  First of all, let me start off by saying that I have no problem with mandatory repetition of the Pledge of Allegiance because it stands for becoming INDIVISIBLE in an effort against conformity...promotes LIBERTY- the liberty to think, act, and live without government intervention...as well as JUSTICE FOR ALL- the permission for everyone to live as they please. It may be ironic that there is a uniform method of promoting the liberties that lead to diversity, but if everyone is made different through the same process, are they not still different? I recognize the recitation of the Pledge alludes to military service as flags are used to determine a soldier's allegiance in war, but I also believe that the Pledge is more effective with a visual aid.
The debate today is whether or not "under GOD" should or even COULD be allowed to stay in the Pledge. I outlined the current particulars of today's case in a previous post, if you haven't read them. To me, this is a case defining the separation of church and state. Although this country was outlined around that seperation, there is nothing that states that government can't recognize the ideology of monotheism, or other belief structure, as long as it doesn't allow the government of religion to directly affect it. One could argue that excluding the possibility of a deity's existence would be not seperating the state from atheist ideology. Tom C addressed free speach...that each American has the right to say what they want and worship as they please.
With compliments to that right, many Americans feel the direct connection between Providence and the success of this country, and that excluding their right to express His influence in relation to the country would antithesize their beliefs. The same issue is currently being presented in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as an Atheist man argues that with each (socially) mandatory oration of the Pledge, his daughter is taught that her father's beliefs are the wrong ones.
As for me, I believe that eliminating it from the Pledge restricts the large portion of Americans who recognize the Glory of God as parallel with the liberties of this country. For those who are polytheistic, "under god" can be translated as recognizing a "higher power" than is visible in daily life. Lastly, for those that don't recognize any supernatural force or deity, "under God" may be substituted with a respectful pause while those who do choose to recognize God do so. My views have been presented, but I'm all about becoming as educated as I can on the attitudes toward the aspects of life that effect the way we live every day... so school me!
If "Night" is a good read, then I'm all for it...especially if it's short! Also, are Rip Van Winkle, The Grapes of Wrath, or The Catcher in the Rye worth reading over break? Because they all spark my interest. Have a great break, and the fabulous assembly ASB will be presenting Friday morning. Love, Rob 
