I ask "what's wrong with not..."

Your "response": something about changing the Declaration of Independence, rewriting history, and offending people. It's hurting my head trying to figure out the connection to my question.

Ed, bless him, chimes in with something about baning the Declaration...

Cripes, not enough ibuprophen in the bottle.

On the other thread I respond to your post by honestly trying to make sense of your response, letting my question remain unanswered [politely not even referring you back to it], trying to find common ground between us. If I misrepresented what you were trying to say in my first paragraph, you are certainly free to correct me. Regardless, it was a sincere attempt to answer what you said in your post.

My second sentence brought up some [I thought] interesting lines for discussion, like the nature of true patriotism.

Your response: another shotgun blast [again, can't find any connection to my post] about how [I guess] people who are offended by their children having to memorize and recite the phrase "under God" are offending millions of others by bringing it up in court.

You brought up an interesting assertion [I thought]: that there is no difference between a fundamentalist and an atheist imposing their views on everyone.

My response: admittedly I discarded your first paragraph. For the record here is my response to it if you care:

"Why is it that some people scream bloody murder when they are offended by something but think nothing of offending millions of others?" Who knows? Who cares? Please feel free to scream bloody murder whenever you feel like it [oops, too late]

"Is it selfish immaturity or perhaps hypocrisy that lets them force their views on others while whining at any perception that views might be forced upon themselves as well?" Neither, and this case was not devised to force anyone's will on anyone. This case was about keeping others from forcing their will on the plaintiff's children.

"Perhaps it's nothing more than a lack of tolerance for differing views, all the while demanding tolerance for their views no matter how extreme." When you force someone's children to pledge things that are offensive to the parents, they are liable to be testy about it. Get used to that - there's no getting around it. Furthermore, I believe that atheism and agnosticism [and polytheism and animism, for that matter] are not extreme views and they should be respected by our society.

Forgive me for not responding to your first paragraph the first time, but I was trying to be nice, and your second paragraph was much more interesting.

But my actual response: pointing out the difference between a fundamentalist (who should be well please with the current arrangement) and an atheist (who has every right to be pissed).

Your response: "No, they're just screaming about any mention of God or religion in school. That's effectively forcing their religious views on others, they're just too bigoted to admit it."

At this point I came to the realization that it didn't much matter what I said. You would keep repeating something along the lines that militant atheists want to strike all references to religion from school. I figured that was your immovable position and that there was no point arguing it further. That's why I responded OK. Was I wrong?

If you are still Jonezing for a direct response to your statement it is this: this case (and all cases) must be evaluated on its own merits. The motivation, religion, parentage, or hairstyle of the plaintiffs has nothing to do with whether the case should be decided one way or the other. That's America, thank God! [on a good day]