Atheism has been called "the last taboo" by the author of this article at Politico. Well, that's exaggerated, because someday we're going to have people that want to marry dead people or have sex with their siblings--people are quite innovative. Nonetheless, this article is well written and does make the important point in these United States of Hypocrisy that many people won't vote for those who don't believe in God, regardless of whether they are good-hearted competent leaders. This, at a time when 80% of those who say that they believe in "God" don't actually believe in God. That's my own personal estimate based on the almost total lack of interest and knowledge of their own holy books and church history by most of the people who claim that religion is important.

I know that I'm in a minority in this country, but I don't see how making children say a pledge that affirms the existence of a supreme non-material being doesn't violate the separation clause.    The way I see it, if we starting making public school children starting affirming the existence of "god" today, the court's would immediately put a stop to it.  But since the phrase has been in place for more than 50 years, it's somehow OK. Here's the story that provokes my comment:

David Niose, former president of the American Humanist Association, and the plaintiffs' representative, opened his arguments Wednesday saying the pledge’s use of “under God” violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution and is an issue of discrimination.

Niose said the pledge’s repetitiveness in the public school system is indoctrinating and alienating to atheists.

“It validates believers as good patriots and it invalidates atheists as non-believers at best and unpatriotic at worst,” he said.