Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

The 1954 Act can be overturned by another act of congress or declared unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Are there any other alternatives?

Fox, you behave as if the majority of americans put this phrase in our pledge back in 1954. They didn't. Eisenhower, with the support of a theist and mccarthy-terrorized bunch in congress did it. And their purpose was to combat atheism. This is not about you or your touchy feely need to publicly worship in our schools. This is about Eisenhower's crime.

If the Supreme Court bans the phrase, and returns the pledge to its original form, then few may react, but it the court simply says that the pledge is unconstitutional in its current form, then the backlash could damage the first amendment.

Not to quibble, but ........ if the pledge is declared unconstitutional in its current form, how could that damage the first amendment?

rosborne979, thank you.

Yes, I agree.

I'm always looking at things as I think they should be ... forgetting there are no shoulds.

Wow, this has been 15 pages of what seems to me to be quibbling about whether or not the Pledge of Alleigance is constitutional.

Can we look at other issues such as whether or not religion should play a part in government so that decisions are made ethically

And looking at democracy, is there any current country in the world that is a strict democracy?

If there isn't, then how are self proclaimed democracies supposed to be governed without religion?

Killing a few termites on your floor seems like a trivial activity as well, until you find that they've hidden in the walls and consumed all the support beams and the basic structure you wanted to protect is ready to collapse.

Ros writes

Quote:

Killing a few termites on your floor seems like a trivial activity as well, until you find that they've hidden in the walls and consumed all the support beams and the basic structure you wanted to protect is ready to collapse.

There are two ways to look at this. Those anti-religion types who want nothing displayed, spoken, or supported in any way in the public sector seem to think their rights are diminished if religion is allowed to exist in the public sector.

Those who think it was never intended that religion and government never meet, but only that the government was not allowed to dictate or enforce what anyone must or must not believe or practice respective to religion, see all the assaults against religion as those termites methodically eating away at their constitutional right to the free excercise of their religious faith.

How about we change that thingy on our coins to read...We Do Not Trust In Any Gods!

How about we change that thingy in the Pledge of Allegience to "...one nation, with absolutely no loyalty to any gods..."

Why are those of us who see "religion" as superstition supposed to have so goddam much respect for everything you religious types hold important...when you people have no respect for what we hold important?

Frank writes:

Quote:

How about we change that thingy on our coins to read...We Do Not Trust In Any Gods!

How about we change that thingy in the Pledge of Allegience to "...one nation, with absolutely no loyalty to any gods..."

When the vast majority of Americans want those phrases on their money or in their plege, those phrases should be on the money and in the pledge. It's as simple as that. Would I like it personally? No, because I like it the way it is. But I am also a strong advocate in majority rule in all matters that require nothing but noninterference from anybody, which is my definition of inalienable rights.

Quote:

Why are those of us who see "religion" as superstition supposed to have so goddam much respect for everything you religious types hold important...when you people have no respect for what we hold important?

Because you want two or three to be able to dictate to the many on matters that hurt nobody and require nothing but noninterference from anybody. To me, that is not the democratic or American way.