League of Women Voters Nix Pledge, Audience Disobeys

[Kathianne]

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/23328


You never know what will get a reaction to a blog. Never. In reaction to “Patriotism shocks debate moderator” was a comment from a great American (I grew up in a Cleveland neighborhood where half the people either spoke Italian, Hungarian or Polish).

The comment:


My name is Joe Ptak and I live in Island Lake, Illinois. I attended the Joe Walsh-Melissa Bean “forum” and I WAS THE INDIVIDUAL who stood up and wanted to know why the pledge of allegiance was not going to be recited…I thought it might have been an oversight. I was flabbergasted and stunned to hear the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS moderator say to me, and the audience, that it was never part of their program at these events and will not allowed.

Please keep in mind that this “forum” was organized in Grayslake High School for the benefit of the students, who were asking the questions. Furthermore, there were numerous students present (gaining extra credit) as well as 350 adults and media who packed the auditorium.

I served in the USAFR’s for ten (10) years and there were many veterans in attendance. I was so proud when the audience rose up one by one, then in mass to recite the pledge of allegiance with loud and heavy emphasis on the words LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. The moderator then had the gall to admonish the audience and for “disrespecting her”…my wife told me if that woman did not shut up she was going to get her “Brooklyn up” (being from NY).

I happen to be an Hispanic immigrant from Peru, South America, who was brought to this great country by my parents, along with three other siblings in 1960, when I was eight years old. I was raised in Chicago, have seen, and experienced a lot in this world. People are literary dying each day for just the OPPORTUNITY to live in this great land I call my home.

There are ignorant people in this land who do not have the slightest idea, nor understand, what it means to be an AMERICAN. Our Liberty, Freedom of Speech and the Press are never guaranteed and we must always fight to maintain them. I think our students in attendance witnessed that first hand and gained a lot of extra credit for themselves.

You know, as long as we have guys like Joe moving in, we have one helluva country.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5PXYKZj7P6o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5PXYKZj7P6o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Pagan]

Interesting tidbit about the Pledge

It was written by a radical Socialist Francis Bellamy in 1892, Francis was a Baptist Minister who was canned as a Pastor for his radical sermons championing Socialism. Specifically those ideals of his Cousin and Mentor Socialist Novelist Edward Bellamy, author of Utopian Socialist Novels Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Before the "hand over the heart" while saying the pledge it was the "Bellamy Salute" -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

http://rocwiki.org/Francis_Bellamy

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931) studied at the University of Rochester and the Rochester Theological Seminary. He wrote the original "The Pledge of Allegiance" in August 1892. Bellamy was born in Mount Morris, NY and came from a long line of famous Americans: notable relatives include his cousin Edward Bellamy (novelist and political activist), and his great-grandfather Joseph Bellamy (renowned religious author and preacher during the Great Awakening).

Bellamy worked for six years as a pastor in Boston, but his radical economic and political views were not well received by his parishioners. He was an advocate of "Christian Socialism", which argued that socialist tenets were mandated by Christian doctrines. After leaving his ministry in 1891, Bellamy took a job with the Youth's Companion, a leading children's magazine. Bellamy was very conscious of his Anglo-Saxon racial background and wrote articles condemning unlimited immigration, although he tempered his xenophobic views with a call for free, universal, compulsory education aimed at creating solidarity among diverse immigrants and the native population.

After hitting upon the idea of giving away flags to sell more magazines in the late 1880s, the magazine's management launched a patriotic campaign to put flags in every school that was to culminate in the 1892 Chicago Columbian Exposition. Bellamy and his supervisor, James B. Upham, felt that the flag needed an appropriate ceremony associated with it to create the feeling of national unity that both men thought was threatened by America's changing demographics.

His original pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands—one Nation indivisible—with Liberty and Justice for all.'1 The pledge was originally begun with a military salute that turned into an outstretched hand with a raise palm at the word "flag." This was changed to a simpler hand-over-heart salute during World War II due to its distasteful associations with Germany's Nazi regime

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html
Francis Bellamy said that one purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance was to help accomplish his lifelong goal of making his cousin’s socialist fantasy a reality in America. He further stated that the "true reason for allegiance to the Flag" was to indoctrinate American school children in the false history of the American founding that was espoused first by Daniel Webster and, later, by Abraham Lincoln.

