Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

Woah woah woah woah.

First, as Joey says, having "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is entirely unconstitutional, even if it has survived legal challenges for whatever reason.

Woah woah woah woah.

That is not an unconstitutional example.

"i don't believe the holy spirit exists"
there it was, you can look again now, look at Matthew 12:31-32 or Mark 3:22-30 for example

There's a good reason for that.

What happens to those gangsters who turn to religion for a second chance? do you believe that they will get one?

I don't know about religion, but if he turns to JESUS he will.

 

[Joey D]

I saw on TV( well, who can really trust it) that some people believe that the Garden of Eden is in the Middle East. ( thank you History Channel)

If the Garden of Eden was real wouldn't it have been destroyed in the great flood that Noah took a cruise on?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm gonna break from the current conversation for a bit, and just submit my reply to the above question, just to see how my beliefs compare to everyone else's.

I do, very firmly, believe in God, and I'm a Catholic, but I disagree with a few things with Catholicism. However, in thinking about the comments with "great people dying horrible deaths," and all of the injustice in the world, I came to an idea. What if God originally created us to spend eternity with him? I mean, Adam and Eve were originally perfect, "made in God's own image," until they sinned. God then cast them out of Eden. However, what if Eden was actually Heaven, since the Garden of Eden has never been found on Earth. Jesus also died "so that we may reach Heaven," so maybe Jesus was the redeeming factor that reopened Eden, or Heaven. So, maybe now Earth acts as a bit of a proving ground, an elaborate test constructed by God to see how we treat our free will, and whether we are worthy to spend eternity with him. Maybe the ones who die early are needed in Heaven by God, and maybe the ones who die terrible deaths do not deserve it, but have been judged accordingly by God, and will be rewarded in Heaven, while the criminals and corrupted individuals who lead posh lives here on Earth get what they deserve in the Afterlife. In my mind, it may work almost like a Karma system, where, you may get away with something on the test, but don't after you die. Or, put in real-world terms, if you cheat on a test in school, you are not punished immediately, but afterward; you are punished when the teacher finds out. However, God is perfect, so he would always know.

One more thing, God is described in the Bible as loving and compassionate, so I believe, unless you have done something truly, truly terrible, you will have it removed in Purgatory, so that you may be judged clean by God.

I don't mean to offend anyone here by this post, these are just my beliefs and a theory I thought up.

Just so you know, it didn't offend me any.

I'd say from what I know it's a pretty apt describtion of the Catholic faith.

If the Garden of Eden was real wouldn't it have been destroyed in the great flood that Noah took a cruise on?

I guess so, but if its gone its gone, so I don't know that it makes a lot of difference.

 

[Duke]

Woah woah woah woah.

That is not an unconstitutional example.

Yes, yes it is. The money absolutely SHOULD NOT have "In God We Trust" on it, either.

"...under God" was added to the Pledge during the McCarthy era in the early '50s. They thought it would weed out them Godless Commies. The Pledge had been just dandy (and constitutional) without that phrase for about a hundred years before Tailgunner Joe forced it into the wording.

It is absolutely a breach of the Establishment Clause to include reference to God in the official Pledge or on the US currency. Absolutely unconstitutional.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yes, yes it is. The money absolutely SHOULD NOT have "In God We Trust" on it, either.

"...under God" was added to the Pledge during the McCarthy era in the early '50s. They thought it would weed out them Godless Commies. The Pledge had been just dandy (and constitutional) without that phrase for about a hundred years before Tailgunner Joe forced it into the wording.

It is absolutely a breach of the Establishment Clause to include reference to God in the official Pledge or on the US currency. Absolutely unconstitutional.

No No it's not.

If you have a copy of the the Constitution, show me which part it is in violation of or contradictory to.

 

[Duke]

Umm, hello, the Establishment Clause. If you don't see that, it's because you refuse to see it.

The money is designed as it is by act of legislation. That design says "In God We Trust" on it. The Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Putting "In God We Trust" on the national currency establishes a religion by law, which is therefore in violation of the First Amendment. On the other hand, removing "In God We Trust" from the money does not prevent the free excercise of religion.

Besides, the original US currency didn't have that text on it either. It had Lady Liberty. The "In God We Trust" bit wasn't added until around 1860, under similar circumstances to the McCarthy ram-job.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Umm, hello, the Establishment Clause. If you don't see that, it's because you refuse to see it.

The money is designed as it is by act of legislation. That design says "In God We Trust" on it. The Constitution says:



Putting "In God We Trust" on the national currency establishes a religion by law, which is therefore in violation of the First Amendment. On the other hand, removing "In God We Trust" from the money does not prevent the free excercise of religion.

Besides, the original US currency didn't have that text on it either. It had Lady Liberty. The "In God We Trust" bit wasn't added until around 1860, under similar circumstances to the McCarthy ram-job.

I believe that was meant to be read as... No law should govern church, and visa-versa.

 

[Keef]

The word "respecting" can be defined as acknowledging something, or making a reference to something. Therefore what the clause means is that no government action shall be allowed to have anything to do with religion of any sort, or course including governing.

 

[Joey D]

I still don't understand why we can't say "One Nation United by Freedom", it's patriotic and doesn't violate the Constitution. Not to mention it's something everyone in America can hold true.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

The word "respecting" can be defined as acknowledging something, or making a reference to something. Therefore what the clause means is that no government action shall be allowed to have anything to do with religion of any sort, or course including governing.

Yes but word's definitions change over the years. Remember "gay" use to mean happy. We don't actually speak the same language anymore.

 

[Joey D]

Yes but word's definitions change over the years. Remember "gay" use to mean happy.

It still does as far as I know when used as an adjective.

 

[arora]

Interesting Duke,

I'm not sure if ........ "Putting "In God We Trust" on the national currency establishes a religion by law"

I can see how an athiest may be bothered by that but I can also see how christians feel unfairly treated by athiests not wanting any mention of god on anything. Is it imposing ones will upon another? It all spends the same, but maybe not if you think it's a violation and demeaning to you having to use tender with "god" on it.

But does it force religion by law? I don't think so, there are many many gods and many religions so just........ "in god we trust"? not sure. My god my be different then someone elses god but they don't offend me, athiests don't offend me either other then the fact that they don't want my god mentioned at all.

So, I don't really care if "God" is mentioned or not, but I don't like hearing that it is forbidin either.

I do have another strong belief though and I will share it. I think that our nation was formed under god and he has indeed blessed us, I say if we turn our back on him he will turn his back on us but that is just for me and my thoughts. It's not a demand, just an observation.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Umm, hello, the Establishment Clause. If you don't see that, it's because you refuse to see it.

The money is designed as it is by act of legislation. That design says "In God We Trust" on it. The Constitution says:



Putting "In God We Trust" on the national currency establishes a religion by law, which is therefore in violation of the First Amendment. On the other hand, removing "In God We Trust" from the money does not prevent the free excercise of religion.

Besides, the original US currency didn't have that text on it either. It had Lady Liberty. The "In God We Trust" bit wasn't added until around 1860, under similar circumstances to the McCarthy ram-job.

The pledge is not a law establishing anything nor does it specify a religion.

The money is legal tender but it also establishes nothing religous by law and likewise does not specify any religion.

The Constitution does not contain what you have quoted as being in it.

Your quoting what the Supreme Court said. Big difference.

This being the case how does it violate or is even contratictory to the First amendment?

The truth is it doesn't.
The Supreme Court said it did.
The Establishment decision was one of the first totally clear and deliberate usurpations of the authority of the Supreme law of the land and the authors that wrote it. Upon which hang all of our rights and liberties.
The basis for the decision was "creative interpretation". Or another way to put it is; "it says whatever we say it does".
As intented it paved the way for more outragous usurpations such as Roe v Wade.
It continues on today.
Do you know that the President's recent Supreme Court nominee has stated that we do not have a right to own a firearm.
See what I mean.

It is the natural progression of all governments to relieve you of your liberties, your money, and resultingly your power.
Ours is no exception.

Patrick Henry who was a famous Virginia Patriot and was born not far from where I live, when asked about attenting the Continental Congress to discuss plans for a Central or Federal Government replied: I'm not going. When asked why he replied: Because I know what the end result of it will be.
How amazingly astute he was.

 

[arora]

👍 for most of tht SCJ, I don't claim to be a scholar so there are a few points I'm sure of. It did however remind me of this which furthers my cause I supose.....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

Our country was founded on God based beliefs and has worked for quite some time, kinda erks me when people choose not to understand that.

 

[nk4e]

If the Garden of Eden was real wouldn't it have been destroyed in the great flood that Noah took a cruise on?

It was according to the History Channel!

 

[mindwise]

The pledge is not a law establishing anything nor does it specify a religion.

It does exclude religions, like polytheistic religions such as Hinduism, i think that is unconstitutional (but it's not my constitution, so school me if necessary).
Moreover, in my view it is a weird situation to have that line in that pledge and also have "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.".
Sure it's not a test, but i just said I think it's a weird situation. That said, it was intended as a test when it was added, fueling to the weirdness of it

The money is legal tender but it also establishes nothing religious by law and likewise does not specify any religion.

Again, it does exclude religions.

The Constitution does not contain what you have quoted as being in it.

So the first Amendment to the United States Constitution does not say

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

? Or are you just saying the amendment is "what the Supreme Court said"??
School me here, i would think the first amendment is part of the constitution.

This being the case how does it violate or is even contradictory to the First amendment?

Because it endorses monotheism above polytheism?, that's in my view in conflict with "respecting an establishment of religion" perhaps you loophole your way out by claiming it does not say "religions", but i think that's not in accordance with what its intended to say, and i think that's the view of supreme court (but there this layman could be wrong yet again ?)

====

Our country was founded on God based beliefs and has worked for quite some time, kinda erks me when people choose not to understand that.

I would say that your country was founded by god believing people, specifically separating the state from god based beliefs by the separation of church and state. Perhaps you can convince me you're correct by giving some examples of god based beliefs you think make your case.

 

[arora]

Hmmm, perhaps my wording was off, or there is a language barrier, I think we are saying the same thing. I Think( my opinion ) that the United States was founded by men who believed in God, more specific, Christian men. I have read many things written by them that leads me to that conclusion.

I Agree and disagree with what separation of church and state may mean to you. I look at it simply as; the for fathers not wanting the country to be governed by the church the way England may have been by the catholics.

All that said, your post is making me think, which is not easy to do as I'm easily bored or put off, this is good stuff 👍

What I was saying by "god based beliefs" was excactly what I quoted by Jefferson about 'rights' he his speaking of a creator and creation.

 

[mindwise]

I Agree and disagree with what separation of church and state may mean to you. I look at it simply as; the for fathers not wanting the country to be governed by the church the way England may have been by the catholics.

Indeed, i agree with the note that it was mainly religious persecution that resulted in this 'wall' being built, but your example is a part of that.

All that said, your post is making me think, which is not easy to do as I'm easily bored or put off, this is good stuff 👍

Wow, thanks, that doesn't happen to my posts too often, and i often have the same thing reading other peoples posts (like posts from foolkiller and Touring Mars to name just two)

What I was saying by "god based beliefs" was exactly what I quoted by Jefferson about 'rights' he is speaking of a creator and creation.

Yes, that's fair enough, i'm not sure the creator in that quote was really important, i'll re-quote omitting that, let's see if you agree the text still means exactly the same......

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal; that they are endowed with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

I for one think it does, but english is not my native language, so i need 'peer review'


EDIT

And to Duke below i think when you say:

The US money did not mention God until 1864!

You're being quite nice you don't mention the bank notes did not have such reference until after the 1950's (again McCarthy i guess)

 

[Duke]

Interesting Duke,

I'm not sure if ........ "Putting "In God We Trust" on the national currency establishes a religion by law"

I can see how an athiest may be bothered by that but I can also see how christians feel unfairly treated by athiests not wanting any mention of god on anything. Is it imposing ones will upon another? It all spends the same, but maybe not if you think it's a violation and demeaning to you having to use tender with "god" on it.

But does it force religion by law? I don't think so, there are many many gods and many religions so just........ "in god we trust"? not sure. My god my be different then someone elses god but they don't offend me, athiests don't offend me either other then the fact that they don't want my god mentioned at all.

So, I don't really care if "God" is mentioned or not, but I don't like hearing that it is forbidin either.

It may not establish a particular religion by law, but it DOES establish religion by law. So everyone of any religion except atheists is protected by law, but atheists are not? With the word "God" on the money and in the Pledge of Allegiance, there is no way for an atheist to have freedom of religion, because we are compelled to accept that there is a God in the official understanding of our government. That's unconstitutional.

