Replies

I suppose the only ones who should have a problem with the phrase "under God" are the godless atheists

I am such, and I've no problem with it. Indeed, I heartily endorse that phrase in our Pledge.

Though I am intellectually certain there is no God as some more sentient being, I am patriotically and morally convinced that there is something known to my fellow citizens and neighbors as God who/what is at the root of being, life, our nation and our moral fibre. When referring, with humble respect, to that Root of All, I will usually and gladly use the word "God", for that is how such is spoken of in my language.

One of the great wonders of this nation is that it doesn't matter that my "God" wears a different colour robe than yours.

It does matter very much that we understand and teach our children that our Freedom and Dignity comes from God, not from Washington, D.C.

Thank you for your honesty. If I were an atheist, which I am not, I think I'd be embarrassed by this fellow from Elk Grove, CA, who brought the suit to the court. What he's really saying is that his daughter has a constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable or "left out". God (or whatever) forbid that anyone should ever be made to feel uncomfortable!

By the way, the pledge's use of the term "God" makes no definitive comment on the nature of character of God. Such a comment or definition would have clearly been an "establishment of religion," IMO. To the secular humanist, "God" in the pledge could be "We the people." I think this is a reasonable inference. Hence, the term "God" does not impose any particular belief on anyone, but allows for anyone's concept of a high power, authority, or principle.