Then why is "In God we Trust" on every form of currency produced in the US. I'm not advocating for either side of the argument, just asking.
Actually we live in a nation of people who think that if you don't think like they think, your a moron.
Fair enough. It's actually and example of modern religious politicians tinkering with the secular Constitution. "In God We Trust" is not part of the Constitution, a document that does not mention God anywhere. It's a phrase from the second stanza of "the Star Spangled Banner", written decades after the Constitution and not made into the National Anthem until 1916 by Congressional Resolution. "In God We Trust" was made the National Motto by Congressional Public Law in 1957, a few years after "Under God" was added to the 1924 Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. It had been used on coinage since the Civil War, but without official status. The Supreme Court has upheld the motto because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". So-called acts of "ceremonial deism" have lost their "history, character, and context".
while i certainly am aware that most of our relevant founding fathers are way too secular to get elected to any significant office today, because we only vote for religious morons or ambitious liars, i think that even if the constitution did provide for some sort of state religion, we should be aware how wrong-headed that is. without resorting to the (very strong) constitutional arguments, we should be able to understand the value of separation. both for the religions and the government to be protected from interference from the other.
I haven't seen a single post in this thread advocating a state religion or theocracy. We are saying that secularists are hijacking the constitution to enforce their atheistic dogma on the rest of us. Regardless of whether it is a good idea or not, the constitution does not even imply separation as it is being implemented today. I don't suggest that the founding fathers were conservative evangelicals, but they were far more tolerant of religious thought and expression that so-called progressives today. Thomas Jefferson regularly attended religious services in the U.S. Capitol building and we are arguing whether he wrote language forbidding the display of a Christmas star on some small courthouse lawn 1500 miles from DC. I have not once in this thread advocated the display of religious material or prayer, but I have made the argument that if a small municipality wishes to, then the constitutional provision mandating the free exercise of religion allows it. It should be a local matter decided by locals. Funny, I am not aware of a single lawsuit trying to force a manager scene to be built on public property ever filed against a municipality that didn't wish for one. But goodness forbid someone put an angel on top of a Christmas tree in a public school and the full force of the federal justice department descends to keep the "separation". A comic misuse of the clause for sure.
you are free to worship whomever you choose, the whole premise of this was the problem of teaching creationism in school. You know if you want to have that word on a vocabulary test, then go for it, but don't try and teach my kid something that has absolutely zero merit, and cannot be proven with FACT.
