ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE), INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

SW

[Sir Gawain]

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION, (SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE),
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

San Francisco (SatireWire.com) — A U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision that has infuriated politicians from both parties, and sent the United States on a desperate search for a new sponsor.

While the U.S. Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, officials are quietly speaking with several potential sponsors interested in having their brands associated with America, and are already test-marketing the phrases "One nation, under Wal-Mart," "One nation, under Windows XP," and "One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks."

Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise by replacing the phrase "One nation, under God," with "One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available)."

While the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase "So help me God" used to swear in judges and politicians. According to analysts, severing that 226-year relationship without an alternative is a mistake.

"Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players - Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon," said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. "Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquis names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina."

But others defended the decision, saying it was wrong to force religion on anyone. "The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'"

Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the uproar. "I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'" said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing."

Back in America, many questioned whether the United States really needs a patron, and instead suggested the Pledge should include verbiage that simply reflects America. So far, the leading contenders:

¤ "One nation, under indictment,"
¤ "One nation, road under repair,"
¤ "One nation, sure, but with cheerleaders!"
¤ "One nation, under yellow alert, please report any suspicious activity,"
¤ "One nation, but kinda two if you count Canada."

God, in various forms, currently sponsors most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[RichardsSweetRose]

Ping

[Texaggie79]

"One nation, sure, but with cheerleaders!"

There it is!!!

[newsperson999]

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISMISSED!! CLICK

[mc5cents]

"One nation, but kinda two if you count Canada."

LOL. No, I reject that one. We have enough socialists already. No need to add the Canadian variety, eh?

[3AngelaD]

How 'bout: One nation, under Newdow, with liberty and justice for atheists and everyone else can just shut up and put up.

Or, perhaps: One nation, under YOUR NAME HERE, with liberty and justice ...

[Texaggie79]

haha, good find!

[Salgak]

Bill Gates has a bid in. . .

"One Nation, running Windows XP, indivisible, . . . "

[Billthedrill]

Well, now that we've gotten rid of this "God" feller we ought to work in the word the libs really seem to worship these days: "Diversity."

[yoe]

Since "under God," was put there by Eisenhower, just remove the offending phrase. Otherwise think of all the places where Under God, is printed, etched, carved in stone...is now in place and will have to be removed. I understand the constitutional fever of this man, it is too bad he had to tack his Atheism on to the complaint. Being an Atheist is not a religion. What amused me most were Michael N.’s answer when asked if he were aware there would be a big fall out over this and he said ‘yes’, well, continued the reporter, what are you doing to [protect] yourself and your family? Well we are being careful, praying............’

He sort of stumbled over the word praying If the man wanted a constitutional clarification, he should have just done so without this frivolous Atheist stuff.

[ravingnutter]

You think *that's* funny, you oughta see what I found in my research...the Church of Beaver Cleaver, LOL!

[azhenfud]

Can anyone tell us of a U.S. court that would accept the testimony of a witness without requiring them swear under God or by not requiring placing the right hand upon the Bible?

Why then, should an accepted acknowledgement by the majority be discounted to appease the displeasure of a few? If the protection of the rights of those dissentors were of paramount importance, by the same reasoning, this union of states would have never been established; for many colonial residents of this nation were adamantly against the severance of dependancy upon England.

It was from this common cause of purpose by the majority of Colonialists that helped secure the RIGHT of those who choose not to acknowledge the Creator as so. Yet, the majority has yet to secure and retain the right to publicly acknowledge their source of inspiration.

One nation, under God, yet divisable along theist lines...

Regards,
Az

[BplusK]

What about "one nation, separated from God"

If we are not really UNDER God, then we are "separated" (alienated) from God. That would fit "separation between Government and Religion"!
"A Nation without God", or "a nation against God" could also please the communists. However, since some people are so "separatist" that just mentioning the term "God" (even to say that we want to be far away from Him), they will find these phrases offensive.

[RichInOC]

"...one nation under a groove, indivisible..."

[KansasGirl]

How about, "One nation, welfare bank for the world, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all (except for taxpaying Americans who already have too much already)."

[Dimensio]

Can anyone tell us of a U.S. court that would accept the testimony of a witness without requiring them swear under God or by not requiring placing the right hand upon the Bible?

Actually, most U.S. courts (in fact I don't know of any that wouldn't apply) accept an affirmation under penalty of perjury that involves no Bibles or mention of any deities. In fact, swearing on the Bible strikes me as an incredibly stupid method for obtaining an oath: no matter who takes such an oath it is either an empty gesture or an act of hypocracy. See Matthew 5:33-37.

[WindMinstrel]

ping, 'cause I was gonna post it