Yoda, I have to be real careful how I answer that because of the odds of misinterpretation. And yeah, I get long-winded here.

As many have noticed, my public persona here has a bit of a stick-up concerning the Catholic Church. That is simply the example I've used most often as it relates to my disdain concerning *organized religion* and, more specifically the heirarchies in them.

Make no mistake, "spirituality" is a different matter to me.

But to get back to the point, let's put the words right out there:

Putting "God" into an oath puts a word with many meanings into said oath. For example, is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" democratic or a republic? A recent book and study showed four very distinct kinds of belief in "God" - authoritarian, benevolent, critical, and distant. (The book is at: [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Four-Gods-about-God/dp/0195341473[/ame] )

A person's belief in God is a very personal thing - and well it should be. The examples of "God in government" are disastrous. Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, etc.

People often say "God Bless the U.S.A.". I can't bring myself to say that. Why? Because of the implications. The idea that somehow God should favor our country over other other seems to be at odds with what the gospels wrote about Christ's words. God has been used as a sword and a plough. We're threatened with everlasting torment (hell) if we don't follow someone's interpretation of "God's Will". And the problem is that there is no defination of that will. It's not just a set of moving goalposts, it's that everyone has their own goalposts.

Again, that's fine in one's private life - but to want to enforce those beliefs on me by statute of law?

Here's an example of the clash. People complain that American students are falling behind in science. Yet, there are a number of people who, while complaining about that, think that Creationism (or it's latest incarnation: Intelligent Design) should be taught as *science* even though it's clearly *religion*. These two goals are at odds with each other. To be honest, I find it funny in a tragic way that the "Creationists" are evolving their tactics in a way that sounds like an attempt as "survival of the fittest".

Now, you said "after all, it was written by a Baptist minister.". Isn't it interesting that a Baptist minister left "under God" (or any reference to God) OUT of the pledge when he wrote it in 1892 and it was CONGRESS that put it in over 60 years later.

Isn't it interesting that Thomas Jefferson, who fervently believed in God, staunchly defended the separation of Church and State?

I want my country operating on facts, not faith. Yes, I know, 'fact' is something that can be hard to find in Washington, especially with all the disguises out there. Doesn't mean I can't *want* it more than we get it.

I took an oath for my current job. For me, it was reaffirming my loyalty to this country. Here's the oath I took:

God is mentioned but it's clearly in a personal way. My country is not "following God's orders" - my country and my interpretation of God are two separate entities.