Yes, I am. People hear things every single day that make them uncomfortable. Does that mean that they have the right to tell others not to say those things?
Depending on your location yes, others do have the right to tell others not to say those things. We have rules at work that keeps me in line. If I offend someone with something I say, I can eventually get fired for it. While that is a violation to a point of my rights, I guess I don't get that bent out of shape since it falls under the idea of respect for me. I have a terrible foul mouth but I certainly watch it here and in my dad's home. I do not want to offend so I watch myself. Of course not that long ago, I wasn't allowed to say some things in my house because my family was not comfortable saying them.
Also the FCC does still have a say in what is an isn't allowed to be spoken on TV.
Just a few examples of personal, business, and national levels of when we are told what we can and can't say. Again I am not too upset since I look at is more of a respect thing.
Taking it out is neither right nor wrong to me, because I will continue to say "under God" whether it is included in the written pledge or not. I'm just saying that the notion that people have a right to not be uncomfortable is ridiculous.
Well then since you don't mind, all the more reason to take it out. The notion of others being uncomfortable isn't ridiculous though... look above at my FCC and work examples. Not terribly different.
As an aside, one year at work we were told we were not allowed to have obvious religious implications in our holiday decorations as a few Muslim, Jewish and Athiests were offended by our decorations. We had to comply... so obviously there their comfort level was brought down and we helped to make sure they did remain comfortable.
Hmmm...well in that case, let's take the XIX Amendment out of the Constitution, since it wasn't there to begin with. The Founders didn't think women should vote, so why change it? And while we're at it, let's remove the XIII Amendment. The Founders saw no reason to abolish it, right? I mean, it wasn't in the original, so why change it?
In my eyes, this is not at all the same thing. Those Amendements were allowable and added to go with the changing times and to correct any mistakes that may have been in the constitution, to clarifiy anything or to add something that may have been left out. To just delete and add to a formal official governing document (sort of a contract if you will) w/o making it an official amendment is not something I consider a wise thing to do (for many reasons). So the amendments serve a totally different purpose.
Under those thoughts, the pledge is not a official governing doucment in my eyes, and there for doesn't need to be treated the same. If you like, we can treat it the same and create an official document giving the original, the 2nd version and after eliminating the "Under God" portion call it a 2nd ammendment. Sounds a bit silly, to some I bet, but that way it would at least be treated the same for those who think they do fall under the same category.
