The Framers of the Constitution specifically kept God out of their doctrines because the varying Christian beliefs don't get along. In fact, they got along a lot better than they do today back when the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were throwing down at the first Continental Congress. Our forefathers possessed the foresight and bravery to proceed with the realization that the only way a government could be tolerant of an amalgamation of religious beliefs is if the government itself did NOT subscribe to any of them. Keeping God out of government allows you to worship however you see fit. Allowing God into government will, with certainty, restrict our ability to believe the way we wish. Again, let me make this clear, the British colony that was originally settled by god fearing people is not the same generation or people who fought for and framed our constitution. They did so not on the basis of God, but on the basis of freedom. That freedom covers one's ability to worship as they see fit.

Those two words "Under God" are small, but the significance of those two words speak volumes, and if they did not speak volumes, then no one would have an issue with having them removed. In fact, the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the late 50's just after the Congress made it law to have "In God We Trust" placed on our currency. This would give indication that the "unalienable rights" of atheists could possible become infringed upon because America has stated that we are a land of God...that means no home for nonbelievers.

For those that do believe, how would you feel adding an "(s)" after "Under God"? How irate would you be if your children came home asking why the Pledge of Allegiance said "...One Nation Under God(s), indivisible..." If you are a Christian, you would most likely be outraged. The writer would go so far as guessing that you wouldn't want your children exposed to such blasphemy.

Well, for those who believe in more than one God, the single representation is blasphemy. For those who do not believe, its suggestion is ridiculously phantasmal.

Whenever a law is passed that could possibly threaten the freedom of any of the peoples in the United States, we must keep in mind, "The rights that we give the least amongst us are the ones that we give to ourselves" -an unknown patriot.

The "In God We Trust" and "Under God" has already lent way to allowing the 10 Commandments to stay on the walls of southern court rooms. Although the 10 Commands are good rules to follow, but keep in mind that each of those commandments carried the same punishment. Imagine how many people would be on death row for having an affair or sneaking a grape from the produce section of your local supermarket. Sounds extreme yes, but then wouldn't that make those 10 Commandments more extreme? After all, those who proceeded Jesus were all doomed to spend an eternity burning in hell for breaking just one of those commandments. Would you be willing to spend time in prison for taking the lord's name in vain? You might point out that just because they are posted doesn't mean that they are being used in the same fashion. Do you really believe that the judge who posted them there's judgment isn't swayed by that short list of ultimate no no's?

"Under God" has allowed our government to turn its back while the church decides on proper punishment for men who should otherwise be imprisoned due to their abuse and molestation of our nation's children.

So, I ask all of you to stop for a moment and really ask yourself if you want God in your government. However before you decide on your answer, ask yourself whether or not the People in Afghanistan wanted God in their government before the Taliban put God in their government. Ask yourself if Afghan people are better off now as opposed to before. If the answer is that the people are better off under the religious ruling of the Taliban, I have no argument, however if the answer is that they are better off now, then you don't have one.

--Diatribe

Let us take a moment and analyze the meaning of the phrase "Separation of Church and State". This means that the doctrines and beliefs of the Church are to be separated from the framing of our laws and liberties. As long as any religious dogma is allowed to graze the face of our laws, money, and constitution, we begin to open the doorway for a religious institution to gain footing and set up shop. Many God fearing Americans believe that it would be okay to allow more religion in government, it would even be a good idea...unless of course that institution ends up being of a denomination that you don't see eye to eye with. You might think that's okay, at least God is being given his dues. But let's step back a tiny bit shall we?

The original settlers of this brave new world were escaping the religious persecution of the land in which they lived. This wasn't a Jesus vs Mohammed, a Jehovah Vs Buddha, a Christ Vs Shiva, a Moses Vs Lao Tsu, or even a Jehovah Vs Yahweh. This was two groups of people believing in the same God and the same religious cannon. Who amongst us do not know people of varying Christian denominations who believe that the other denominations are wrong and are going to the place where the man with pointy tail and the red suit conducts his business?

Allow me to clarify this folks. The Christian denominations do not get along with other Christian denominations. And the ones who believe that the opposing denominations are hell bound are the ones who speak the loudest rally the greatest flocks, and are the most likely to be perched outside a women's clinic with bomb, rifle, or both.