[Wondervixen]

>> Oh, I doubt God is so small He is totally encapsulated in the words "under God" in the POA. You, however, seem to think otherwise. Isn't that rather blasphemous?

For us to accept a ban on the POA based on "under God" and justify accepting it by reasoning "Ehhhhhhhhh, it probably don't seem like that big a thing to God, what should I care?"

Assuming to know God's attitude as not giving a damn one way or the other as an excuse to do nothing about it IS Blasphemy!!!

[flyervet]

For us to accept a ban on the POA based on "under God" and justify accepting it by reasoning "Ehhhhhhhhh, it probably don't seem like that big a thing to God, what should I care?"

Well, number one, the POA hasn't been banned. The 1954 amendment has been found in violation of the Separation clause when it is mandated to be used in public schools. There's a simple, elegant solution available at our fingertips; all we need to do is go back to using the "classic", pre-1954 pledgein public schools Think of it as a retro movement!

I really don't believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal god cares a hoot about what school children mindlessly mumble at the start of each day (and it is a mindless mumble). I doubt that such a being would be that insecure. It's silly to think otherwise. However, the wailing and nashing of teeth that has followed the wake of this ruling is playing right into the hands of liberals who want to make the argument that the use of the words "under God" is an invocation of diety. Claiming the omission of the words "under God" is an affront to a diety is surrendering the argument.