Absolutely not. As long as it's not disruptive, they are free to say it any way they want. Just as they are free to pray in school of their own volition any way they want (again, as long as it's not disruptive). The issue is that it's coming from the other way, it's the government issuing the religious statement, it's the government passing legislation that says, "The correct way to pledge is by acknowledging God." Personal freedom to acknowledge god=constitutional. Government statements declaring God's jurisdiction over this land=unconstitutional.

I beleive it has already been ruled that no one must recite the pledge, and for that very reason. Some Johovah's Witnesses refused to pledge allegiance to anything but God, and it was ruled that they were not required to say the pledge.

Am I remebering that correctly?

Initially it was ruled they had to, but that was later reversed, yes.

Still doesn't change the fact that it's legislation concerning religion. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Leo, basically your argument would clear the way for a bill that said, "Jesus is the savior of our country. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to say it, but this bill makes it so."

My question regarding the discpline of students who continue to say it was sarcastic, not serious. I have no doubt it will become an issue somewhere if the words are removed.

There is a movement - not mainstream whatsoever, not even on the left, but way, way out left - to have all references to religion and God removed. There was a suit filed here in Phoenix not so long ago by a man who didn't like churches advertizing with - i guess I'd call the sandwich board things - little standing pyramid ads - on the side of the road on Sundays. He was driving on public streets, built with public money, and the ads were on public property, the sidewalks nearby built with public funds, as was the landscaping the signs were on. Violated the separation of church and state. He shouldn't have to view those ads on public property.

Thankfully, it was ridiculed and thrown out. I could see thought moving in that direction someday.

I don't think I made any argument suggesting any such thing. What are you referring to?

That's well beyond slippery slope. There is a distinction between personal religious freedom in public arenas vs. religious messages originating from the government. If anything, we've drifted to where the latter is being accepted and passed off as innocuous "cultural tradition". Government funded Christmas displays have been protected by the Supreme Court, claiming them as secular (and lumping Jewish symbols in with it). The pledge is another prime example.

This isn't an attempt to move towards extreme secularism, this is an attempt to move away from improperly defined religious messages.

I guess I was going to far calling it an "argument". I was drawing from the examples you were bringing up that you felt that leaving the reference in with the "you don't HAVE to say it" caveat was acceptable.

This reminds me of (many) friends of mine who complain about lit crosses on hillsides, saying it offends them that they have to have it "shoved in their faces" and that they "shouldn't be allowed to do that". Yet these are the same people who would probably cheer if their own religious symbols were lit up on that hillside. And it has nothing to do with the government. Everyone wants religious tolerance as it relates to them, they just don't see why they should be tolerant of anyone else. Athiests (sorry Euro) are often the worst of these. They act all offended at the mere mention of God, which they don't believe in. If you don't believe in God, it's not a violation of your "religion" to say "under God", because there's no karmic judgement for claiming belief in something if you believe there's nothing out there greater than yourself. However, I know athiests who are positively pushy about their belief system (or rather, lack thereof), to the point that they are admittedly proselytizing. This one lady literally has a goal to make other people stop believing in their religions just because SHE doesn't think there's a god.

This guy strikes me as one of those. He's pushing his religious agenda (that of wiping out religion) on everyone else in the country. By forcing us to remove "under God" (which doesn't say WHICH god, and therefore is not pushing any particular religion), what he's really doing is forcing the government to comply with his own religion - that of not believing in/acknowledging God.
:eek:

Did these people exist before 1954? Did none of them recite the pledge before then? I'm asking because I've never heard this argument before.