[darin]

Pagan...you are really too much. You need to get laid...big time.

[Kathianne]

Pagan...you are really too much. You need to get laid...big time.

I was thinking similar. :thumb:

[Pagan]

Pagan...you are really too much. You need to get laid...big time.

Really, you don't like history I see.

As for getting laid, well I'm not married so I do rather well thank you very much ;)

[SassyLady]

On April 15, 2009, at my first Tea Party rally I was the one who stood up on a picnic table and said that the first thing we needed to do was say the Pledge of Allegiance. The organizers scrambled around for a flag big enough for everyone to see and I led the crowd in the Pledge. I can remember my heart was racing and I thought I would pass out. I am glad I did it and I got a lot of kudos, but I honestly was thinking to myself ..... my god, how could they have planned this event without thinking about the Pledge....I guess it's because I live in one of the bluest counties in California.

[NightTrain]

I found a bit more about the moderator... no surprise to me, really.


For days the controversy has raged since the October 20 debate where debate moderator Kathy Tate-Bradish tried to prevent the people from reciting the pledge. Then on Oct. 22, there was an outrageous story that Executive Director Jan Czarnik of the League of Women Voters was lambasting the pledge controversy as a stunt set up by GOP candidate Joe Walsh and an example of "phony patriotism."

So the LWV thinks reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is "phony patriotism," eh?

Disgusting.

Now Mr. Dunetz informs us that the anti-pledge moderator, Mz Tate-Bradish, was once involved in Obama's campaign and Exec. Dir. Czarnik once worked for ACORN's Project Vote effort. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that these two women stand against uttering the Pledge of Allegiance at public gatherings.

Dunetz found Tate-Bradish mentioned on Obama's Campaign website (originally called My Barack Obama, now styled as Organizing for America, the president's campaigning website) and found evidence that Czarnik was the "project director" for Chicago's chapter of Project Vote, a project set up and operated by the now discredited and criminal ACORN organization.

The sad thing is that the League of Woman Voters is supposed to be non-partisan yet here we have a sold out leftist running the local candidate debates.

It is a sad day when the LWV takes a stand against patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2010/10/former-acorn-worker-justifies-preventing-pledge-of-allegiance-at-illinois-candidate-debate.html

[Kathianne]

I found a bit more about the moderator... no surprise to me, really.



http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2010/10/former-acorn-worker-justifies-preventing-pledge-of-allegiance-at-illinois-candidate-debate.html

I was active in my local league from 18-about 30. Went too far left by too many leaders. Quite a few of us left. Same with AAUW, (American Association of University Women).

[Noir]

I've ways found something a bit suspicious about group chants for anything (generally they relate to religion, socialism, both or all three) not my cup of tea, too much herd mentality.

[SassyLady]

I've ways found something a bit suspicious about group chants for anything (generally they relate to religion, socialism, both or all three) not my cup of tea, too much herd mentality.

Lean to the Left,
Lean to the Right,
Stand Up,
Sit Down,
FIGHT!!!!!! FIGHT!!!!! FIGHT!!!!!!!!

Every Friday night to show our team our support!!! Creates positive energy and connectedness to make it through the night.

Could be referred to as a herd, or what I prefer, a TEAM.

The Pledge is a "let's pull this Team America" together and show our solidarity. Works for me.

[Noir]

So ya say mkp, but it doesn't really show solidarity when you exclude a section of society from your chant by adding the god reference.

In a similar kinda way I always got somewhat annoyed during remembrance day services I attended during school for WW1 and 2 remembrance. Because the vast majority of the services were spent praying or singing Protestant songs which obviously meant me sitting in silence for the hour (and I dare say reflecting more on the men that had died than on some words on a sheet) while I wouldn't of skipped the service, I was left out. I'm also wondering how many are left out of your 'team' chant in the same way, are they not part of the team?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

I've ways found something a bit suspicious about group chants for anything (generally they relate to religion, socialism, both or all three) not my cup of tea, too much herd mentality.

