New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Stopping people from saying "under God" is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Do you think the free exercise of religion should be allowed in school classrooms?

[Aeson]

The most common rendition in my grade schools was probably not PC enough to post here. Some of the substituted 'words' made no sense either... silly kids.

[Traianvs]

What's all this 'bout?
I thought Americans lived in a modern democracy? Well then, in a democracy chuch and state are separated, that's the simplest and best way to handle a country!!

A dictator however should always have a religion, to keep the population busy with something.

(ps: remember Ataturk when he threw the sultans out and he separated church and state? After that Turkey was a lot more at ease, and balanced!!)

Besides i don't see the point in saying "under Dog" if you don't believe in it, i wouldn't want to say it because i don't want to be considered as a christian, the reason is simple, i'm just not a Christian, so I don't wanna waste my time doin' Christian things! Why debate on this so intensely? When ye don't want to take part in religious practices (because c'mon, "under God" is definately religious) well then don't!!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The pledge is not the danger.

I'm glad someone finally admited that. It took long enough.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And this is precisely the sort of "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Thank you for proving my point.

I have proven no point of yours, you are proving my point, that the minority seeks to control the majority.
And to it that freedom of religious expression is part and parcel of the constitution and the likes of you are even more wrong.

This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that.

Bullsh1t.
It would only be the case if you were compelled to say 'under god", and that is not the case.
in other words sir, you are full of it.

But, apparently, the majority wishes to override the Constitution to carry on oppressing the minority. And Congress is packed with traitors concerned only with hanging on to Christian votes.

Actually, as your opposed to freedom of Religion, YOU are said traitor to the constitution you keep attempting to envoke.

Nice try though, but your argument hold ZERO water, as the supreme court is now making clear.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Aeson
So if the majority of Americans were to want there to be ritual sacrifice in the classroom that would be ok? It's an extreme scenario, but one which your line of reasoning seems to support. One which the constitution refutes as well as common (hopefully) sense.

Nonsense.
All representative government is based on the will of the majority, if you don't understand that concept, you don't belong here trying to debate it.

The US Constitution FULLY supports freedom of Religious expression, this is an attempt to supress said expression, in other words, your on the WRONG SIDE of a constitutional argument.

Anyone now begining to see why minority groups sometimes feel threatened by seemingly small issues which are forced upon them by the majority? It's not the specific issue, but the underlying principle of statements like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like" and "It will be used by the will of the Majority of Americans". "It" being classroom time in this case.

More nonsense.
Your reasoning is "If I don't like it, it goes, F*ck the rest".
Exactly the kind of thing laws were set up to prevent.
No matter how hard ypou try, your not the injured party here, this isn't about civil rights, it's about a small group trying to push their non-beliaf in god on the entire nation.
Sorry, we aern't having any.

I'm not saying that the majority feels the way Chris seems to. But that is the type of mob rule concept that we need to protect ourselves against. Just saying "the majority wants it" and not considering the constitutional limits against such reasoning.

More nonsense, don't attempt to put words in my mouth sonny.
I never said "mob", which envokes a picture of lawlessness, I said a leagal majority, which is what ALL western law is based on.
Can't you debate without making my side up?
Obviously not.

So anyone else have an answer to the question...

What is the purpose of the Pledge, and why should it be retained (in whole or in part) in the classroom?

Asked and answered.

The fact that YOU don't like it only proves the assertion of an attempt by a small pressure group to get it's way.

Sorry, fortunatly the USA still works by it's laws, although you lot are gaining ground these days it seems.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Nonsense.
All representative government is based on the will of the majority, if you don't understand that concept, you don't belong here trying to debate it. "

You make it sound like a simple majority is all that is needed for any action. The Constitution would refute you.

The US Constitution FULLY supports freedom of Religious expression, this is an attempt to supress said expression, in other words, your on the WRONG SIDE of a constitutional argument.

So would it be alright to perform ritual sacrifice in the classroom if the majority wanted to allow it?

Care to answer the question this time?

More nonsense.
Your reasoning is "If I don't like it, it goes, F*ck the rest".
Exactly the kind of thing laws were set up to prevent.
No matter how hard ypou try, your not the injured party here, this isn't about civil rights, it's about a small group trying to push their non-beliaf in god on the entire nation.

Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school.

