interesting slate article re: the pledge of allegiance...i must say, i totally agree with the recent court ruling that says the pledge, with it's "one nation under God" is a violation of church and state. the original plege didn't have these words - they were plugged in by Eisenhower back in the days of McCarthyism!

Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." - quite a bit different from the one we recited back in the days of our youth! hell, it didn't even name the United States! actually, forcing kids to pledge any sort of allegiance to anything seems wrong anyways.

the topic came up at work today, and it made me a bit uncomfortable. i seem to be in the minority of people that think the recent ruling is right and good. the point was made that kids didn't have to say "under god" or recite the pledge at all - but they're still being put in an inappropriate position, i think! you either refuse to say it and become an outcast or weirdo in the eyes of your peers, or you go along with the herd and say something you don't really mean - just what the hell does that have to do with a good education anyways?!? perhaps the alternate pledge is better: "I plead alignment to the flakes, of the untitled snakes of a merry cow. And to the Republicans for which they scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls."

it also seems stupid to have "in god we trust" on our money - how in the hell can this coincide with the separation of church and state?!?!?