Thats the difference between Europe and America
Most of us Americans are proud to live in the Once freest country on earth. Come Nov 2 hopefully we will take back the freedoms obama and the leftest Liberal traitors have tried to steal

[Noir]

Thats the difference between Europe and America
Most of us Americans are proud to live in the Once freest country on earth. Come Nov 2 hopefully we will take back the freedoms obama and the leftest Liberal traitors have tried to steal

The *freest* countries on earth are failed states, just sayin.

[SassyLady]

So ya say mkp, but it doesn't really show solidarity when you exclude a section of society from your chant by adding the god reference.

I'm not excluding them, Noir, they are excluding themselves. They can say the entire Pledge and use a different word for God if they want. And, you get all huffy about a small section that is excluded .... and yet, you want to exclude the majority's right to say it because a few people don't like the word God? How petty.




In a similar kinda way I always got somewhat annoyed during remembrance day services I attended during school for WW1 and 2 remembrance. Because the vast majority of the services were spent praying or singing Protestant songs which obviously meant me sitting in silence for the hour (and I dare say reflecting more on the men that had died than on some words on a sheet) while I wouldn't of skipped the service, I was left out. I'm also wondering how many are left out of your 'team' chant in the same way, are they not part of the team?

If I come to your house for dinner, Noir, should I throw a fit because you don't have rare beef on your menu.....or should I do the polite thing and say thank you for inviting me to your house, eat the veggies, and keep my mouth shut.

As for the Team Chant ... many people chose to not participate, but they didn't stand up and scream that we couldn't do the chant just because they didn't want to.

Are you saying that just because a few people have a problem saying the word God, that everyone else, who don't have a problem with it, should be barred from saying it? Seriously, Noir? Seriously?????

[NightTrain]

The *freest* countries on earth are failed states, just sayin.

I saw your signature line there, Noir, and had to do a bit of research on it - the one saying :
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
John Adams.

Regarding that quote, here's a good article about it with the summary :


Ultimately, any attempt to use the first line of article 11 to support the notion that the founding fathers believed that God should be removed from the public square requires ripping the solitary line completely out of context, dishonestly representing its intent, and knowingly ignoring overwhelming mountains of contradictory evidence.

http://www.3conservatives.com/?p=101

[Noir]

I'm not excluding them, Noir, they are excluding themselves. They can say the entire Pledge and use a different word for God if they want. And, you get all huffy about a small section that is excluded .... and yet, you want to exclude the majority's right to say it because a few people don't like the word God? How petty.

They're excluding themselves? Lawl xD
And change the words? So basically you think it's fine because they can say the pledge aslong as they change some words to the pledge...how many words can they change and it still be the pledge?


If I come to your house for dinner, Noir, should I throw a fit because you don't have rare beef on your menu.....or should I do the polite thing and say thank you for inviting me to your house, eat the veggies, and keep my mouth shut.

Bad analogy as it one of omission not addition. A better one would be you are throwing a dinner party, and invite myself, even though you know im a vegetarian you have meat in all of the dishes. When I ask if there are any without meat you tell me that I either pick the meat out and eat around it or claim that I have excluded myself from the dinner that was made with me in mind.


As for the Team Chant ... many people chose to not participate, but they didn't stand up and scream that we couldn't do the chant just because they didn't want to.

Are you saying that just because a few people have a problem saying the word God, that everyone else, who don't have a problem with it, should be barred from saying it? Seriously, Noir? Seriously?????

I'm not saying there should be no chant, though like I said I do find them a lil worrisome, however, if there is going to be a chant, and it's meant to show unity, it's a bit stupid to segregate groups within the chant, no?

[SassyLady]

They're excluding themselves? Lawl xD
And change the words? So basically you think it's fine because they can say the pledge aslong as they change some words to the pledge...how many words can they change and it still be the pledge?

They are excluding themselves because they don't want to say "God"...it's their choice. It's one word ...not words. Or, they can just be silent when the "under God" part is said. The point is that why should everyone else be denied the opportunity to say it because you choke on a word?




Bad analogy as it one of omission not addition. A better one would be you are throwing a dinner party, and invite myself, even though you know im a vegetarian you have meat in all of the dishes. When I ask if there are any without meat you tell me that I either pick the meat out and eat around it or claim that I have excluded myself from the dinner that was made with me in mind.

