By "causing no problems" I meant that "In God we trust" is not insulting anyone or meaning to insight anything

A major problem is that it has become so accepted as part of the dollar that there is really no point in changing it. Maybe if we changed the form of money.....

I don't really read my money very much, honestly, so I don't care. It doesn't affect anything!

__________________
steve

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum!
NOTE: If you agree with what I have said in this post, there's a new feature on Political Fever that allows you to express agreement. Look in the top right-hand corner of my post, and you should see a little silver scales button. Please, use that.However, sign it with your username so I know who sent it please...thanks all.

Take it off for all I care. Or leave it on, it isn't that big a deal. It's not like it's making me do anything.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The statement "In God We Trust" printed on the US currency does not violate the principle of separation of church and state.

Ergo, there is no constitutional reason to remove it from US currency.

Those who seek to have it removed are understood to be extremists no different than those who seek to make the USA a theocracy and substitute the rule of law with the rule of God.

This coming from someone who thinks we should get rid of "under god" from the Pledge.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson

__________________
steve

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum!
NOTE: If you agree with what I have said in this post, there's a new feature on Political Fever that allows you to express agreement. Look in the top right-hand corner of my post, and you should see a little silver scales button. Please, use that.However, sign it with your username so I know who sent it please...thanks all.

Actually I feel there is a difference as with the pledge it's something your more AGREEING TO, versus something that is just there in a way.

Point taken. Still a bit of a stretch to call them fanatics, though.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Actually, no.

I consider the Pledge of Allegience to be obnoxious, undemocratic and an insult to liberty regardless of whether or not it includes the phrase "under God". That just makes it worse in my opinion, but removing it wouldn't make it much less oboxious, undemocratic and insulting to liberty.

I don't believe that the phrase itself ("under God"), used in that way, constitutes a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against establishment and thus is quite unlikely to be 'struck down' on that account by any Court.

I dislike the phrase ("under God") because it is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. But I don't see any legal grounds to say it must be removed. I would rather see the Pledge itself banished rather than reform it.

The Pledge requirement does not provide an option to disagree. Therefore, there can be no actual agreement expressed either. It just is.