If that truly was the rationale, then maybe (just maybe) you'd have a point. Saying it's a mere issue of discomfort is a dishonest distortion of the truth -- typical straw man stuff.
Is it really so hard to understand that someone might actually be concerned with the well-being of society? It's not like that's a new thing.

Repentance isn't just saying "oops, my bad." It's a process that changes who you are. It's the way for everything to be made right again. Of course you can't always (if ever) fix the damage and make it like it never happened, but who says it needs to be? If someone is truly repentant, God says forgive them. If you cannot do that, then that is your mistake, not theirs. Jesus was clear about this.
Besides the fact that this guy clearly has no functioning concept of religion anyway, what he is saying is that it doesn't make sense to have moral standards that are higher than he thinks they need to be. It's a classic "how dare you think you have standards higher (or at least different) than mine?" It's really just another form of self-righteousness.

Only because he has more social control and better wordcrafting than most. That often gets mistaken for intelligence... as we see here.

And therefore, "success. "
Odd standard, I think...
"I'm not as bad add you so therefore I must be doing a pretty good job."
Seems legit.

Not if it's not an irrational aversion, which it very often isn't.
It's a dumb term either way.

I've signed papers before. Do I get an award too? :D

That's just so weird to me. I guess we grew up in different cultures. In mine we are just not so uptight. That's not a bad thing either.

Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the term "God." It can mean whatever it needs to mean for whoever is saying it. A Muslim could say the pledge without feeling they are referring to any "God" other than their own.
Besides, there is no such thing as "the Christian church."
I think saying that it was a tool against communism is oversimplifying it. The pledge existed well before the Cold War, and it has persisted afterwards because it is not just a defense, it is a source of unity. The ideals behind it are just as important today as ever.

Ah I see. So we're living in total paranoia now. I don't believe"privacy"includes some "right" to never be seen in public. If you're that concerned with showing your face, then simply don't. Putting some innocent stranger through hell for simply taking a casual picture is a very selfish way to deal with your insecurities.

I think the point in that case is just that it's okay for men and women to have different rules in society. That is an Idea that is lost on many progressives.
Then you have the worst of them who shoot their own foot off by arguing that women have to act like men or they will never feel fulfilled. :P

why the heck would you be so butt-hurt that you were in the meaningless background of some stranger's picture that you feel the need to sue them?

They have to keep adding new letters because people keep coming up with new and exciting ways to"identify" themselves. It's all the rage, apparently.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance a law?

^guest talks about a couple hundred immigrants. I wonder if guest is really clueless to the fact that there are millions of them...
Besides, there was no legal immigratiom system back then. I'm sure we all agree that mistakes were made, but that's all said annand done. Learn from the past, but don't beat yourself or especially your opppnents over the head with it.

Biker gang people are usually pretty awesome deep down anyway.

Didn't read the fine print, huh?