Or, because I did the polite thing and invited you to join us, and knowing that all of us are meat eaters, you could have excused yourself from attending because you knew that meat would be served and you knew you just couldn't bring yourself to eat all the side dishes instead...and then threw a fit that everyone else wanted to eat meat. Using this analogy and applying it to the circumstance of this thread .... You would then have demanded that no one eat dinner because it had meat in it, therefore, you would deprive everyone else because you wouldn't exclude yourself.



I'm not saying there should be no chant, though like I said I do find them a lil worrisome, however, if there is going to be a chant, and it's meant to show unity, it's a bit stupid to segregate groups within the chant, no?

No, unity does not necessarily include all....it creates unity for like minded, like-goal people. Team Chant will not include opposition or fence-sitters. You're either in for everything or nothing....Be on the team and tell the world, or not.

[Kathianne]

So ya say mkp, but it doesn't really show solidarity when you exclude a section of society from your chant by adding the god reference.

In a similar kinda way I always got somewhat annoyed during remembrance day services I attended during school for WW1 and 2 remembrance. Because the vast majority of the services were spent praying or singing Protestant songs which obviously meant me sitting in silence for the hour (and I dare say reflecting more on the men that had died than on some words on a sheet) while I wouldn't of skipped the service, I was left out. I'm also wondering how many are left out of your 'team' chant in the same way, are they not part of the team?

So you went to a 'remembrance day' and your thoughts went to how you felt left out. Awww.

[Kathianne]

I'm not excluding them, Noir, they are excluding themselves. They can say the entire Pledge and use a different word for God if they want. And, you get all huffy about a small section that is excluded .... and yet, you want to exclude the majority's right to say it because a few people don't like the word God? How petty.



If I come to your house for dinner, Noir, should I throw a fit because you don't have rare beef on your menu.....or should I do the polite thing and say thank you for inviting me to your house, eat the veggies, and keep my mouth shut.

As for the Team Chant ... many people chose to not participate, but they didn't stand up and scream that we couldn't do the chant just because they didn't want to.

Are you saying that just because a few people have a problem saying the word God, that everyone else, who don't have a problem with it, should be barred from saying it? Seriously, Noir? Seriously?????

I subbed today, for spec ed. 1st hour was 'writing applications.' Needless to say, I was there early. It was 'team taught' class, an English teacher and myself. 7:20 am, the announcement of the pledge. 20 some kids, one chose to stay in seat, facing against flag. Not an eyelash was blinked.

We all have our rights, use them as we will. If one feels left out, it's by choice.

[Noir]

They are excluding themselves because they don't want to say "God"...it's their choice. It's one word ...not words. Or, they can just be silent when the "under God" part is said. The point is that why should everyone else be denied the opportunity to say it because you choke on a word?

I'm not saying rights should be denied, if someone wants to add whatever they can to it that's fine. But surly the base, the standard, the template should not have anything that divides like a theological claim


Or, because I did the polite thing and invited you to join us, and knowing that all of us are meat eaters, you could have excused yourself from attending because you knew that meat would be served and you knew you just couldn't bring yourself to eat all the side dishes instead...and then threw a fit that everyone else wanted to eat meat. Using this analogy and applying it to the circumstance of this thread .... You would then have demanded that no one eat dinner because it had meat in it, therefore, you would deprive everyone else because you wouldn't exclude yourself.[quote]

Lawl. So I would be in the wrong for accepting your invite when I know that you know I don't eat meat? (also, as I said all the dishes have meat, so no meat free side dishes) and at what point did I throw a fit about others eating (thus saying) what they want? If someone wants to add a god to their pledge that's fine.

[quote]No, unity does not necessarily include all....it creates unity for like minded, like-goal people. Team Chant will not include opposition or fence-sitters. You're either in for everything or nothing....Be on the team and tell the world, or not.

So you don't find anything ironic in the word "indivisible" being used right beside a word that divides?

[Noir]

So you went to a 'remembrance day' and your thoughts went to how you felt left out. Awww.

I know, poor me.

