Ronbrown, in a post on Obama's view of religion in America, wrote:
There is really only one thing that I can recall disagreeing with him on, though perhaps readers may be able to jog my memory on other things I might have taken exception to. Obama said that having “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is not a form of religious brainwashing. While I definitely do not accuse him of dishonesty in this, I personally believe that the citing of God in official national statements is a form of subtle but nevertheless powerful religious endorsement.
Here's an important fact:
We live in a country where no candidate who seriously hopes to become President can question the phrase, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. No matter how contrived or twisted his argument must become, he (or she) must admit to the fact that to tell the truth about the Pledge is to concede defeat in the election.
Our job, if we choose to accept it, is to create a society in which a candidate can call for removing "under God" from the Pledge without being defeated for public office.
Which means that we should not be so stupid as to think that the answer comes from waiting for a President to tell the truth on this matter. The answer comes from taking the case directly to the people themselves, until enough people understand the truth that a candidate can speak this truth without suffering defeat.
This is my goal with the "Perspective on the Pledge".
I am going to be working heavily on expanding this work over the next two weeks - including two new sections that I will be posting on my other blog today.
Hopefully, this story can make some contribution towards that end.