One Nation, Under ---

The Pledge of Allegiance continues to be a hot button issue for atheists and Christians alike in the US. The atheists charge the Christians with inserting religion into every area of government and the Christians charge the atheists with trying to take God out of the government, despite the majority of people believing in him.

This post touches upon Michael Newdow and the controversy surrounding his latest legal actions.

What was odd about the post was that it never really addressed the issues Newdow is trying to raise. Instead it alluded to his custody battle and hinted that his child and wife are Christians.

In case anyone has forgotten, this all started as a bitter custody battle between NewDow and a woman with whom he shares a child. (Also see WorldNetDaily - his daughter and her mother are Christian.)

What does this have to do with his case? Why is it we can't have an honest debate without referencing his personal life?

The fact is, Christians fear this man and his stance. So they attack his character in an effort to discredit him. So before you even hear the man's arguments (Which are nicely left out of this post) you feel you can't trust his words.

Very nice tactic.

Then we have a link to a blog that states that most people want to keep "In God We Trust" on money. Well, I answer to this, since when was the us a pure democracy? Most Americans hate George W. Bush, yet he is still in office. Most people believe Joan of Arc is Noah's wife.

This case has nothing to do with what the majority of people want. It has to do with government establishing official ties with religion. Also, please, let us spare the childish remarks about sending people who feel this way to North Korea.

What we have in this case is the will of the majority suppressing the views of the few. I don't feel we should trust in God. He's a homicidal maniac who calls himself Jealous. I don't want the US to put ANY trust in him!

But then we are told it is a generic term for whatever god you wish to put faith in. This is such a cop out my head is spinning. This is a lie. Clearly. The same people who are saying the majority of people want "In God We Trust" on money are saying that the SAME God mentioned there is a generic god. Further, these are the same people who are Christians. Clearly it isn't generic.

To Muslims "Allah" is just as generic as "God" is to Christians. I suggest then we replace all references to God with Allah. Let us see how supportive they are of putting a generic term for a deity on money then.

Then we will clearly see it is the Christians that want the Christian God mentioned in our pledge, and on our money, and in our oaths. This is laid out clearly because the same people fighting for this are the ones that state the US is founded on Judeo-Christian values. The same people who say we need to put God back in government.

They change hats depending on who they talk to. It is time to see through this.

Another ridiculous charge by Christians in an effort to fear monger their position is the specter or "They want to ban mentioning God in public!" This is clearly a position when one lacks the mental capacity to understand that limiting government's ability to mention God does not limit the citizen's ability to mention God.

Removing God from money isn't silencing anyone. It's becoming neutral. My headphones don't say "God" on them, does this mean they are atheist headphones? My laptop doesn't have any mention of God. Does this mean my laptop is an advocacy for atheism?

Get realistic.

It is time government accepts the pluralistic society and caters to no one. It is time for government to maintain a neutral position on matter of all faith, even if just mentioning a god, because it is a fine line between being personal and publicly endorsing a particular faith. The government has no place is doing the latter.

It is clear "God" in the pledge, and on the money, is anything but "generic." It is a cultural war being waged by Christians into establishing Dominionism over the US government and people. They feel that their faith should have the say in public matters.