But more than that, poor soliders, when I wasnt drowning in self pity I was thinking of those men, while those around me were busy reading words so they could sing about the walls of jerrico or some tosh.

[Kathianne]

I know, poor me.

But more than that, poor soliders, when I wasnt drowning in self pity I was thinking of those men, while those around me were busy reading words so they could sing about the walls of jerrico or some tosh.

and you assume those praying weren't? How much hubris you have.

[Noir]

and you assume those praying weren't? How much hubris you have.

No, Which was why I didn't talk about praying but was talking about the singing, which was pointless. If you judge that to be hubris, fair enough.

[Kathianne]

No, Which was why I didn't talk about praying but was talking about the singing, which was pointless. If you judge that to be hubris, fair enough.

I do. So fair enough is covered. :thumb:

[Kathianne]

They are excluding themselves because they don't want to say "God"...it's their choice. It's one word ...not words. Or, they can just be silent when the "under God" part is said. The point is that why should everyone else be denied the opportunity to say it because you choke on a word?



Or, because I did the polite thing and invited you to join us, and knowing that all of us are meat eaters, you could have excused yourself from attending because you knew that meat would be served and you knew you just couldn't bring yourself to eat all the side dishes instead...and then threw a fit that everyone else wanted to eat meat. Using this analogy and applying it to the circumstance of this thread .... You would then have demanded that no one eat dinner because it had meat in it, therefore, you would deprive everyone else because you wouldn't exclude yourself.



No, unity does not necessarily include all....it creates unity for like minded, like-goal people. Team Chant will not include opposition or fence-sitters. You're either in for everything or nothing....Be on the team and tell the world, or not.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mrskurtsprincess again.

[SassyLady]

I'm not saying rights should be denied, if someone wants to add whatever they can to it that's fine. But surly the base, the standard, the template should not have anything that divides like a theological claim.

Once again, it is the individual who refuses to acknowledge God that is excluding themselves and putting up the barriers. Go figure.




Lawl. So I would be in the wrong for accepting your invite when I know that you know I don't eat meat? (also, as I said all the dishes have meat, so no meat free side dishes) and at what point did I throw a fit about others eating (thus saying) what they want? If someone wants to add a god to their pledge that's fine.

You would be in the wrong by insisting that no one eat because you couldn't.




So you don't find anything ironic in the word "indivisible" being used right beside a word that divides?

The only reason it divides is because a few decided to let it ....

[Noir]

Once again, it is the individual who refuses to acknowledge God that is excluding themselves and putting up the barriers. Go figure.

What a wonderful line of thought; if only everyone thought the same then no one would be excluded. >,>


You would be in the wrong by insisting that no one eat because you couldn't.

Yeah because when I said that others could eat (analogy) or say (regarding god) WHATEVER they want, I think what I really meant was 'no one may eat (analogy) or say (regarding god) anything unless I approve it' >,>


The only reason it divides is because a few decided to let it ....

If we all thought the same there'd be no division, how dare those individuals divide us, right? >,>

Apologies for the copous amount of sarcasm, but the second quote especially so wonderfully misrepresents everything that I've been saying (and believe) as to make a joke of this discussion.

[SassyLady]

What a wonderful line of thought; if only everyone thought the same then no one would be excluded. >,>



Yeah because when I said that others could eat (analogy) or say (regarding god) WHATEVER they want, I think what I really meant was 'no one may eat (analogy) or say (regarding god) anything unless I approve it' >,>



If we all thought the same there'd be no division, how dare those individuals divide us, right? >,>

Apologies for the copous amount of sarcasm, but the second quote especially so wonderfully misrepresents everything that I've been saying (and believe) as to make a joke of this discussion.

I'm OK with sarcasm Noir.

I think we've gone so far sideways that maybe we need to start from scratch.

I don't believe anyone should take away someone else's right to say the Pledge of Allegiance just because they have a problem saying the word God. If anyone has a problem saying the pledge then they need to sit and be quiet, or get up and leave ... whatever you want to do to show your displeasure, but do not forbid me from saying it.

So, all sarcasm and analogies aside, do we agree on the main point of not forbidding people the opportunity to say the pledge?

[Noir]

Ofcourse, at no point have I said that anyone does not have the right to talk about their god or put it in their pledge if they want to.