More nonsense, don't attempt to put words in my mouth sonny.
I never said "mob", which envokes a picture of lawlessness, I said a leagal majority, which is what ALL western law is based on.

I never quoted you as saying "mob". That was my opinion about the views you expressed.

Also, you never put the "leagal" qualifier in your original post. A legal majority is different than a plain majority in some cases.

Of course, regardless of the percent the majority owns, there are still constitutional limits placed on their actions.

Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in.

This statement (from your prior post) being an example of the mindset which takes majority rule too far. The majority can't, and shouldn't, be able to do whatever they'd like.

Asked and answered.

And thank you for answering. Your's is not the only opinion on the subject and I was soliciting other responses. As I'm sure you noticed, the question wasn't directed at you again.

The fact that YOU don't like it only proves the assertion of an attempt by a small pressure group to get it's way.

I don't think I tried to use my opinion on the subject as proof. My personal opinions other than "religious teachings/oaths do not belong in the classroom" have not even been expressed in this thread. I've tried using logic and reasoning though.

Sorry, fortunatly the USA still works by it's laws, although you lot are gaining ground these days it seems.

Thanks for the generalizations about me. I'm sure I fit perfectly into your stereotypical "lot" you've placed me in.

[Jack the Bodiless]

This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that.

Bullsh1t.
It would only be the case if you were compelled to say 'under god", and that is not the case.
in other words sir, you are full of it.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Firstly, many atheists ARE being compelled to say it.

Secondly, millions of schoolkids are being TRAINED to say it.

Thirdly, it establishes the principle that atheism is UN-AMERICAN.

But, apparently, the majority wishes to override the Constitution to carry on oppressing the minority. And Congress is packed with traitors concerned only with hanging on to Christian votes.

Actually, as your opposed to freedom of Religion, YOU are said traitor to the constitution you keep attempting to envoke.

Have I said that the pledge should include "without God"?

No.

Have I said that individuals who say "under God" should be prosecuted?

No.

This is quite obviously an attempt to twist the truth. You want the "freedom" to dictate the wording of an oath that WE are expected to swear. You want the freedom to brand those who don't share your religion as "enemies of America". And you don't like it when we complain about that.

And, yes, every member of the current Congress is a bully, a coward, and a traitor. They have sought to quash a legitimate, legal attempt to invoke the First Amendment by shouting it down, by intimidation, rather than waiting for the courts to decide. They did it because they're worried about losing votes. They don't give a rat's ass for the Constitution.

[Straybow]

Judicial activism is an inherent evil

Originally posted by Chris 62
What a silly thread.

You can't have a Satan without a God, they are the Ying/Yang of the west.
Believe in one, you believe in the other.

As for all the "watchdogs" of US civil liberties, the world won't come to an end with saying two words, stop acting as if the fate of humanity rests on this.

You don't want to say it don't, but your NOT going to force ME to STOP saying it, no matter how many dopey judges you find.

No, it isn't about whether or not the words are contested or even removed from the pledge. The words shouldn't be taken out by judges. They were put in to "tweak" the atheists, and the atheists in this case are merely seeking to tweak the theists.

Judicial activism is a usurpation of power delegated to another branch of the government. The atheists can try to convince their fellow citizens that the words are an offense to a minority, and that such an offense should be removed. If they succeed in convincing enough people then congress can act to alter the pledge again.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the Roe v. Wade decision was an unwise intervention in an ongoing public debate that should have been returned to a lower court for a decision of lesser precedence.

I would say the circuit court should never have entertained a complaint about the pledge; a complete waste of the court's time.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yes, it would be better if the politicians removed "under God". But, realistically, how is that gonna happen?

The Constitution exists to compel politicians to "do the right thing" even if it's unpopular.

As for "judicial activism": it's not as if they're being asked to change something that's always been there. They're being asked to get off their butts and do what they should have done in 1954.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Aeson
You make it sound like a simple majority is all that is needed for any action. The Constitution would refute you.

YOU make it sound as if majority decisions are some evil crime, yet ALL western society is based on this concept.
Do YOU care to explain that?

So would it be alright to perform ritual sacrifice in the classroom if the majority wanted to allow it?

Didn't you try this assinine question before?
Where does it say the rules of law are changed by anyone?
In case you haven't noticed, murder is illeagal, supporting a diety isn't.
Try to stay with a realistic argument, this is just foolishness.

