Did you forget about the assassination? What exactly are you blaming Lincoln for again? Are you saying the Emancipation wasn't a step in the right direction? What exactly is your point? I've made mine repeatedly, but in case you missed it: Lincoln was a great president, a great man, "a significant force in making this country, and the world, more conscientious and BETTER in terms of furthering the project of universal freedom, equality, and justice." AND he kept this country whole, and on the only track conceivable for a nation "under God."

Keep reading--I know you're not finished with that book!! And then there are more!

David...I'm not saying he didn't accomplish some good things but he suspended Habeaus Corpus, which was the most egregious affront to the Constitution that has ever happened, up until now.
http://tinyurl.com/c2gvc
Do you think that was a good thing?
Jim@ccfiile.com

Habeas Corpus is as precious to me as to you, I think. But you know as well as I that bad things happen and are inevitable in war. I feel that the threat to the safety of the Nation made that a necessary evil--and clearly that is why he did it--and though some few can never forgive him for that, a vast majority would say that his accomplishments far outweigh his faults. FAR. Nor could anyone say he didn't give his life for his country, which is a sacrifice that brings perspective to our latter-day judgments.

And Jim, I am delighted to hear that you are against holding people without charges or evidence or anything but suspicion!

And though, again, this isn't the topic, and though, again, Lincoln was not perfect by any means, I think (and I'm not alone in thinking) that he was the greatest, wisest, hardest-working, kindest, most intelligent and all-around best president this country has ever had. That's right, I'm a fan!

Ok now for my hero Abraham Lincoln, lets see what he did:
1. He launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress;
2. He suspended habeas corpus.
3.He imprisoned thousands of Northern citizens without trial for merely opposing his policies.
4. He censored all telegraph communication and imprisoning dozens of opposition newspaper publishers.
5. He nationalized the railroads.
6. He used Federal troops to interfere with elections; confiscating firearms; and deporting an opposition member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham, after he opposed Lincoln's income tax proposal during a Democratic Party rally in Ohio.

Hows that for starters?

Actually I am not that smart...I got that information here from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/product-description/0761536418

I do have this book though. Maybe David you can go to Harvard Square and pick it up used. I saw one there, used, at the Bookstore on the corner of 1256 Mass Ave and Plympton St.

Joe Rizoli

Oh Joe, I've read the book. Lincoln launched no invasions (did you forget that the South was NOT a country? And that the secessionists instigated the military conflict?). I've already commented on Habeas Corpus. In wartime (you've heard of war powers? lots of people claim them), the government (any government) invariably does adopt protective policies which some of the people (me included--don't you read the posts you argue with?) view negatively. I like things being nationalized, so you're not going to bother me about that. As for Vallandigham--he was a traitor through and through, and Lincoln showed amazing (but characteristic) leniency in letting him continue his plotting against the country and the elected government right through to the end of the War.

Wasn't this about the Pledge of Allegiance? Why--again, this is always what fascinates me most about you two--why are you now using this topic to attack Lincoln (who is, in any case, beyond you now)? And why, again, do you focus on the things you do? Lincoln freed the slaves--he really did--or do you not accept that? He maintained, against great odds and despite enormous--the greatest--personal hardship and sacrifice, the Union, and its hope for a future. He wrote some of the most beautiful and life-affirming documents in our or any language. AND he had a great sense of humor! But as usual, you go looking for things that enrage your own, bizarre and not very affirming agendas...

Back to the Pledge...

.David said::
>>As for Vallandigham--he was a traitor >>
You got to be kidding me? A man who wanted PEACE, didn't want a war, who actions were like another real past hero, Charles Lindbergh, and you call Vallandigham a traitor? Wow.....

David says Vallandigham is a traitor, even though Vallandigham acted like MANY people alive today who are against the wars, be it Vietnam, our Mideast debacle and now our latest scam to be war with Iran, and you call Vallandigham a traitor.....Wow again.....

So I guess the equivalent to Vallandigham being a traitor would be anyone who doesn't espouse saying the Pledge of Allegiance Vallandigham style, because after all, not saying the pledge would be going against our beloved "INDIVISIBLE" country, right?

I guess the cats out of the bag, David Nolta is a WARMONGER, and he's proud of it.....WOW.........Proud that 600,000 Americans fought a war that needed not to be fought. So apparently the Patriot Act must be heaven for you David.

A war with Iran is right up your alley then, after all, Obama doesn't need anybody's approval for any war,..... I know, I know,..... he got approval from the sick puppies in Congress. I guess Obama is just another Abraham Lincoln...

Joe Rizoli

Joe you're not doing the reading. History is not what you or I want, it is a sequence of events (and causes and effects) that become elusive immediately after they have occurred. To understand them, you have to read and think about them. You treat history like your personal cauldron of things to fling at others--and your last post about me sets a new low when it comes to flinging things. Is it even worth saying that I am a pacifist (as I've said before), that I hate and fear all violence, not just war, but that I love and honor certain ideas more--and that in this I am like (and my attitude is even FORMED by) a great man like Lincoln? You treat war like you treat people--that is, as superficially and stereotypically as possible, in order to serve your own often inflammatory agenda. Read the posts, then determine who among us has advocated peaceful solutions to our problems. I am more against violence and the things that lead to violence than you are.
About Vallandigham, no argument is necessary. He was convicted of treasonable activities, was treated leniently by Lincoln, was pro-slavery and guilty of repeated sedition. We will have to maintain our separate opinions on this topic; please note only that when I disagree with you, I do not start calling you names, such as "liar" or "idiot".
I suppose you and whatever few readers we have will be glad to know that, with your last post, you've convinced me that you really are wasting my time. I won't address you again. Peace.