However, it is stupid to have a pledge that is meant to unite to include within it a subject that will divide when that subject does not have any baring on the pledge. It defeats the whole purpose of the pledge.

IMO the pledge without the god reference is all inclusive, no?

[SassyLady]

Ofcourse, at no point have I said that anyone does not have the right to talk about their god or put it in their pledge if they want to.

However, it is stupid to have a pledge that is meant to unite to include within it a subject that will divide when that subject does not have any baring on the pledge. It defeats the whole purpose of the pledge.

IMO the pledge without the god reference is all inclusive, no?

:)

Isn't it interesting that for decades no one thought it was divisive or exclusionary and now the relentless pursuit by atheists to have God eradicated from it is now causing more division than ever before?

And, it does unite Noir, however, I guess it unites everyone but the atheists, who can elect to skip those words if they choose and still pledge their allegiance to the flag and the nation .... just without acknowledging God, no?

[Noir]

:)

Isn't it interesting that for decades no one thought it was divisive or exclusionary and now the relentless pursuit by atheists to have God eradicated from it is now causing more division than ever before?

So? sexism was deemed fine for a long time, before the mood changed.
Also, as much as I am an atheist, the motivation behind my objection is from a secularist perspective.


And, it does unite Noir, however, I guess it unites everyone but the atheists, who can elect to skip those words if they choose and still pledge their allegiance to the flag and the nation .... just without acknowledging God, no?

Athiests, Secularists, Deists and anyone who does not believe in God but say several gods etc. Gee, indivisible...

Now, what's more sensible is having the original pledge, and if someone wants they can tact whatever they want onto it. But the standard base is totally unifying to any and all.

[SassyLady]

So? sexism was deemed fine for a long time, before the mood changed.
Also, as much as I am an atheist, the motivation behind my objection is from a secularist perspective.



Athiests, Secularists, Deists and anyone who does not believe in God but say several gods etc. Gee, indivisible...

Now, what's more sensible is having the original pledge, and if someone wants they can tact whatever they want onto it. But the standard base is totally unifying to any and all.

So, as a secularist, you want to deny people the right to say "under God"? So, secularism trumps freedom of speech?

[Kathianne]

So, as a secularist, you want to deny people the right to say "under God"? So, secularism trumps freedom of speech?

Yes, it's a 'marching on' kind of thing.' Right up there with civil rights and economic/political systems. ;)

[Noir]

So, as a secularist, you want to deny people the right to say "under God"? So, secularism trumps freedom of speech?

NO!

For some reason you keep adding free speech repression to what I'm saying, why?

The pledge of aliegence, imo, should read as follows "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Now if someone wants to add God, Allah, Thor or Noir to this pledge they are more than welcome to do so. They have the right to do that, I would not want to take away that right away, they are free to do so, should the notion take them they can. I would not think of ever trying to deny them this right. The very liberty mentioned in the pledge is the liberty that will be granted to then to add whatever god they so wish to the pledge. (I hope my stance is clear)

And as the proposed pledge (unaltered that is) does not mention any gods there is nothing to divide in it, it is all inclusive.

[SassyLady]

NO!

For some reason you keep adding free speech repression to what I'm saying, why?

The pledge of aliegence, imo, should read as follows "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Now if someone wants to add God, Allah, Thor or Noir to this pledge they are more than welcome to do so. They have the right to do that, I would not want to take away that right away, they are free to do so, should the notion take them they can. I would not think of ever trying to deny them this right. The very liberty mentioned in the pledge is the liberty that will be granted to then to add whatever god they so wish to the pledge. (I hope my stance is clear)

And as the proposed pledge (unaltered that is) does not mention any gods there is nothing to divide in it, it is all inclusive.

Ahhhh, so you want to take something that has been inclusive in the past and now change it to be more inclusive because over the decades more people have decided they feel excluded because the word God is in the pledge. OK...get it.

And, then, when a few people start feeling like the flag is offensive then we will have to leave out the words "the flag of" so those people aren't feeling excluded. And, then when a few people are pissed off at a few of the other states in the nation .... then we will need to leave off a few more words so those people don't feel excluded.

Got it!