I'm 13 and recite the pledge in school. I believe in leaving it as it is. I am tired of all the bull America dishes out constantly. We Americans may not all be religious, nor even believe in the Lord, but this is rediculous. If you are offended by stating alledgience to your country then don't state that part of the pledge. But don't ruin our country further with your bull****. Our founding fathers didn't mean this sort of thing when they wrote our laws. They just wanted to ensure that people of all beliefs would recieve justice for what they believe in. No, this is not an example of that. This is an example of petty lawyers trying to snatch back their two cents from our country. Let's not be stupid and petty. Our country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.............

The point I tried to get across yesterday was that our founding fathers wanted to ensure that someone charged with a crime would be tried fairly in court and not prejudiced against because of his or her beliefs. They wanted America to be a free place. When the pledge was adapted, it was to be a statement of allegience, of course, but also to be a way to show our freedoms and benefits of our country. Allow this statement to stay. What will happen when it is taken out of the pledge we all know so well?

if you don't agree with what the pledge says or want it to say something different just don't say it its as simple as that

As a priest, I say leave "under God" in the Pledge, unless of course, "under God" really means "under the values of the Christian right." Frankly it scares me when I hear someone say that one of the branches of the government should be weaker than the other two. It also scares me when the impression has been made that the majority is right. This begins to smack of dictatorship. And THAT is very scary.

I believe there is a simple solution to the debate over the use of "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I would substitute " founded in freedom" for the "one nation under God"....portion of the pledge. After all our nation was founded by people who sought a variety of freedoms denied in their native land.

Why is htis discussion such an issue for everyone? Is there not a way to incorporate the beliefs of everyone with a statement such as "under a God as I see it", or "under a God as I beleive" ?

This has worked in this country in many other forums of public gathering, and I fail to see why it is not incorporated here as well.

I agree that government & religion should be kept separate. Just as government and morality, government and charity, government and sex, government and family values, government and love, government and hate, government and compassion should be separate.

The government's role should be to serve the citizens by providing defense of our borders, providing a framework for interstate commerce, protecting public health & safety and punishing those who are preyed on by manipulative evildoers.

We should not abdicate our humanity or our responsibility to our fellow man to the government.

I am going inot the 8th grade. I recite the pledge every single day. It takes everyone at least 15 seconds to say the pledge. That means, I have wasted 315 hours saying the pledge. If we took that 5.25 hours, and talked about the the constotuton or the bill of rights, my peers and I would be much more educated on them then we are right now. There was only on time that I was ever taught about the bill of rights abd the constotution. We lerned abouth that for 1 weeks in history class in FOURTH GRADE! That would be about 5 hours. If I never had that class, butlerned abouth it insted of reciting the pledge, I would still have more knowlage than I do now.

another point in which i disagree with the general. HE often stated that "the majority rules" and the majority want the phrase "under god" should stay. this is true, but the majority of people in this county are cristan. so, of course they want it to stay. If the majority of amaricans were musliam, and teh phrase "under Allah" existed, then they would want that phrase to stay. but, if the phrase "under allah" existed now, everyone would be outraged.

Regarding the Pledge, I don't see the problem with it. I recited it when I was a child, and I recite it at Cub Scout meetings now. I think it inspires patriotism.

My real problem in this debate is with Margot Adler. Could she have been any more biased in favor of Barry Lynn and against General Brady? She was hardly an impartial moderator, and its this kind of liberal bias that infuriates me about public radio.

Barry Flynn, as a minister and a lawyer, clearly has credentials to talk about the twin issues of church and state. He spoke well and forcefully and had consistent clarity.

General Brady has credentials to talk about military techniques, bravery, the U.N., and Korea. What a shame you got him to talk about church and state, because he did not do justice to the issue. Even his grasp of the role of the courts seemed shaky.

Brady's confusions reminded me of the explanations of the Pledge given by grade 3 children who are tutored to say it but don't understand its words.

I listened and waited patiently for SOMEONE to mention that the word Goddess should be mentioned along with the word God. But it never happened. I guess they thought they were covering it all when they mentioned Krishna, Buddha, etc. Well, there are many spiritual followers that worship the Goddess. What about us?

In the 1960's I remember reciting the pledge up to the under god part, and becomming silent. It just didn't feel right to me.

When I was in kindergarten, I was sort of forced to say the Pledge. I don't remember why I didn't like the Pledge of Allegiance, but my mother told that I did not have to say it if I didn't want to. When my teacher noticed that I wasn't participating, she was concerned. She told my mother, who consequently told me to just say it. I'm not sure what exactly she said to my mother, but as a 4 year old I didn't have much choice but to say it.

When I was young I said the pledge because I had to,

When I was older I didn't say the pledge because I was being rebelious,

When I finally understood the pledge I was no longer asked to say it.

Why not go back to the pre-1954 version? When we have men in high places wearing their proported religiosity on their sleave to garner political support, we need to take a serious look on the subject. I see it as another means of political control in an area that is personal. What happened to separation of church and state?