[Prudence]

Because I'm on a roll (and because I F*CKING HATE MY BOSS and have to channel this rage into constructive discourse or I'll walk out this instant and then how will I pay the mortgage?)....


The "big deal" about "just not saying it" is that the sponsor in this case isn't Mrs. McGruder's third grade class fieldtrip. The sponsor here is the US. Not even the US Gov't, but the country itself, with all its history and mythology and symbolic position on the world stage. That's a *lot* of pressure.

And "letting" people not say "under God"? That's supposed to fix the matter? So, we're a Christian country, but we'll "let" you be otherwise?

I'm pretty sure that is the actual gist of the argument for many people. Their perception is that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian (but mostly Christian...) values and that the laws and norms of the land should reflect Judeo-Christian values and there's no need to go further than that because gosh, we're not requiring people to go to church on Sunday so what's the problem?

But there's a great and mighty difference between promoting freedom of religion and merely tolerating other religions.

(And don't even come close to me with that "we didn't say which God nonsense." Of course Ike and crew meant the Judeo-Christian God, complete with ZZ Top beard and fierce-yet-benevolent countenance. The generic term is "diety." And it doesn't say "under diety." Heck, even AA says "higher power.")

But wait, there's more!

Let's turn this around and examine another angle -- what is wrong with removing those two words? Why is that a problem? Why isn't the response, "I can see how that would make some people uncomfortable -- let's take them out"?

The historical aspect doesn't hold much water -- particularly when the history of the phrase's addition is disclosed.

Because that's just how it's done? Considering all the other shattered norms, I think that's a weak argument. So weak I can't even come up with a good metaphor.

So what, then? Is it because Christians like saying it? Because Christians like affirming that their country is "under God"? If that's the reason, then doesn't that support the petitioners' position?