is simply not going to fly. While I think they have absolutely no chance, I've got to admire their determination.

There have been lots of changes to our society that once seemed unthinkable - open homosexuality for example. While things aren't perfect for the LGBT community - it wasn't that long ago that they had to be invisible or risk legal prosecution. Perhaps this "under God" bit of the pledge, which is a bit exclusionary, can be reevaluated as we as a society evolve.

It comes down to the question of whether we want an America that is going to be welcoming to all different ways of thought on the subject of God or whether we want Christians to retain their position of cultural superiority.

Bryant

itself has no chance. I imagine it will be a year or so before this campaign fades away. There will be future campaigns that might have better chances.

The "under God" phrase is exclusionary and not needed, but I don't think it is exclusive to Christians.

I don't see how it could be applied to most eastern religions, and while Islam does believe in a monotheistic God, there is probably some difference of opinion on whether the God in "under God" is Allah or not - I think many Christians would very clear that that's not the same being.

Bryant

as to how technically they would interpret the word "God." In this context, I'd give it a broad interpretation as applying to almost anything spiritual, even though historically it was inserted by a Jewish/Christian legislature. It would be interesting to know if Muslims and others feel it applies to their God.

'Under god' would be exclusive of polytheistic faiths, strictly speaking. And they notice the wording, you can be sure.

Most sects of Buddhist would not recognize a singular, unifying deity that could be colloquially referred to as 'under god'. They have such a concept as a supernatural god-like entity, but they reject a singular creator type god, and most importantly do not worship or follow such beings. (There are a couple, small sect exceptions to this, but they are numerically small)

Hinduism, or most sects of it, might have issues with that term as well. There are many more. It would require each individual exposed to the phrase to generously re-interpret the statement to match whatever they believe of don't believe.

Personally I wouldn't have anything to interpret it into. But that's why I've always been silent during those two beats when other people recite it.

Muhammad was very explicit that his revelation had its roots in Judaism and Christianity. "Allah" is simply Arabic for "God," and is so used in Arabic-language Bibles.

The ones who would argue the contrary are the right-wing fundamentalist Christians.

Yes from a Muslim perspective it is the same thing; but I think that Muslims are sharp enough to know that when fundamentalist Christians insist that Under God be used, they mean under the Christian God. It's not a welcoming statement; it's a statement of division - America is for Real True Christians.

Bryant