The United States has come to a point in its history when the Pledge ofAllegiance recited by millions needs to be
either vastly revamped or discarded entirely because nearly all of its major assertions are no longer applicable to the
real world, assuming they ever were.  An analysis of each tenet is now in order.
        As we all know the Pledge states:
         "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Unites States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

     Its fallacies and unconstitutionalities are manifest.
        1.  "One nation, indivisible," is about as in-tune with reality as the existence of gremlins since the American people have become almost as divided ideologically as they were during the Civil War.  Millions of Americans have almost nothing in common with other millions other than the fact that they live in the same general geographical area.  Their views on religion, politics, economics, sociology and a host of other topics clash with ever greater and more acrimonious frequency.  It is by no means a mere "culture war" that is developing as some have alleged.  The steady decline in unity is even reflected in the United States Congress where members are becoming increasingly rude and insolent toward one another.
        2. The pledge begins by saying "I pledge allegiance to the flag."  Pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is about as
sensible as pledging allegiance to a chair.  The instant reply, of course, is that one is not pledging allegiance to the flag, as such, but to that which it represents.  That answer is worthless not only because it says "to the flag" but because no one can define what the flag represents.  The nation is so factionalized and divided, so ideologically disunited, that there is no common agreement on what it denotes.  Ask Americans what the US represents on the international scene, for example, and some will say it projects democracy while others will say it represents imperialisn and corporate domination.  One can take issue after issue and see clear and growing disunity.
        Were it a pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, as opposed to a nebulous flag, that would be far more sensible since you are at least dealing with something that is tangible, demonstrable, readable, and provable, although the national divisions are increasingly reflected even in interpretations of the Constitution.
        3.  Upon hearing the phrase "liberty and justice for all," it is all one can do to restrain laughter, since any
knowledgeable person acquainted with the legal system knows that you get as much justice in capitalism as you can
afford and you experience as much liberty as your bankroll provides.   The amount of liberty one has is directly proportional to the size of his pocket-book.  The number of fat cats who are jailed, fined, or
imprisoned is infinitisimal compared to the hundreds of thousands of less affluent individuals who did not have the
wherewithal to buy their way out, even though their crimes are far less egregious.  Imprisoning or punishing a few fat cats with all the accompanying national publicity does not change the degree of iniquity or disguise the transparent attempt to deceive millions.
        4.  The phrase "under God" is so unconstitional as to be unworthy of rational discussion.  It remains within the Pledge for one reason and one reason only, its supporters have superior numbers, finances, and political clout.  To allege the state is not fostering and teaching a central religious concept via this phrase is to insult the intelligence of
enlightened, objective minds.  It certainly was not inserted for no reason during the fight against godless communism in the McCarthy era of the 1950's.

for the cause,

Klo