Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
I don't think it is important to acknowledge a universal god and I'm not pushing it on you or anyone else. Just asking questions to spark discussion and maybe challange a few mis-conceptions.

My entire interest in this discussion has to do with the supposed "separation of church and state", which I believe is mis-understood by more and more folks these days. I really don't care what words are displayed on our money as long as it spends, and I don't understand why anyone else would either.

It's been brought out in various discussions on this site over the years that our founders were not Christians per se, but rather that they were predominately Deists, which of course still requires a belief in creation and a creator. Their vision of individual rights were based upon certain inalienable rights granted by a creator and which therefore could not be taken away by man. They were right to construct a system of government that would not allow a theocracy but they never intended to remove what they considered to be each individuals responsibility to that creator. I think the original intent of our form of representative democracy within a republican governmental structure would leave the founders dumbfounded at the lengths we've come to take god out of the public square.

If people don't believe in god or feel that their preferred religion is not represented fully within that system of governance, then I say, So What? No one is forcing you to believe a certain way or worship against your will.
But the government has no business being in the god business. Religion is a faith belief, not rooted in fact what so ever. Our government does not acknowledge aliens either, although plenty of people, including scientist, believe them to exist. Again, not the realm of the government.
I think people now days understand separation of church and state better than before. The fact that it was OK to put 'In god we trust' on money shows that. It wasn't OK because we aren't a theocracy, as it turns out, and plenty of US citizens, who are also 'we' don't agree with that. For too long it's been separation of church and state, except of course for Christians. Christian holidays were celebrated, nativities erected, prayers said, and the 'Christmas story' told all across the nation, in all schools and public (gov) buildings. But now that people are really thinking about it, they are pointing out that separation means ALL religion, so of course it's an issue now. You say the government is driving god out of the government, but I say he/she should never been in there in the first place. Other religions, or non religions, were never represented and now we are just realizing no religion should be.
The government isn't trying to, nor could they ever, force people to not be guided by their particular faith in their daily lives. That's a straw man argument. If you want to wear funny underwear and pray before you eat lunch, that's your decision. And that's a government worker's decision as well. But that worker can't lead everyone in prayer or require them to wear the funny underwear, or not.
In god we trust doesn't belong on our money any more than 'there is no god' belongs on our money. Again, it's the whole 'christian exception' that people are questioning, and is what has caused the uproar. No one expects 'in Allah we trust' to go on the money, do they?