And the Pledge of Allegance. Wow. We should all know by now that atheists and agnostics are just as fervently religious as theists. What's the sense in trying to duke it out now when we've got real things to worry about? I'm willing to grant all of them the benefit of being right. There have been far too many killings, crucifixions, burnings, wars, and hundred year crusades conducted under the name of religions and Gods anyway.

When I went through grammar and high school, we didn't use the "under God" words and we got along just fine. It wasn't until 1954 that Senator Byrd put through a bill to add these words. And he's probably the one that changed the next slogan too.

Let's debate the old yuletide greeting "Peace on Earth, Good Will towards Men." Remember that one? It got changed to the ridiculous chant of "Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will" that has never made sense to me.

Are we again trying to separate ourselves from those evil commies like we did by adding "under God" to the pledge? So we wish "peace on earth" to the good guys who should be at peace anyway, but what about the bad guys? By excluding them are we suggesting that it's OK for them not to be peaceful, to run about the world doing all sorts of evil deeds, or is it that we just don't care what they do? If anything, wouldn't it be the evildoers that we should hope will be quiet and get along, conform to society, and have peace on earth? If anything, we should be doubling our efforts in their direction.

There was even a time when we made potential witnesses and jurors place their hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth. I think we even asked them if they believed in God. But if an atheist said that he didn't believe in God, we threw him out. That didn't make any sense either.

Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of trying to weed out dishonesty and get people who will tell the truth? If a person, who could have lied without repercussion, instead has the gumption to publicly declare a belief that he knows goes against the grain of 99 percent of the people who hear him, isn't that exactly the sort of honesty and forth rightfulness we are searching for? Isn't that the kind of person we should want on the witness stand or in the jury box?

What would it hurt to put the Pledge of Allegiance back the way it was, to take the two words "under God" out? It was done for the wrong reason anyway at a time when we were building all sorts of hate of the Russians who are now our buddies. And Senator Byrd is sort of a nut anyway. He's the man who has expensive highways to nowhere built with our money in West Virginia and tells Greek tragedies on the Senate floor when he's filibustering things like a Social Security "lock box."

Don't we have real problems to worry about? Or are we trying to set the stage to say that people who pray to Gotama or face east three times a day praying to Allah are really godless heathens?

We shouldn't be wasting our time on this question. It comes from the screwball state of California where they outlaw things like drying clothes outside during power crunches, put a tax on soft drinks and outlawed them in public schools because of sugar content, and will soon be outlawing croissants, bakeries, and candy bars. Let them eat cake, for awhile.

Let's get back to reality folks. We've got a government out to build an empire and make economic slaves of everyone. It's not the time for foolishness and theological debates.