Count me in as one who thinks "under God" should stay.

Even as a Christian, I believe in separation of church and state. That is what this country is founded on. Freedom of religion. I recognize and and embrace that everyone believes diferently. I guess this is not the first time that I have been told that what I believe as my Christian beliefs are anti-Christian.

__________________
~Happiness is a large family~

I personally don't have real strong beliefs on this debate. If I had my preference it would stay in just because it's what I'm used to. But where I disagree with you isn't on whether or not you're a christian, but that I think you're misinterpreting the separation of church and state.

This is a quote I got off the internet defining separation of church or state.
In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"


In other words, we can't say all Americans HAVE to be Christian, or whatever religion. It's saying we can't say Muslims, or Jews, or whatever other religion cannot practice their religion. It's merely stating that the government cannot make people be one religion.

So I don't believe that saying the pledge "establishes a religion or prohibits free exercise". Especially since children are given the choice of not saying it if they chose. I personally think the concept of separation of church and state has now gone too far and that people use it in arguments in a context it's not intended for. JMO

__________________

Ok, so is there a difference between "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion"?

Yes, there is a difference, but both are covered by the first amendment.

Freedom of religion means that the citizens can choose to be what religion they want to be. Freedom from religion means you can't be forced to be one religion or for that matter, any religion. Saying the pledge is not forcing anyone to be a certain religion or forcing them to practice a religion....especially since they are given the option of not saying it.

__________________

BusyMomof4 - I'm sure your "God Hater" comment was directed at me.

Ummm....do you know what an atheist is? We don't believe in God. Any God - be it the Christian bible god or Zeus or Thor or Krishna or whoever. Therefore, we are not God-haters. It's like calling us leprechaun-haters or pixie-haters. We can't hate what we don't believe exists.

We can, however, be very disappointed in the attitudes and behaviors of people who claim to follow the dictates/principals of their faiths, yet their actions or words reveal otherwise.

And I agree w/ Aliadam that there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I would personally love to be free FROM religion, but too many people think it's their duty to shove it at other people who have no interest.

I believe a lot of people have the separation of church and state concept backwards.

Yes, the founding fathers did want to limit the government's ability to walk into citizens' homes and say, "You MUST follow this specific religion." The USA constitution, especially the amendments, is about LIMITING the government's ability. Only a very few duties are given to the government to carry out (the primary one being to protect the citizens.)

However, the founding fathers also didn't want the government to be able to walk into a house of worship and demand that the religion must act in a certain way. This is why religions aren't taxed. The government is limited in being able to control or influence the practice of religion. Church-going, God-fearing, religious citizens SHOULD desire an absolute separation of church and state because that means the USA government can't walk in and dictate how your church operates. This concept has been tried many times in federal court. If your religion consumes peyote or bites the heads off of snakes, the government can't limit your religious practice.

In the same way, some religions strictly prohibit the use of God's name, especially in non-spiritual references. There are many God-believing peoples (not just athiests) who don't want to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because they practice not using God's name except in solemn prayer. An oath of allegiance is NOT a prayer.

I sincerely would love to live in a country where I can pledge my oath of patriotism without having to declare my spiritual beliefs. If I don't have to be a God-believer to be a good citizen (and I don't!), then it shouldn't be in the pledge.

And no, the pledge shouldn't be 'optional'. Either we can all say it, or we can't. It has nothing to do with whether or not 'under God' is offensive. It has has to do with whether or not it is constitutional. I believe it isn't.

__________________
"Poor people work for their money. Rich people make their money work for them."

I'm indifferent on the subject. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, that being said, don't say it if you don't want to.

Here is my question...there are plenty of people in this country that are religious, but not Christian. Should a Muslim be allowed to say "One nation under Allah"?.

Calimari...I KNEW I would hear from you sooner or later. What on earth would ever make YOU think I was referring to YOU as a God-hater??? LOL...you actually are never even a thought on my mind. So sorry sweetie! I was not calling you out either...contrary to what you seem to think. What makes you think I was referring to anyone on this particular board? Seems funny to me that certain people keep thinking I was talking about them...hmmm

I've been called similar enough on this board enough times. Why would I assume you would be any different from the others? It's not like I know ya! So....who ARE the god-haters you seem to think are out there?