>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.

But women's suffrage was enacted by constitutional amendment, not simply an act of Congress. IOW, we made a choice as a whole through the prescribed process to change one of our fundamental bases. Congress couldn't have given women the vote simply by passing legislation and getting the President to sign it. Similarly, eliminating women's suffrage would also require constitutional amendment. The best example of that is prohibition.

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

Me, an adult. No, probably not. Does having the pledge as an official part of the public school day (and many states not only allow it, but require it, I believe), led by a teacher, infringe on the civil liberties of a child with whose beliefs it conflicts. You betcha. The teacher is a representative of the state, in that capacity, and is leading the students in what amounts to a prayer.

<< 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. >>

Or, perhaps, they were focused on the job they set out to do at that time, and chose not to bring any extraneous issues in. They had a tough enough set of issues to address, after all.


>The fact is, your civil liberties are not violated as long as the US Gov't does not mandate which religion you can practice.

I disagree. If the government takes actions that advance one religion to the detriment of others, my civil liberties are being violated. Tracy addressed this very well in her message, so I won't repeat the arguments.

Tamar