Care to answer the question this time?

Care to ask one worth answering?

Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

Oh really?
Your next paragragh seems to differ from this.

There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school.

None are offically supported, it has long been established that saying the pledge is voluntary.
So people can decide already what they want, but to remove it is to FORCE everybody not to say it, in fact you are overriding their right to say it.
You cannot escape this, no matter how hard you try.

I never quoted you as saying "mob". That was my opinion about the views you expressed.

To even hint at such an intrepretation is only a cheap attempt to invoke a threat/fear reaction in people, IE "if you don't support what I say, you are letting the MOB rule.

Also, you never put the "leagal" qualifier in your original post. A legal majority is different than a plain majority in some cases.

Simple after the facts symantics on your part, do you deny that EVERY bit of western law and government is NOT based on the will of the majority?
Is that not what Democracy is?
To invoke the "mob" image is simple chacanery.

Of course, regardless of the percent the majority owns, there are still constitutional limits placed on their actions.

All laws in the US are based on constitutional precips, I consider this inherent and not worth stating, as it should be obvious, but it seems if you don't, then automatically it is "mob rule".

Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in.

This statement (from your prior post) being an example of the mindset which takes majority rule too far. The majority can't, and shouldn't, be able to do whatever they'd like.

Again, nonsense.
All western society is based on the will of the majority, I again see the attempt to say that the will of the people is in some way evil.
It isn't, it is, in fact, the very fabric of our society.

And thank you for answering. Your's is not the only opinion on the subject and I was soliciting other responses. As I'm sure you noticed, the question wasn't directed at you again.

The question as put forth by you seemed to indecate that the question originally put forth had not been answered, when in fact it had.
The problem with your line of argument is it refuses common sense, and instead tries to invoke a fear of totalitarian rule if your view is not adherred to.
That is patently absurd.

I don't think I tried to use my opinion on the subject as proof. My personal opinions other than "religious teachings/oaths do not belong in the classroom" have not even been expressed in this thread. I've tried using logic and reasoning though.

If it's logic you seek, let me ask you this:
In what way does an oath you may disregaurd at your leasure infringe on your rights?
Nobody on the athiest side has given a satisfactory answer here.

Thanks for the generalizations about me. I'm sure I fit perfectly into your stereotypical "lot" you've placed me in.

One good generalization deserves another, I cared little for your attempt to say that democracy (ie the rule of the majority) is in some way equated to mob rule.

I have read this whole thread, and I'm more convinced then ever that the court in this instance was completly out of line.
And I'm not even what you would consider a religous person in the least, as I find organized religion to be hopelessly corrupt.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Haven't you been paying attention?

Very much so.

Firstly, many atheists ARE being compelled to say it.

Can you provide documented evidence of this?
If so, it would then be the basis for a real law suite, not this bogus one put forth by that gentalmen.

Secondly, millions of schoolkids are being TRAINED to say it.

Again, are they being given free choice?
The answer under law is YES.
If you can prove, with real evidence that is not the case, then your postion would have merit.

Thirdly, it establishes the principle that atheism is UN-AMERICAN.

Nowhere is this indicated, that is only an assumption on your part.

Have I said that the pledge should include "without God"?
No.
Have I said that individuals who say "under God" should be prosecuted?
No.
This is quite obviously an attempt to twist the truth. You want the "freedom" to dictate the wording of an oath that WE are expected to swear. You want the freedom to brand those who don't share your religion as "enemies of America". And you don't like it when we complain about that.

Amazing, I suddenly have all this "motivation".
In fact, YOU are attempting to dictate said wording, YOU are saying what is and is not acceptable, using your own values and judgements as criteria.
Every argument you make along these lines can, in fact, be "thrown in your face", simply because the inverse is eqaully true.

And, yes, every member of the current Congress is a bully, a coward, and a traitor. They have sought to quash a legitimate, legal attempt to invoke the First Amendment by shouting it down, by intimidation, rather than waiting for the courts to decide. They did it because they're worried about losing votes. They don't give a rat's ass for the Constitution.

