BolshyFaker

Does anyone else think that though the wording of the pledge as altered in 1954 to include "under God" is clearly unconstituional that the huge wave of popular and politcal support on this issue means that a highly religous administration would dare to remove curch/state seperation from the constituion altogether?

Think about it, John ashcroft holds prayer seesions before work, GW's favourite thinker is Jesus, and the Senate just voted unamously to condem the ruling (even though they most know the wording of the constituion and this ammendments history).

How many politicians would be too scared of the religous lobby to vote against a constitutional ammendmant pushed as being designed entirely to protect the Pledge?

ksagnostic

Oh yeah. It's not THAT dark. I don't think that people are ready to see this country's constitution declare that this is a "Christian nation". On the other hand, if the pledge verdict were to be upheld, with all the Mom and Apple Pie patriotism going on, I could see a constitutional amendment going through that would allow the government to make references to a generic god, which would be a very bad precedent. In fact, I suspect that some of the judges who will probably vote to reverse the ruling will do it for the reason of avoiding that kind of mischief, but they will never admit it in public.

Spazmatic

Expect that, in the long run, this is a good thing for the growth of religious freedom in the United States. In 20-30 years, when people look back on this, they'll think the Fundies were religious fanatics (which they are) and will be all the more likely to support a more accurate reading of the Constitution. And, by then, I expect free thinkers may very well be a majority, also helped along by kids pissed at their parents for being overbearing freaks of nature regarding religion. ;-)