Greetings!

Yes, I am aware of the words being added in the '50s. And you are correct - it is a constitutional issue, and it is something that is important to debate and defend. I personally have no objection to anyone reciting it to use the deity of their choice in reciting it, or to leave the words out if they prefer. I agree that no one should be forced to recite it against their will, and that it is meaningless if it is forced.

As to the state of the country, I didn't really intend to go in that direction.

I do feel, though, that self-censorship is perhaps the worst form of censorship - not saying something because it is unpopular. It works both ways: I feel sorry for the person who has to stand silent listening to others say the words around them, but I also feel that I still have the right to say the words if I choose to. Thus my PC comment.

I am very glad for the link - I will definately read the original findings. Thanks!!!

Edit: I have read the original. Very interesting indeed! There are a number of valid points raised. I must admit, though, that I do not agree with either of the opinions completely. I do not personally feel that the phrase is an effective form of coersion, no matter how subtle. If anything, I would think it would be something that would be a learning experience, opening discussion between a child and parent of the importance of their shared beliefs. I would think that discussion would only serve to strengthen those beliefs, not erode them.

Cthulhu saves - in case he is hungry later.