David, you haven't been to complimentary to us either. You have called us words that aren't worth repeating, false accusations, mocking our research and you've argued almost every point when we have brought up ANYTHING. You're our "shadow".

Now the heat comes upon you and you quit because somebody now has opposite views as you. Gee sounds almost like the "traitor" Vallandigham when he had the opposite views from Lincoln. Lincoln allowed a war that killed 600,000 people that could have been solved PEACEFULLY. Other nations got rid of Slavery PEACEFULLY without a war......The US goes to war....how nice....and against its own citizens. You can feel good about that I don't. To me Vallandigham was a HERO, to you a traitor. Anyway you said you were a man of peace, if I offended you by the comment I made then I am sorry. I haven't called you an Idiot or liar that I know of, check your CIA database you have on us to confirm that. I realize that you are an intelligent man but intelligence doesn't overpower common sense. I certainly have or had a great respect for Abraham Lincoln but I do believe now he had some issues. Your respect for him borders on cult worship and Idolatry. Lincoln wasn't perfect.
Maybe it's time you admit it. I have.....Peace.

Joe Rizoli

I think it would be great if "Under God" were removed from the pledge. It never should have been put there in the first place in 1954. There is no reason to confuse a declaration of patriotism with any kids of superstition, whether they be about gods, goddesses, demons or fairies.

The Pledge is a patriotic oath that is used to promote national unity. Since belief in, or worship of, a single deity named "God" is not a requirement for citizenship in this country, why should that "God" be a part of the patriotic oath? The goal is to provide a unifying oath for all citizens, not just the monotheistic ones. Let's keep church and state separate.

RQ - Fantastic Comment! "When the pledge was changed in 1954 to add Under God, it changed from a pledge of patriotism, to a violation of the freedom of religious conscience. We need to restore the pledge and our National Motto to the pre-McCarthy era injection of religion. Religious viewpoints should stand on their own merits without the help of government promotion. Individuals should have the free will and freedom of conscience to practice their religion, but they shouldn't be able to use our shared civic laws and institutions to advance the view that we are under the supervision of supernatural agents over the view that we are not."

April 30, 1789 George Washington took the Oath as the First President of the United States of America. In that first inaugural address he said:
“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.”
He went on to say “the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

What does this mean? It means that if America upholds God’s eternal standards and upholds His unchanging ways, then America will be blessed with His favor, protection and prosperity. But if America disregards Gods eternal standards, departs from His ways and refuses to acknowledge His place in founding this great country then “the smiles of Heaven” the blessings of God (the prosperity, powers and protection of the USA) will be withdrawn.

In that first inaugural speech, Washington gave a warning to the nation:
The day America turns away from God will be the day that begins the removing of its blessings. Let’s keep “one nation, under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Michael...Time to dispel the rumors....Nice post!
The country was formed on Christian principles.....but most people up this way don't buy it.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Other parts of Americas CHRISTIAN HERITAGE are missing from even prominent Universities

Harvard University and the real history of its founding. Brief 2 min video


http://youtu.be/tNXbN15ju3I


The Harvard web site mentions this "Christian" beginnings in a short 9 words.

http://www.college.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k61161&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup85886

<<Established to provide a learned ministry to the colonies>>

That's it......a whole generation of Christian teaching missing in action....

Joe Rizoli.

colonies do not equal states.

This is not difficult. FIRST. AMENDMENT. period.

Ben...If you take God out of the equation all is lost.
Not that it matters to you.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Ben and others have won me over to their side of this argument. Any pledge which children are pressured to recite does seem unfair (and those pressures can be insidious and indirect, as Sue P rightly points out below), and any wholesale or required (or expected) pledging in a public school which includes a statement of religious belief is by its nature troubling and out of place. My slight lingering worry is that a line must be drawn somewhere. Surely children have a right to EXPRESS religious beliefs in a public school--to wear, for example, a cross or a star of David or an "I'm an Atheist " t-shirt. So as long as personal freedoms are still allowed, I think it is fair to do away with group (pressure!!) recitations of religious or political pledges that do not arise freely among the children themselves.

Ben...The Constitution is worthless paper without God in the equation. As it is now it could be used as toilet paper and it wouldn't make any difference when you look at how the Country is run now.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Personally, the Pledge of Allegiance offends me. Not because of the God problem but because of WHAT our nation has turned into. We are NOT really a nation of justice for all. People that steal billions get less time in jail than someone who smokes pot. Our foreign policies kill, maim, and murder innocent people. The Pledge is just a hypocritical political oath that means nothin to me. If it means something to you fine..
As to the foundation of our country, those stones were CHRISTIAN. Check out the Mayflower Compact and the Constitutions of quite a few of the early colonies.
I believe that one third of our Constitution originated from Bible principles.

Joe Rizoli

It is under the guise of protecting our rights that others will force believers to stop saying the word God.

Well said, Ben.

@Ben...."I get my hackles up and spelling and typing skills go right out the window!"

Join the club....but my mistakes seem to be the ones that get all the attention.
Jim@ccfiile.com

Being forced to say "under god" had always upset me as a child. It just didn't sit well. The older I get the more wrong the entire idea of the pledge seems. It would be fine if a teacher asks the students "Who would like to learn about the pledge and recite with me?" But that isn't the way it works. The teacher simply tells the kids what to say and that they must say it. Kids get in trouble for not "pledging allegiance" to a number of things that they can't possibly understand. The inclusion of "under god" is just the icing on the cake of how wrong the entire practice is. It isn't about the minority having its way above the majority. It's about the minority rights being free from majority will.