Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

A very good collection of documents, including court opinions, on this issue can be found here:

http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/

Of the court opinions listed, I thought Judge Thomas's opinion to be the best. He states that to require recitation of the pledge as it is currently written is clearly requiring one to state a belief in God and to require a statement of a belief in God is clearly unconstitutional. However, so long as the Pledge or any phrase in it is optional--in other words the person is not required to state it--then the Pledge as worded is constitutionally protected under the 'free exercise' clause of the First Amendment.

More tolerance by everybody is in order I think.

Why?

Because the majority wants them to be there and it is their right to have free exercise of religion if they want it.

So long as you aren't required to agree to it, state it, think it, or believe anything about it, you are not the least bit coerced or harmed in any way because the others choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to express a belief.

Tolerance works both ways. One side won't force anything on the other. When it comes down to personal preferences, which constitutionally, this issue is, then the only equitable way to solve the problem is to allow the majority to rule. I don't have the right to force you to express any belief. You don't have the right to say I won't have the right to express a belief.

I guarantee you that the day a majority does not want the phrase "under God" to be in the Pledge, it will soon be gone.

Our side isn't "trying to do" anything Frank. Our side is minding its own business and going to work or to the grocery store and isn't meddling in your preferences or demanding you give up a cherished tradition or filing suit to make you conform to our will. All we ask is that you give us the same degree of tolerance on the issue of the Pledge as we give you.

When it comes to matters of preference, the only reasonable option is for the majority to prevail.

I don't want to talk about that because it is absurd.

I can't imagine that a majority or more than a teeny minority of Americans would condone a racist inference in the Pledge or anywhere else for that mater.

On the other hand, independent studies have recently shown that more than 90% of Americans believe in God.

A minority of Americans alive today were alive or at least old enough to remember when "under God" was added to the Pledge.

Therefore it has been around for a long time and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't caused a single person to be religious, to want to be religious, and it certainly hasn't created any religious fanatics. It is an innocuous expression intended to reflect the nations religious heritage as President Eisenhower explained it and it takes away nobody's rights and hurts nobody.

So if it doesn't 'need to be there' as you say, then neither does 'it need not to be there'. There is no constitutional right to have things said exactly the way we want them to be.

When it comes to matters of rights, the majority should not prevail simply because they are the majority. When it comes to matters of preference, the only reasonable option is for the majority to prevail.

Because the majority wants them to be there and it is their right to have free exercise of religion if they want it. So long as you aren't required to agree to it, state it, think it, or believe anything about it, you are not the least bit coerced or harmed in any way because the others choose to exercise their constitutionally protected right to express a belief.

I prefer no pledge whatsoever, I am an anarchist and believe no man should rule another by means of coercion.

yes, it's stupid.

an oath does not make a reality. I assume the first person that would be happy to make an oath would also be the first to act against it.

I am pretty much a fruitcake in this regard.