Moral values or religious values? But I do not believe that the values of the majority should allow for laws that impinge on the liberty of anyone, even a very small minority. How doesn't "under god" constitute an establishment of religion? I've already said about the coins that I don't buy this argument. It's been used and in courts where the parties involved have much, much more legal knowledge than I do. But I think it's abusing semantics. The motto on the coins and the insertion in the pledge were put in by people who intended for them to be establishment of religion. Sure, not any one religion. But it disenfranchises the nonreligious. It creates doubt about us really being a secular nation. DF even used it to argue against the establishment clause and he's not the only one, meaning that people will actually take something that's been justified as not violating the establishment clause and that's the whole reason it's still around, then use it as evidence that the establishment clause doesn't exist. It seems that these people necessarily think that such words constitute establishment. The only problem I have with this is if it really was on political and not legal matters. I don't know if this is the case, but if it is, then I very much agree with you that it's a problem. I see. Well, historic precedent is legitimate. It shouldn't be disregarded thoughtlessly. But by itself, it shouldn't be enough to stop change for the better. There was an historic precedent against allowing women to vote. This "moral decay" thing seems pretty similar to what you argued earlier and in the other thread. If you're wrong, my suspicion is that you being so convinced that you're right will lead you to see unrelated things as evidence for your position, but those of us that don't already agree with you will find your claims implausible. On the other hand, if you're right, it's quite possible that you wouldn't be able to find any concrete evidence that you are, only things like this, too vague to convince us of anything. All I can fairly say to that is that I don't see the point. It's also been said that we're doomed to repeat history no matter what. As for Rome, there are several explanations (literally hundreds have been published) for why the empire fell and there were undoubtedly many individual factors involved. There were also a lot of ways in which they were different from us. The fall of an empire well over a thousand years ago seems like a pretty bad reason to deny people liberty today. I've never said people can't disagree with me. In that one instance, I did say that it was a matter of reality and not opinion. I stand by that. I know. But I do think it should be. Forcing children to pledge allegiance to a flag every day as part of their education is pretty jingoistic and atavistic for our country to do. I'd rather do away with the whole thing, religious expression or no. I do like the last five words though. "Liberty and justice for all."