>Do you really believe that the motto or the presence of "Under God" in the pledge amounts to you relinquishing civil liberties?

I realize this is not something you want to hear, John, but not everything can be addressed objectively using historical documents and precendents. This is a different kind of issue altogether. With all due respect, this may be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

>How are you harmed?

The fact that the government which is in place to represent me chooses to endorse monotheism as opposed to world views more similar to my own and countless other Americans withtout reason or respect to many Americans harms me in the following ways:

1. My ability to raise an intelligent and free thinking child in such an environment is put at risk by the suggestion that a supernatural being is meddling in the affairs of our nation.
2. My ability to trust the government to make rational and fair decisions is obviouslly at risk thanks to the endorsment of a particular world view
3. My inability to follow laws based on that endorsement in the supposed land of the free may result in irreparable damage to me and my familiy

However, there is a bigger problem. The mere fact that those in power are able to:

A. Push their belief system on all Americans
B. Get away with it because the majority of Americans have similar belief systems
C. Not only get away with it, but career-wise, beneifit from the fact that they'll be pleasing those with similar belief systems

is an indication that the current system is a failure in several respects. Tyranny of the majority, which, if we want to dabble in your nomenclature, was not the original intent of the framers.

>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.

Perhaps they were wrong. They were humans.

>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?

One could argue that people, recovering from a bloody and trying war, don't think clearly.

>However, when confronted with sound reasoning, legal and historical, the argument does not hold water.

When relying on historical documents written by human beings hundreds of years ago, true, the chance of real progress being made is slim.