GPLindsey

The screaming xian majority who favor "under God" in the Pledge are violating one of their most sacred commandments! Supreme Court Justice Brennan basically coined the term "ceremonial deism" to describe religious expressions that are so common and repeated so often that they have become devoid of religious content, and thus do not violate the establishment clause. This was the same reason why earlier courts have upheld the constitutionality of "Under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on our coins--it's constitutional, because the word "God" in these cases isn't a religious statement anymore.

How offended God must be to find his name being described in this manner, and used for secular purposes!! Why, the State is just dropping his name to make ceremonies seem a bit more formal--it's become just a bit of rhetorical flourish!

Yet are Xians offended by this abuse of his name? NO! The'll gladly force GOD's name back into the classroom any way they can, even if it means hiding behind a judge's robes as he says: "It's ok, kids--the Pledge is constitutional because 'under God' really doesn't mean anything anymore--it's devoid of religious content!!!!!!!!!"

G V

Good point.

m.e.h.

Does this incredible zealous fervor not show that those two words, supposedly used in the context of ceremonial deism, are obviously not being used as such? When umpteem million angry slack-jawed squeeling theists each have shit fits over this potential loss of goverment favortism directed towards their splintered majority sects, doesn't that dash this already ill-smelling theory to teeny little steenky shards?

Or am I simply confused?

Berenger Sauniere

Ceremonial Deism my ass. Maybe we can combat that with some Ceremonial Atheism. How about having the 1st Amendment changed to:...Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of Ceremonial Deism!