An interesting, alternative perspective on the whole Pledge of Allegiance flap.

” NEW YORK, July 15 (UPI) — When I say “one nation under God,” I can take or leave the “under God” part, but I’m a fanatic about the “one nation” part. Has anyone ever considered that we’re possibly arguing over the wrong words?

The screwy thing about the self-righteous posturing of the past two weeks — and, by the way, you can stop sending me e-mail with Red Skelton’s interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance, I already have 39,000 copies — is that “under God” is at best just a throwaway line, which is why it wasn’t in the pledge to begin with.

It just expresses a vague desire to acknowledge that, yes, the Big Guy is watching what we do. It was actually added to slam communist Russia.

But the “one nation” thing is the meat of the Hungry Man dinner, considered so important that the pledge hammers it home with the word “indivisible.” I’ll bet there are lots more people who disagree with THAT part of the pledge than there are people who bridle at the words “under God.””

Read the whole article at: