Les Jones

Zing!

Sorta tangential: the motto on the currency has a typo. They left the "l" out of "Gold."

I don't think this issue is that the government isn't suppose to promote religion, but not establish one religion over another. There are a lot of ways our government promotes religion that don't violate the constitution. The question before the court is "under God" promoting a particular religion or just promoting religion.

After previewing, maybe the question is can the government promote religion at all. My bet is the SC won't try and answer that question as then they'd have to change everything from the Declaration of Independence to the currency.

If you change the phrase to the proper name of God in a particular religion, as you are proposing, you would be promoting a particular religion. God in English is generic. It would include Allah to a Muslim, and Yahweh to a Jew.

Ron: The phrase "under God" may or may not be acceptable as a generic to Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but there are a lot of other religions in the world for whom it's quite clear that they're being excluded. Heck, the singular "God" probably offends the polytheists. Maybe we should change the coins to "in God(s) we trust" to bring them into the tent.

It is impossible to prove there is no God

It is impossible to prove there is a God.

Either belief therefore is a faith.

To include “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is to discriminate against the faith of those who believe there is no God.

To discriminated against any faith is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.