Here would be my general view on this...
To my understanding Vishnu is a very specific god, not a generalized word, of a very specific religion. This is not the same as little g "god".
Vishnu is the Supreme god of a polytheisitic religion. Just like the Judeo-Christian god is a Supreme god in a polytheistic religion (Angels are technically sub-deities, and the trinity in Christianity is clearly polytheistic. Not to mention saints etc.)
They are, for all intents and purposes, identical because the big "G" god isn't really all that generalized.
Allah, again, is specific to a particular religion even though theologically is the same "god". I would feel the same about it being "Under Allah" as I would if it was "Under Jesus Christ our Lord". Suddenly that takes it from an ambiguous non-specific religion to a specific "Muslim" or "Christian" religion based on its use.
But Jesus is
not the same god as Jehovah or Allah, but Allah
is the same god as Jehovah or the Christian God. That's a huge difference between the two.
The Jesus argument works better for Vishnu than it does for Allah because Allah is a synonym for big "G" "God", while Jesus is
not a synonym for big "G" God.
Furthermore this goes back to our prior argument. I don't see a big deal to keep it, or to leave it. I see it being a far more trouble and difficult thing to go about changing it...be it removing it or using a different word...than not doing it. If I think its pointless to take the time, energy, and resources to remove it why should I think its worth while to take the time, energy, and resources to change it?
My stance is that if the people who want to keep it are OK with it being changed (not removed, just changed), then it might as well stay as there is no real difference between them and it's not actually worth the effort to change it.
But if they
aren't OK with it being changed, then clearly it
is worth the effort to change it or have it removed for the simple fact that they pretend it's not a big deal and non-Judeo Christians should "suck it up, it does not harm" when they themselves disagree with that statement (as the alterations I've described would not, in any way shape or form, harm anyone either)
Thus, they don't actually believe their own arguments in favor of the inclusion, thus validating the argument for exclusion.
This is doubly so to change it to something that is far more likely to be controversial and come under fire due to the immensely more defined, immensely less traditional, and immensely less acceptable by the majority.
Look at the statement there, Zyph. If it is far more likely to be controversial, even though it harms no one, to make the alterations I've described, then there is a legitimate case for removal.
If the controversy of the proposed change would be greater than the current controversy, the it should be removed altogether. This is because:
If there is
no valid reason for the controversy
now, then there is
no valid reason for the controversy
if changed.
If there
is valid controversy
if changed, then there
is valid controversy from the status quo.
If the point is to avoid controversy, then remove it altogether. It should
not be controversial to remove it
unless there is a
valid reason to remove it.
If I don't care either way and yet feel slightly more apt to keep then remove because I see nothing particular WRONG with it and don't see the point in spending the time, energy, and resources to change it why in the world then would I say I'd be fine with supporting attempts to change it that would cause even greater amount of time, energy, and resources to be expended?
I would argue that the controversy over removing it is the reason why the time energy and resources (which are not much. It's pretty much an official decree of "The pledge no longer contains "under God". The time energy and resources involved are equal to the time energy and resources it takes to type and print a sentence on a piece of paper)
should be expended.