>"But two words in a patriotic oath hardly constitutes an "establishment of religion."

>"Democrats would be idiots to hand so easily demagogued an issue to
> Republicans just so some self-dramatizing village atheist can "protect" his
> eight year-old daughter from a theoretical threat she's too young to understand.
> He should try teaching her tolerance, a sense of proportion, and the meaning of
> "with liberty and justice for all."
 

 I almost lost my breakfast when I read that.  I know I'm not going to be 100% in
 agreement with any journalist at all times, but to see Lyons add his voice to the
 bone-headed bleating of the mainstream press on this particular subject really sickened me.

 Why is this simple issue proving such a hurdle for even the most fair-minded among us?
 All anyone has to do is go back and read the comments of the politicians who inserted
 those two insidious words, and any doubt that they fully intended to graft Christianity into
 our civic rituals will be erased.  This debate, I think, provides us with a pretty good litmus test
 on whether a given subject comprehends the concept of "tyranny of the majority".
 Unfortunately, it is a test which the vast majority of Americans have just failed.

 There is one, and only one, logically and constitutionally correct position here:
 The words "under God" have no place in the Pledge.  To say otherwise shows
 a lack of understanding of our fundamental freedoms -- and a callousness towards
 one's non-religious countrymen -- that is disgusting to witness and horrible to confront.

 Joe S