>>Therefore, you advocate getting rid of the motto: In God we Trust from all
>>currency???
>
>Yep. FWIW, that one also doesn't go back forever, and in fact, was added in war time, which is frequently when you can get people to relinquish civil liberties. Here's a link:
>
>http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
>

Women's suffrage does not go back forever either, but I don't think any reasonable person would advocate eliminating a woman's right to vote.

Do you really believe that the motto or the presence of "Under God" in the pledge amounts to you relinquishing civil liberties? How are you harmed? As far as the pledge is concerned, you don't have to participate. That is your remedy. As far as the motto on money is concerned...the framers of the reconstruction amendments had an opportunity to reinforce the establishment clause, but did not. Perhaps they did not see the motto as being conter to the 1st. Amendment.


>>
>>Here is a question that I will posit to you... Is it the framer's intent that any reference to a "higher being" be separated from anything associated with the US Government?
>
>I don't think it's an accident that the only place other than the first amendment that religion is mentioned in the Constitution is to state that there will _not_ be a religious test for public office.
>

But couldn't one argue that because the reconstructionists DID NOT expressly invalidate the motto In God We Trust on money, the intent was there to separate that issue from what was covered by the establishment clause?

Taken to a logical extreme, the conflict between Israel and Palistine is utlimately grounded in religion. If the US supports Israel, isn't it akin to saying the US supports Judiasm over Islam? The converse would be true if we supported Palastine. This is a ludicrous argument, but it does go to show how folks can get to extremes.

The fact is, your civil liberties are not violated as long as the US Gov't does not mandate which religion you can practice. You always of the option of not reciting the pledge or not believing in any religion or in believing any relgion you want. You can even make one up if you want. As far as the motto is concerned, in order to make out a civil liberties violation, you need to juxtapose the motto with the gov't advocating a particular religion. And further, you would have to illustrate consequences for not adopting that religion, assuming you could name a particular religion.

I understand that you may FEEL as though your civil liberties are being violated, and as a citizen, that is your right. However, when confronted with sound reasoning, legal and historical, the argument does not hold water.