[LiberalBuster]

>>To deny God in our pledge is a refusal to give God the
>>thanks for our country in the first place. Don't forget,
>>without God's Grace, the United States would not be
>>here. He has blessed our country through almost 227
>>years (not including the "colony days", despite our turn
>>away from Him.

Well, maybe you can explain to us why "under God" was not added to the pledge until the 1950s, if God has blessed us since the inception. It never occurred to anyone to do so until the Red Scare of the 1950s? The reality is that "under God" was added not for religious reasons, but to contrast us with "godless Communism." Which, obviously, is true enough. But, hardly worth changing something that had been in existence for 150 years.

[jwalsh07]

Which, obviously, is true enough. But, hardly worth changing something that had been in existence for 150 years.

How about the 200 year tradition of prayer in school. Was that worth changing?

[E Rocc]

Well, maybe you can explain to us why "under God" was not added to the pledge until the 1950s, if God has blessed us since the inception. It never occurred to anyone to do so until the Red Scare of the 1950s? The reality is that "under God" was added not for religious reasons, but to contrast us with "godless Communism." Which, obviously, is true enough. But, hardly worth changing something that had been in existence for 150 years.

IIRC, the Pledge was actually written in 1892, revised in 1924, and officially adopted in 1940.

Still, the addition was clearly a religious endorsement which does not belong in a patriotic affirmation meant for a secular nation. The mention of a deity alone is religious, let alone a declaration of subordination to same.

-Eric

[theymakemesick]

Hmm, LiberalBuster, you state it's "hardly worth changing something that had been in existence for 150 years?". Why do you want to change the Constitution of the United States of America?