It's not like atheists want the money to say "THERE IS NO GOD" on the back. That would also be establishing a law with respect to religion, which is still unconstitutional. We want the money to not mention the subject at all, which is precisely what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment intended government to do - remain completely silent on the issue of religion, either for or against.

You're more than welcome to personally talk about your God all you wish - that right is fully protected by the First Amendment. I'll support your right to worship in any way that doesn't violate someone else's rights. What I will never support is that the US government should have anything official that mentions God at all.

The pledge is not a law establishing anything nor does it specify a religion.

It is an official pledge adopted by the US government, with official wording that was CHANGED to insert the word "God" by act of a US senator within the Congress. Saying that's not a "law" is technically correct but only marginally true. While there may be no punishment for not saying it, every public school child in the US is expected to say those words every school morning. "Law" or not, it is the official policy of the US government.

The money is legal tender but it also establishes nothing religous by law and likewise does not specify any religion.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The design of the money is determined and accepted by act of legislation, and is therefore LAW. And mentioning "God" in the design of currency establishes that there IS a God. Even if it does not specify "In the Judeo-Christian God of Western Tradition We Trust", it is still establishing by law that there must be a God and therefore it violates the clause of the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting religion."

The Constitution does not contain what you have quoted as being in it.

Your quoting what the Supreme Court said. Big difference.

LOL wut? I quoted directly from the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. Do you have any knowledge of how the Constitution was written? Do you seriously think that the Supreme Court wrote the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments)?

The first 10 Amendments were proposed as a block by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson during the first US congressional session. They were installed to provide a list of guaranteed rights so that the Constituion itself could be successfully ratified by 3/4 of the states. The Bill of Rights was written into the Constitution before it was signed into law, not forced onto it afterwards by an activist Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't even exist until the Constitution was ratified!

Please, learn your history before you decide something like this.

This being the case how does it violate or is even contratictory to the First amendment?

The truth is it doesn't.

The truth is, it does, as I've explained above in detail.

The US money did not mention God until 1864! That's almost 80 years after the Constitution was ratified by the Founding Fathers with nothing in it but the First Amendment saying "Congress shall make no law respecting religion..." If you think that the Founding Fathers intended this to be a religious nation, why didn't they make that reflected in the Constituion and on the new federal currency?

And if you think that it was not an act of LAW establishing religion to put "In God We Trust" on the money, then READ THIS from the US Treasury's own website! If that is not establishing religion by act of law, I don't know what is.

Conservative whining to the contrary, the Supreme Court has done nothing but fail to do its job in not striking this down as unconstitutional.

 

[Joey D]

But does it force religion by law?

Yes. The money just says "In God We Trust" which not only casts out Atheist, Agnostics, and the non-religious, but also anyone who believes in a polytheistic religion such as Hinduism, Neo-Paganism, etc. If the motto was "In God(s) We Trust" then it would only be casting aside those who don't believe in a higher power. The government is forcing a monotheistic view on the US citizens, which is wrong. Why should my friends from India who practice Hinduism have to deal with being bombarded with a monotheistic view of religion?

And before someone says it, no this is not a promotion of "Freedom FROM religion", it's merely wanting to make it equal for everyone.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Sorry, I don't know what the snag is but I keep losing my post. Ill have to try again later

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It may not establish a particular religion by law, but it DOES establish religion by law. So everyone of any religion except atheists is protected by law, but atheists are not? With the word "God" on the money and in the Pledge of Allegiance, there is no way for an atheist to have freedom of religion, because we are compelled to accept that there is a God in the official understanding of our government. That's unconstitutional..

The word GOD on its own is too vague and undefinitive to render ligitamately as a religion and by the wording of the Constitution it is not unconstitutional. For it to be so the framers would have had to include the word deity with religion in the First Amendment. They are two different things, thats why there is two different words for them. It is also why it was used on the money and in the pledge without any mantadory observance.
I will admit this is getting down to hair splitting but it is technically, not a violation.
By definition an atheist has no religion so unless the state violates the The first part of the amendment its not applicable to him.
Just because the word God is used and one may be influenced or even compelled to believe it still does'nt make it a violation.
For it to violate there must be a law, that is respecting, an establishment of religion.