Well, you certainly have a recourse, if your convinced of this, get yourself a canidate, or a party of your liking, find like minded individuals, and attempt to convince your fellow Americans of the unworthiness of said Congress.
If you can convince enough people, you will have the majority you need to leagally make any changes that need to be made.
But bare in mind your paragrapgh only represents your opinion, it is not cosmic truth, nor is anything I say nor anyone else, but it hardly helps your postion to declare the entire congress traitors because they refuse to subscribe to your interpretation of Constitutional law.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Chris 62
YOU make it sound as if majority decisions are some evil crime, yet ALL western society is based on this concept.
Do YOU care to explain that?

I don't mean to imply that a decision by a majority is a crime. Just that a majority supporting an action does not make it right. In the case of allowing classroom time for religious expression, the will of the majority isn't the issue. It's the interpretation of the Constitution, in how it deals with such, that matters.

Now if the majority (3/4ths in this case) wanted to amend the Constitution to allow classroom time for religious expression, that would be where the will of the majority matters. Until such time as the Constitution is ammended, then the law contained within it governs, not the will of the majority.

Didn't you try this assinine question before?
Where does it say the rules of law are changed by anyone?

It was a hypothetical. Just imagine you are on the other side of the majority on this issue for a second. Would the religious display in the classroom (officially given time, while your views were not) of those you don't agree with bother you?

In case you haven't noticed, murder is illeagal, supporting a diety isn't.
Try to stay with a realistic argument, this is just foolishness.

I meant a benign sacrificial ritual, of course human sacrifice is illegal. Remember it was a hypothetical question where the action was supported by the majority, so whatever specific sacrifice was being offered would also be supported.

Just assume some kid has an idol of his god and is melting crayons in praise of it on reserved classroom time in a public school. Should that time be reserved for it?

Care to ask one worth answering?

I'm trying, thanks for being so patient.

Oh really?
Your next paragragh seems to differ from this.

Could you be more specific?

I said -

"Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school."

Which seems to imply that neither your religious beliefs, nor mine, belong in a publicly funded classroom. Could you explain how this is me forcing my beliefs on anyone?

None are offically supported, it has long been established that saying the pledge is voluntary.

The official wording of the pledge is what I am refering to here. It includes 'under God' as it's official wording. It does not include other beliefs about what should or should not be included there as official wording. Do you see the discrepancy?

So people can decide already what they want, but to remove it is to FORCE everybody not to say it, in fact you are overriding their right to say it.
You cannot escape this, no matter how hard you try.

It isn't forcing anyone to say or not say anything at all. Kids who want to say 'under God' can say 'under God' still, kids who don't can say or not say whatever they feel should be said there. The officially supported wording would just not include anything. Everyone's views (on the 'under God' issue) would be equally represented in official wording.

To even hint at such an intrepretation is only a cheap attempt to invoke a threat/fear reaction in people, IE "if you don't support what I say, you are letting the MOB rule.

Well I'm glad you at least realized I wasn't quoting you on it. If the term 'mob rule' offends you I can use something else. The power given through majority comes with responsibility to not misuse that power. I'm sure you would agree that a majority of people should not be able to vote to take away the rights of a minority.

Simple after the facts symantics on your part, do you deny that EVERY bit of western law and government is NOT based on the will of the majority?
Is that not what Democracy is?
To invoke the "mob" image is simple chacanery.

I'm sorry, but if you don't make your position clear how can you expect me to know what you really mean? Using the term majority without any other qualifier simply means more than 50% of the vote (in some cases less even).

I don't deny that the democratic process is the basis for our lawmaking, I never did.

All laws in the US are based on constitutional precips, I consider this inherent and not worth stating, as it should be obvious, but it seems if you don't, then automatically it is "mob rule".

Again, it's best to try and make your position clear. Perhaps you can see how a statement like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in." could lead me to suspect that you viewed a simple majority as justification for any action?

Again, nonsense.
All western society is based on the will of the majority, I again see the attempt to say that the will of the people is in some way evil.
It isn't, it is, in fact, the very fabric of our society.

The will of the people can be evil. It has been in the past, and there are proper precautions in the Constitution to keep it from ruling in a despotic manner. My comments here are only directed at the issue of the pledge, and what it represents.

The problem with your line of argument is it refuses common sense, and instead tries to invoke a fear of totalitarian rule if your view is not adherred to.
That is patently absurd.

