I dunno; you can't be both a polarizing figure and way out of touch. She can, however, disagree with your entire circle of friends. This is not the same as out of touch with anything.

I've never accepted "In God We Trust" as a federal endorsement of anything. If it says anything of governmental significance at all -- and I doubt it -- it is that the government is not chiefly staffed by doctrinaire, devout atheists. People, in short, who aren't unwilling to pray now and again. The conscience clauses of the First Amendment apply just as strongly to government staffers and officialdom as they do to the private citizen -- and they flatly do not enjoin an official to say or believe anything one way or another of the supernal. Who needs to cultivate good ethics more than an official? And what are the mechanisms for doing so? You can use religion, or a sense of fair dealing, or minute regulation -- probably some other things that don't come to mind just now.

I don't despise you for your little quirk -- I just don't share it at all.

I feel the same way about any theist... I becomes more, much more when they use it to replace the motto to a religious statement from the one this nation was built upon out of fanaticism, changing the pledge so one must pledge to a deity as well as the nation (the pastor writer of the pledge was against it as well), and placing it upon our money and national seal.
All of this goes well beyond a difference of opinion.
The complete separation of church and state in all things is a founding belief of this nation and it was thrown out the window by fear mongers in the fifties lead by McCarthy and the nuts of the Knights of Columbus.
We, all of us, theists included, need to repair that damage.

The sentence speaks of to the nation for which it stands, not to God. Can't stretch "under" into "to." Nor does officialdom at any level start the day on a recitation of the Pledge. Neither they nor the military, who are if anything more strongly committed to their nation.

That's true. We are pledging allegiance to the flag, and to the republic, while recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life.

"Under god" specifically states that the US is beneath a god that is being validated by the pledge.
A state you are pledging to that is under something indicates fidelity to that "superior" imaginary being.
There is no point in it being there, it was not in the pledge as written, is against the wishes of the fonding fathers ideal for the formation of this nation and is a reminder of a shameful time in our nation's history.
It has been past time to return to the true national motto and remove these vestiges of paranoia from money, the pledge and all aspects of the state.

While I disagree with their childish version of the pledge, I respect their protest.

We don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to put a leash on government in protection of those rights.

While I agree that diversity is one of our greatest strengths, I don't pledge allegiance to diversity. All nations are part of this planet so that part is irrelevant. I wouldn't mind using the phrase "one SOVEREIGN nation..." and lastly adding the word "choice" is also wrong because freedom already includes the freedom of choice so it's repetitive at best.

If it were up to me, I'd return the pledge to the way it was before the McCarthy witch hunts...

If I altered it at all, I'd change the word "flag" to "people" and add the word "sovereign" before the word "nation". For grammatical reasons, I'd also change the word "it" to "they" and the word "stands" to "stand".

The completed product would be...

I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic for which they stand; one sovereign nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now that's a much better pledge imo.

Not even close.

Let the record show that Dana and Radar have actually agreed on something.

Savor this moment.

I think it is a good pledge too. I always think it's silly to pledge allegiance to a flag. Australia has an occasional fit of debating whether to remove the Union Jack from our flag. How could we do this if we had pledged allegiance to the flag?


Furthermore, I agree with RK about the Under God clause. Bruce's claim that about it "recognizing that the republic is not necessarily the highest power or priority in the individuals life." doesn't cut it with me.
"One nation under God..." explicitly entails that there is a God who is "above" the nation. There's no "not necessarily" about it.

(WTF? Who am I agreeing with all of a sudden? : Checks for alien brain control device : )

*chuckles* oh now....Radar and I have agreed on many things....just rather less vehemently than we disagree :P

That argument makes sense to me. I cannot see how the phrase "one nation under God" can mean anything other than that the nation exists under God. I understand that the emphasis of it is on the "one nation" part of that, but it is integral to that statement that God is above and over the nation.

No, it's not... one nation under God. It's... one nation, under God. See that comma? That's a separation of Church and State.

Are you serious Bruce? :eek:

Would I lie to you.... my oldest and dearest friend... if it didn't involve money or sex.

I have to say that I wouldn't pledge allegience to a country/place/anything if the phrase 'under god' were included, regardless of commas.

Why mention god if there's no significance?