You're more than welcome to personally talk about your God all you wish - that right is fully protected by the First Amendment. I'll support your right to worship in any way that doesn't violate someone else's rights. What I will never support is that the US government should have anything official that mentions God at all..

What you, I or anyone else thinks, or will support is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says.

It is an official pledge adopted by the US government, with official wording that was CHANGED to insert the word "God" by act of a US senator within the Congress. Saying that's not a "law" is technically correct but only marginally true. While there may be no punishment for not saying it, every public school child in the US is expected to say those words every school morning. "Law" or not, it is the official policy of the US government..

If there is no law, there can be no violation. As a matter of fact its free exercise.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The design of the money is determined and accepted by act of legislation, and is therefore LAW. And mentioning "God" in the design of currency establishes that there IS a God. Even if it does not specify "In the Judeo-Christian God of Western Tradition We Trust", it is still establishing by law that there must be a God and therefore it violates the clause of the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting religion."
.

That is a misquote.

LOL wut? I quoted directly from the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. Do you have any knowledge of how the Constitution was written? Do you seriously think that the Supreme Court wrote the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments)?

The first 10 Amendments were proposed as a block by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson during the first US congressional session. They were installed to provide a list of guaranteed rights so that the Constituion itself could be successfully ratified by 3/4 of the states. The Bill of Rights was written into the Constitution before it was signed into law, not forced onto it afterwards by an activist Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't even exist until the Constitution was ratified!

Please, learn your history before you decide something like this..

Sorry, that was my mistake I read off the wrong comment.

The truth is, it does, as I've explained above in detail.

The US money did not mention God until 1864! That's almost 80 years after the Constitution was ratified by the Founding Fathers with nothing in it but the First Amendment saying "Congress shall make no law respecting religion..." If you think that the Founding Fathers intended this to be a religious nation, why didn't they make that reflected in the Constituion and on the new federal currency?.

And if you think that it was not an act of LAW establishing religion to put "In God We Trust" on the money, then READ THIS from the US Treasury's own website! If that is not establishing religion by act of law, I don't know what is.
Conservative whining to the contrary, the Supreme Court has done nothing but fail to do its job in not striking this down as unconstitutional.

As I said, all of that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says.
I'm in hopes that the reason they havn't struck it down is they have realized their mistake from the establishment ruling, which has led to a total onslaught against the free expression side. There are now suits on file demanding the crosses be removed from soldiers graves in National cemeteries.
That is what happens when you employ a very small deviational stretch and apply it to the Constitution.
I will agree with you on one thing. We can thank "tailgunner Joe" for most of this. The establishment ruling was a liberal "Knee-jerk " reaction to his antics.
There is a very very fine line that must be followed in reguard to all of this.

 

[Duke]

The word GOD on its own is too vague and undefinitive to render ligitamately as a religion and by the wording of the Constitution it is not unconstitutional.

What? The word "God" is not vague at all - it means some kind of supernatural force or being. What flavor of God is very vague, true - hence my comment about "the Judeo-Christian God of Western tradition". But what flavor is totally irrelevant once you step over the threshold from rational to supernatural. Atheists believe that there is NO supernatural force or being (however you define God) AT ALL. Putting "God" on the money and in the Pledge insists that there is one of some kind, no matter how much you're trying to say the language does not insist that.

As I said, it's not like atheists are trying to make the official stance that there is NOT a God - they just want NO STANCE WHATSOEVER. No matter how hard you try to deny it, putting the word God there takes a stance.

By definition an atheist has no religion so unless the state violates the The first part of the amendment its not applicable to him.

What? I don't get this. If the government makes a law concerning religion - which it definitely has, regarding the money, did you read that link? - then the law applies to all citizens, atheist or not.

 

[Joey D]

It's not that vague though, there are what, three main monotheistic in the world? And they pretty much all believe in the same God. Since the most practised religion in the US is Christianity I'm guessing that's what God means on the money. Like I said to totally negate Atheist they would have to say "In God or Gods we Trust".

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What? The word "God" is not vague at all - it means some kind of supernatural force or being. What flavor of God is very vague, true - hence my comment about "the Judeo-Christian God of Western tradition". But what flavor is totally irrelevant once you step over the threshold from rational to supernatural. Atheists believe that there is NO supernatural force or being (however you define God) AT ALL. Putting "God" on the money and in the Pledge insists that there is one of some kind, no matter how much you're trying to say the language does not insist that.

