Is this the moderate view? :-}
I think that goes about it the wrong way.
I should think so. Banning the voluntary recitation of the words "under God" has no place in our Constitutional Republic.
I'm glad to see the case is being kept alive, and with any luck will reach the Supreme Court.
I, on the other hand, put no faith in in the robed oligarchies. None at all. The ongoing culture war spawned by Roe has now been given added impetus with the finding of "transcendent" libeerties in Lawrence. With transcendence, all things are possible.
What I would like to see done is that this is handled correctly and the Supreme Court strikes down the law that Congress passed in the 1950s that first introduced the words "under God" into the Pledge, thus restoring it to the proper Historical Pledge.
Would you also strike chaplains from the armed services, the words "endowed by our creator" in the DOI and the phrase "in the Year of Our Lord" in the Constitution of the United States?
No. It is simply the view of the minority whose personal religious views are not served by the pious use of "God" in the Pledge. It is the view of the very people who understand the destructive effects of exclusion from the social fabric.
Would you also strike chaplains from the armed services, the words "endowed by our creator" in the DOI and the phrase "in the Year of Our Lord" in the Constitution of the United States?
No, no, and no.
Military chaplains provide support and guidance for our troops in the military that is both of a religious and secular nature. I'm not for preventing anyone from expressing their own religion or seeking religious guidance.
I just don't believe the Government should be endorsing a god. The Government is prohibited from endorsing a political candidate. Can't you understand the difference?
The Declaration of Independence actually takes a bit of care to avoid being overtly Christian. It refers to "nature's god" and "their creator" as opposed to "The Creator".
Further more, the Declaration was written before the Constitution established the First Amendment.
And finally, I'm of no mind to go rewriting Historical documents. That is why I think it was reprehensible that the Congress chose to do so in the 1950s. Striking down unconstitutional laws written out of expedience by self-important Congressmen is another story though...