Yes, this is the heart of it. It is not required. Now admittedly, if the Pledge said 'under no god', I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't say it, but, if that is what the majority wanted, I would just shut up and wait until it was over. In matters that do not violate anybody's rights, the majority preference should prevail.Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
But some wish for it not to be allowed. They even go so far as to say the "Christians" are trying for force their religion down the throats of the nonbelievers. But in fact, they are trying to force their nonbelief down the throats of the believers even though the nonbelievers are in the minority. It would be disruptive to the recitation to add words that are not included. It is in no way disruptive to just not say any 'offensive' words or just not to say the Pledge at all when it is recited. There is a degree of tolerance and courtesy at stake here.
PROPOSITION: Who should decide what lifestyle, culture, or practices shall be the identity of the community? Does the Constitution suggest that the people will decide that or does the government dictate that? Should the lifestyle, culture, traditions that people enjoy be decided by some activist judge with his own ax to grind? It's fine if he thnks like you do. It is not so fine if he does not.
It is no contest when Constitutional rights are at stake. The majority must not be allowed to override the rights of the few or even the one.
The one rule that we should all agree on, however, is that if nobody's rights are at risk, the community should decide. And as it is likely that not all will agree, that decision should be by majority decision. There is no other fair way to decide such things.