This all boils down to constitutionality, if I read you correctly.
Assuming you are an American (are you?) then your beliefs are part of the collective sum of all beliefs (group) by choice, not be nature. Given the society is upwards of 90% in favor of keeping the word God on money and the pledge, this puts you and others who share your opinion on the outside of that majority of thought, yet within the collective.
Yes, you are part of the collective, but you are outside of the majority and mainstream by choice. You have the freedom to join with the majority and their thought, or not, so there is no exclusion in play. You are not forced to handle money...you could use credit cards and checks, and you are not required nor coerced into saying the pledge nor the word God. You are not forced to think of the word God in a religious sense, that is strictly your choice. No where is there a pledge to what the word God should mean, nor a specific definition of the word God.
Getting back to the idea of unconstitutionality, please, show me the mathematical formula for the constitution, the precise and unequivocal meaning of every single word, the meaning of every precise and unequivocal word in context that it is used, the proper and absolutely accurate explanation of the words used 200 years ago that had meaning relative to society and culture of 200 years ago, and the writings of the authors of the Constitution that explain in today's language exactly what their intentions were. Show me a single document from the framers that said the generic word "God" should be excluded from money or a pledge.
You can claim what was done to be unconstitutional, but that does not make it so.
You can make an argument that it is unconstitutional, but that does not make it so.
Initially, the court will decide when a properly and technically founded argument reach them, and even then, that decision can be amended through the legislative process in our democracy.
The constitution is a living, breathing, changing document, not a mathematic formula that remains constant no matter what social changes occur, or values of a society are.
You are currently on the outside, looking in and complaining that you don't like what you see, and I understand that.
However, you have nothing but opinion as to what it is that we should see looking out or in. You are not the final authority on what is "constitutional" nor am I.
I can go point by point, and counter and disagree with each of your arguments, because it all rests on the claim that the phrase "under God" and "In God We Trust" is coercive integration of religion by the Government, when that is not the majority opinion, nor the opinion of the court so far.
As I have pointed out the word God can have many meanings, so it can have no one particular meaning unless it is defined in context. There is no precise definition that the word God as used on money and in the pledge is the God of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Druids, or worshipers of Eric Clapton. The meaning only comes into play by the mind of the person who says God.
Here is another example.
Take the word Mother. I say the word Mother. Is that my Mother? Your Mother? Your friend's Mother?
We can't know, because the word Mother is generic. We would have to look to the context for determination of the meaning of the word Mother, the word itself is not self defining.
I could be speaking in a generic sense, and be thinking of Mother Nature. There are so many possibilities.
You are the one who is claiming the word to be religious, which apparently it is for you, but in fact, there is no evidence that someone has to think in religious terms when they say the word God in the pledge, or the word God when it comes to money.
The word God is not like the word uranium, which belongs to a very specific class of minerals. The word God belongs to no one religion, sect, class, society, nor belief system. The pledge and money are not declaring what the word God should mean for anyone.
We will see what happens, but I suspect if your minority opinion does prevail in the courts, we will see amendments to the constitution passed that will allow the generic, spiritual, and secular word "God" to be used on money and the pledge.
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so the word God is religious only in the mind of the believer....or non believer as the case may be. You see the word God and have one experience, I have quite a different one...obviously.
When the religious nature exists only in the mind, and not in the pledge itself, nor in the money, there is nothing but freedom for anyone to take it or not take it as they wish.
Quote from stu:
Well I hope you may be able to understand my not expecting it, as your previous offensive assails, name calling, flame wars and insults on me and others are very numerous Optional 777.
But I do give you some credit for some intelligence too. So maybe thatâs a start for civil debate. Who knows.