The point is the word GOD signifies a "Deity", not "an establishment of religion". As I said they are two different entities and that is why there are two different words for them. To declare the word GOD signfies "an establishment of religion" you must employ an assumptive stretch and leave the realm of definitive absolutes. For it to be violation it would have to say:

"In Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. ect. we trust"


What the language insists or does'nt insist is irrelevant.
I repeat:
For it to violate, there must be a law, that is respecting, an establishment of religion.

As I said, it's not like atheists are trying to make the official stance that there is NOT a God - they just want NO STANCE WHATSOEVER. No matter how hard you try to deny it, putting the word God there takes a stance.

I repeat:
By definition an atheist has no religion so unless the state violates the The first part of the amendment its not applicable to him.

What? I don't get this. If the government makes a law concerning religion - which it definitely has, regarding the money, did you read that link? - then the law applies to all citizens, atheist or not.

No it has not, but by your reasoning, yes it would.
However as I am pointing out, if there is no violation to the First Amendment, then his rights have not been violated.

 

[Duke]

You keep pointing it out, but you keep making the same incorrect assumption.

The word "God" was put on the money by act of law in the early 1860s. The US Treasury's OWN WEBSITE even says that. Therefore Congress has made a law respecting - meaning with respect to - religion. This violates the very first phrase of the First Amendment, which is an original part of the ratified Constitution.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the official currency of my country is made by law with a word on it that should not be there. Saying that I'm an atheist and therefore the word should somehow be invisible to me is utterly irrelevant.

You can try to separate "deity" from "religion" all you wish, but that is a complete red herring designed only to use semantics to get around the fundamental issue.

 

[Famine]

I don't get how "god" (even that with a small "g") referring to a deity doesn't automatically refer to religion...

In what non-religious scenarios might one encounter a god?

 

[nk4e]

In what non-religious scenarios might one encounter a god?

Probably a personal experience that is not explainable at the time unless all the facts are looked at in the future. Though that might be something that has came off as being a strong sense of goodness and the truth.

 

[Famine]

You've lost me, nk4e.

The question was where the specific word "god", or any concept of a deity, occurs completely separate from a religious setting. As far as I can tell only religions have deities, so any reference to "god" is an instant assumption of religion - validating Duke's point.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You keep pointing it out, but you keep making the same incorrect assumption.

The assumption shoe is on your foot, not mine.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm am stating the the word or words in question and then defining them as per reasonable recognizable standards.

The word "God" was put on the money by act of law in the early 1860s. The US Treasury's OWN WEBSITE even says that. Therefore Congress has made a law respecting - meaning with respect to - religion. This violates the very first phrase of the First Amendment, which is an original part of the ratified Constitution.

How the word "GOD" was put on the money, is again irrelevant if it does not violate the First Amendment.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the official currency of my country is made by law with a word on it that should not be there. Saying that I'm an atheist and therefore the word should somehow be invisible to me is utterly irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is what the Constution says, not what you want it to say.
I think you are confusing "constitutionality" and "offense" as if they were synonymous.
Something that may be offensive doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional.
That being the case, I beleive you wish to call this pitch a unconstitutional strike because its "close to the corner", but not "on the corner".

You can try to separate "deity" from "religion" all you wish, but that is a complete red herring designed only to use semantics to get around the fundamental issue.

Personally, as stated in my first post, since this concerns the "Supreme Law of the land" upon which all my liberties and rights hang, I believe it is not unreasonable to insist on a strict and reverential adherence to the wording, regaurding interpretation. I can't imagine any citizen not insisting on it.

Also concerning this the framers could have certainly added "Deity" to the First Amendment had they so chosen. They didn't add it because thats not where the concern lay. The concern was in the State, by dictate of law, forcing the citizenry to observe a particular belief, practice, and worship system of a "Deity", or as they chose to word it: "an establishment of religion".
That is not semantics or a red herring. A "Deity" by itself, or on its own cannot qualify as a "belief, practice, and worship system", hence it cannot be a "an establishment of religion".

BTW you might stop and consider the possibility that the reason " In God we trust" has been on our money for over a hundred years is because it's not unconstitutional.