[thechat] More Pledge news

[Plunkett, Matt]

	>And by the way, for those reading Matt's snips from my blog, be
sure you read the >WHOLE item in the blog to get the full context of the
phrase "the kids we aren't inviting >to the party" - it's not a flippant
comment about excluding people, it refers to something >specific I talked
about in the article.

	Hrm, it took me three readings to get what you meant by this.  I
assume you mean the deal with giving out invitations to something in the
school yard.  It still seems flippant to me to write off any non-Christian
(you said atheist, but as Madhu pointed out, that isn't accurate) as the
folks who should just suck it up and deal with the fact that they weren't
invited...the possible implications of that statement are pretty amazing in
my opinion, but I'll assume you didn't mean that they don't really belong.

The difference is that those kids who weren't invited aren't arguing that
their deity or non-deity should be placed in the pledge instead of "under
God".  No one is saying "Hey, let's make it "Under Krishna" or "Under no
deity" or "Under Mohammed".  They're saying that we should make it so that
it includes all beliefs...since the gov't of the US is supposed to not exalt
any religion over another. (Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.)