My line of argument is simply that alloting time, and having official wording which promotes religious expression in the classroom is out of line. Note the qualifiers. I'm not saying children reciting the pledge cannot add those words, or any other words they might deem fit. My view is not adherred to by current law, but is supported by the Constitution.

The real issue here is whether or not 'under God' is a religious phrase. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the official wording of the pledge as recited in school.

If it's logic you seek, let me ask you this:
In what way does an oath you may disregaurd at your leasure infringe on your rights?
Nobody on the athiest side has given a satisfactory answer here.

In the same way that an oath you may disreguard at your leasure would infringe upon your rights.

The Pledge is an officially worded oath. The official wording includes 'under God'. This implies a certain level of religious ideology, as God is a religious term. An Atheist's views are not supported by the official wording, but a Christian's is. This is not evenhanded. Removing the phrase 'under God' from official wording does not preclude anyone from saying it. It just doesn't play favorites anymore. How is that wrong?

One good generalization deserves another, I cared little for your attempt to say that democracy (ie the rule of the majority) is in some way equated to mob rule.

Mob rule is democratic. That's just it's nature. The majority applies their will to those fewer in number. That is not to say all democracies are mob rule. Our Constitution has checks to keep it from happening, which is how it should be.

Your statements on the other hand seemed to imply an unrestricted majority that could do whatever they wanted. You have since cleared up that perception, so it's no longer an issue.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Firstly, many atheists ARE being compelled to say it.

Can you provide documented evidence of this?
If so, it would then be the basis for a real law suite, not this bogus one put forth by that gentalmen.

You expect schoolkids to provide documentary evidence of being beaten up by other kids?

You've heard from soldiers who refused to say the pledge?

This thread contains testimonies from atheists who have suffered vandalism, threats, dismissal from jobs etc.

How do recognize an atheist?

Watch him/her say the pledge.

Secondly, millions of schoolkids are being TRAINED to say it.

Again, are they being given free choice?
The answer under law is YES.
If you can prove, with real evidence that is not the case, then your postion would have merit.

So now you're saying that atheists not only "come out" (even in the Bible Belt) but should also teach their kids to disobey their teachers. Get real.

Thirdly, it establishes the principle that atheism is UN-AMERICAN.

Nowhere is this indicated, that is only an assumption on your part.

Again, WAKE UP. We're talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, a summary of the core American values that patriots are expected to affirm!

In fact, YOU are attempting to dictate said wording, YOU are saying what is and is not acceptable, using your own values and judgements as criteria.
Every argument you make along these lines can, in fact, be "thrown in your face", simply because the inverse is eqaully true.

I am saying that religion should be IRRELEVANT in a Pledge of Allegiance. By opposing that, you are saying that it is VITAL in a Pledge of Allegiance. If that is not your position, then what IS your position?

But bare in mind your paragrapgh only represents your opinion, it is not cosmic truth, nor is anything I say nor anyone else, but it hardly helps your postion to declare the entire congress traitors because they refuse to subscribe to your interpretation of Constitutional law.

They are attempting to railroad the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law. And some are already preparing to strip the Supreme Court of its powers if the verdict goes against them.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Aeson
I don't mean to imply that a decision by a majority is a crime. Just that a majority supporting an action does not make it right.

Nor does it make it wrong.

In the case of allowing classroom time for religious expression, the will of the majority isn't the issue. It's the interpretation of the Constitution, in how it deals with such, matters.

It is the very heart of the matter, as an oath of alligence and a simple phrase equates to religious expression.

Now if the majority (3/4ths in this case) wanted to amend the Constitution to allow classroom time for religious expression, that would be where the will of the majority matters. Until such time as the Constitution is ammended, then the law contained within it governs, not the will of the majority.

There is NOTHING is the Constitution that precludes saying "under god", nor is it identified as applying the clause of seperation of church and state.
To argue this Constitutionaly simply isn't applicable along those lines.

It was a hypothetical. Just imagine you are on the other side of the majority on this issue for a second. Would the religious display in the classroom (officially given time, while your views were not) of those you don't agree with bother you?

If it was forced, yes, that is not the case here.
The option to not participate is given.

I meant a benign sacrificial ritual, of course human sacrifice is illegal. Remember it was a hypothetical question where the action was supported by the majority, so whatever specific sacrifice was being offered would also be supported.

It still has no place here, it simply doesn't fit.

