the pledge, the military and respect

I got into a discussion today about 'under God' being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I pointed out that it was not originally in the pledge, it was added in 1954. The response I got back was, our country and troops needed God right now and that they loved our country and were proud of it, the military and God; and were not ashamed to admit it. I stated that I did also but did not see how that had anything to do with the pledge issue. Someone else then chimed in stating that respect was lacking today too. I didn't quite know what to make of that so I stated that I thought today's children lacked the discipline and boundaries we had growing up but again didn't see what that had to do with the pledge issue. I also pointed out that when God was invoked re the military, mass destruction and slaughter tends to follow (Crusades or 9/11 anyone?). And when invoked re governments, well then you get mass destruction, slaughter and 2nd class citizens with little or no rights and even persecution if not of the dominant religion.  Mass suppression/imprisonment of people who don't agree with the reigning doctrine. Wow, I kinda like the whole division of church and state thing we've got going on.

It's amazing to me how little people know about debate anymore. All of the return comments were off topic and had little or nothing to do with the original subject. They completely ignored my own points and (now this is just my feeling) seemed to feel that any questioning of the use of God's name in the pledge was a questioning of the military and our country. I did point out that the division of church and state as stipulated in our constitution actually made it illegal to have it in the pledge in our public schools. I kind of felt that the respect comment was directed at me as I had the gall to actually point out facts rather than just following blind emotion and agreeing with it.
This is why I believe the founding fathers were visionaries. There were so many other things I could have brought up, like what religious name of the creator should we use? As I believe they would have felt the christian one I would have to point out that freedom of religion means there are many followers of other religions in this country that, because of our constitution, should have the right to say the name of their creator. And if someone does not believe in a creator? Why should they have to say something they don't believe in? See, this is why it was not originally in the constitution.

Now, if churches really want to make the laws of the country and make everyone follow their rules, then they should immediately give up the tax exempt status and start paying taxes on all those donations they get. If you want to run the country you have to pay for the running of it.
Bet that will not go over well. Want your cake and eat it too, huh.

And that's My 25 cents...