Just assume some kid has an idol of his god and is melting crayons in praise of it on reserved classroom time in a public school. Should that time be reserved for it?

Performing rituals and saying two words are totally different matters.

I'm trying, thanks for being so patient.

Patience is not required, I was wating for some other argument besides those given, none have yet to give a single valid reason for precluding the words "under god".

Could you be more specific?

I said -

"Not trying to push my beliefs onto anyone.

There is a difference between not having any beliefs expressed in the classroom, and having mine or your's express. To be fair none should be officially supported, let the children (and their parents) decide what religious teachings they receive. That sort of teaching has no right to be in a publicly funded school."

Which seems to imply that neither your religious beliefs, nor mine, belong in a publicly funded classroom. Could you explain how this is me forcing my beliefs on anyone?

By not allowing me to say something I believe because you don't, you are, by definition, applying your belief system over mine.

The official wording of the pledge is what I am refering to here. It includes 'under God' as it's official wording. It does not include other beliefs about what should or should not be included there as official wording. Do you see the discrepancy?

IF this was an OFFICAL requirement of citizenship, you may have a cause of grievence, but since it's completly volutary, it simply doesn't apply.

It isn't forcing anyone to say or not say anything at all. Kids who want to say 'under God' can say 'under God' still, kids who don't can say or not say whatever they feel should be said there. The officially supported wording would just not include anything. Everyone's views (on the 'under God' issue) would be equally represented in official wording.

That is simply the other side of the same coin.

Well I'm glad you at least realized I wasn't quoting you on it. If the term 'mob rule' offends you I can use something else. The power given through majority comes with responsibility to not misuse that power. I'm sure you would agree that a majority of people should not be able to vote to take away the rights of a minority.

Nor should the minorty have undo influence on the majority.
This is the continous conundrum of this matter.

I'm sorry, but if you don't make your position clear how can you expect me to know what you really mean? Using the term majority without any other qualifier simply means more than 50% of the vote (in some cases less even).

In many portions of society, such as the vote, for example, a simple majority is all that is needed.

I don't deny that the democratic process is the basis for our lawmaking, I never did.

Very good.

Again, it's best to try and make your position clear. Perhaps you can see how a statement like "Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in." could lead me to suspect that you viewed a simple majority as justification for any action?

That would be absurdly hypothetical.
I'm often amazed that people would jump to such a conclusion based on so little.

The will of the people can be evil. It has been in the past, and there are proper precautions in the Constitution to keep it from ruling in a despotic manner. My comments here are only directed at the issue of the pledge, and what it represents.

Nontheless, the will of the majority of the US cannot be denied by a small minority, no matter how vocal they may be.

My line of argument is simply that alloting time, and having official wording which promotes religious expression in the classroom is out of line. Note the qualifiers. I'm not saying children reciting the pledge cannot add those words, or any other words they might deem fit. My view is not adherred to by current law, but is supported by the Constitution.

This is a matter of degree, there is no law here, as the pledge is not a law, so the Constitution cannot say it is a matter of religion being inserted into law or government.

The real issue here is whether or not 'under God' is a religious phrase. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the official wording of the pledge as recited in school.

The actual matter is that the phrase somehow conects the government with religion, and it does not.

In the same way that an oath you may disreguard at your leasure would infringe upon your rights.
The Pledge is an officially worded oath. The official wording includes 'under God'. This implies a certain level of religious ideology, as God is a religious term. An Atheist's views are not supported by the official wording, but a Christian's is. This is not evenhanded. Removing the phrase 'under God' from official wording does not preclude anyone from saying it. It just doesn't play favorites anymore. How is that wrong?

First, the oath is not "offical", nobody is required to say it, therefore it cannot have a constitution equastion, as it is NOT "offical".
In point of fact, it's quite unoffical, as nobody is required to say it or adhere to it's tenants.

Mob rule is democratic. That's just it's nature. The majority applies their will to those fewer in number. That is not to say all democracies are mob rule. Our Constitution has checks to keep it from happening, which is how it should be.

It also includes provisions prohibiting pressure groups from dictating policy to the majority.

Your statements on the other hand seemed to imply an unrestricted majority that could do whatever they wanted. You have since cleared up that perception, so it's no longer an issue.

The rule of law is the key, but what the exact law is has yet to be established.