Brain Fertilizer

I don't know about you, but one of the base lessons I learned in 1-12 (my unenlightened parents did not send me to K, or maybe it did not exist way back then) was about the Pilgrims. They gave up their country to come to the new world because of ...wait for it... religious persecution.
Now you don't seem to be a persecutor (unless going on about your beliefs constitutes persecution) and subjecting ones self to your ideas appears to be voluntary. However, my 1-12 history lessons taught me that people like you are entirely too tolerant of your brethren who are a bit more ...ah, shall we say they believe more in reaching out to the unconverted. In ways such as the rack, which was used to convert (quite successfully, I believe) non-believers.
Now, I haven't seen a rack used for some time. And no one knocks at my door on Sunday and offers me a ride in a squad car to church. I think that is a good thing.
I am sorry to say that, in this matter, I am as tolerant of the ACLU and their excesses as the good folk in the past were tolerant of the excesses of their Christian brethren. Maybe I didn't understand about the Pilgrims. Maybe it was supposed to be about turkeys and Indians and I screwed it up in my youth.
Nevertheless, I sleep better knowing that maybe we have gone too far. I guess we get to pick our choice of evils on this one. Be nice if we could meet in the middle, but I am scared. We are dealing with a powerful force here.

Consider the tolerance of the Puritans within their own society. Consider again why they left England. Hint: they weren't allowed to live according to their own beliefs.
Consider the nature of England at the time: there was a State Religion, and it was illegal to belong to another.
Consider the wars in France over the ability to express your religion as you see fit.
Now consider the United States today.
Are we anywhere close to establishing a theocracy? No. Are we anywhere close to establishing a State religion? No.
Are we anywhere close to establishing a default State belief system? Yep: secularism, or perhaps even atheism.
Go back and actually read the documents like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and count how many times the word "God" comes up.
The ACLU, Democrats, progressives, and atheists, are quickly putting themselves in the position of saying the US Constitution is Unconstitutional because it clearly doesn't meet the Separation of Church and State standard.
And consider that if anyone forced you to go to church or forced you to recite a creed proclaiming your allegience to any deity, that there would be millions of people with guns standing up to such tyranny.
It's a perspective difference, perhaps.
But the majority of Americans are religious. Why should we be forced to adopt an atheist default? And why are atheists so sensitive that they cannot endure expressions of religion that are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

I believe that you are missing the point. None of your complaints are about what believers do in the privacy of their homes or in their houses of worship or in their communications with each other. Take it to the next step.
Believers are totally free to publish books, have radio and TV shows (subject to decency rules) (that was a joke!) do direct mail and gather together in public squares for prayer vigils.
Your complaints center about the next step up. Where they interact with non-believers.
At the time this country was founded we did have an unofficial state religion - Christianity. As you point out, it was inculcated in all of our government documents, architecture and customs. Stemming from the time that the priest was the only one in the village who could write, all documents were laced with references to God. It was customary. Without appealing to a higher power no document was considered authoritative. Treaties, etc. of today do not contain the ceremonial references commonly found in all government documents in 1776. Citing references to God in old documents and claiming that everyone who signed them was certifying that every reference to God was absolutely correct and the basis for the positions taken in the documents is ... simplistic. Drafting documents without the traditional references to God would have raised issues that the founders did not wish to raise.
A stronger (and logically consistent) position on your part would be to argue that important government documents written today should include the same references. I can see it now on, say, an IBM treaty with Iran: "In the yeare of Our Lord...". See what I mean?

Sort of.
I think we are talking past each other somewhat.

There is a wide band of gray area that can be inferred from the US Constitution and court rulings, I guess.

To atheists/secularists, "Freedom of religious expression" seems to mean that the government, and any subordinate portion, may not express anything religious at all. No mention of the word "God", no religious displays, and no tax dollars going toward anything religious. And only in that manner can we have "religious freedom", i.e., a government free of religious influence whatsoever.

My point is that places way too much emphasis on one special type of belief system. We all have belief systems. Atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity in that in the imaginary block labeled "What God do you believe in?", atheists mark the box that says "Nothing". It doesn't fit in "how tall are you?" or "what race are you?" or anything else.
Every person must have a source upon which they base their values, upon which they decide what is good and what is bad, what is proper and what is improper, etc. It may be a philosophical view, or a faith in humanity, or God, or the Laws of Physics, or following their own heart, but they base what they do and what they accept as truth on something, and that something is a belief system. "Religion" is nothing more than a sub-heading under which we group certain types of similar belief systems.

To base government upon only one specific belief system is dangerous, because then other belief systems are derided and excluded. Atheists and secularists have personally decided not only that their belief system is correct for them, but that it is superior to all other belief systems. Even more, atheists/secularists have decided that theirs is the correct system upon which our government and society must be based, regardless of what anyone else thinks, and you (they?) have embarked on a campaign to impose it, based on the non-Constitutional notion of Separation of Church and State.

However, this has gone far enough that many people feel "freedom of religion" has crossed the line to "freedom from religion" (yeah, I'm going to pull out that old saying, because it's valid in this context). In a truly pluralistic government, all belief systems have validity, and all can be expressed. Naturally, the belief systems most widely held will be expressed the most, but as long as no one is forced to adopt a belief system or mouth words or declare an allegience, there is no establishment at all.

Under that view, "Under God" in the pledge of allegience is no big deal, because not one person is required to ever say any of the pledge, much less those two words.

In swearing oaths of office, "God" is always an option, but never required.

Religious chaplains for the military and Congress are paid with tax dollars, and every military base has a chapel.

Our money still says, "In God we trust", no?

If your view is correct, these things are UnConstitutional. And while the ACLU would probably love to see these things outlawed, I don't see any lawsuits for most of them. Why? Because despite the recent propaganda and push toward the sterilization of society for the sensibilities of atheists/secularists, the US Constitution hasn't been torn up yet.

So, no, important government documents should not be required to have the same references, because that would mean an imposition of a belief system. But neither should the person/people drafting such documents be restricted from it. Nor should the reading or hearing of such references/phrases be construed as "force", because one of the main aspects that makes America both strong and great is the ability to accept and endure views different from your own.

Like I accept and endure yours. [grin]

(um: even though I disagree with you on this issue, I really appreciate you coming back and responding, and wouldn't mind at all if you tear (or attempt to tear) this response apart. You have not offended or bothered me with anything you've said, and I hope the feeling is mutual...I can sometimes offend when I get to enthusiastic about my opinion! :)

It is inarguable that the founding fathers intended that the United States government remain entirely secular. They were wise men who realized that this is the single most effective way to ensure freedom of religious expression. What does this mean? It means that government should not be in the business of funding, regulating, addressing, encouraging, sponsoring, or in any other way becoming involved with any religion of any kind. Where the power of the state begins, religion has to stop. Only then will people be free to practice their religion in peace, be they Christians OR atheists.

Wait a second. You may be convinced, Susie, but that hardly makes it inarguable. Strong assertions to not constitute strong proof.

I can name hundreds of examples that indicate you are absolutely wrong, starting with the 1st Amendment that only says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment..."
I can continue with "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..."
Please show me any official document that demonstrates our forefathers wanted anything more strict than No Official State Religion like the Church of England.
In fact, you have it turned around exactly wrong: the founders of the nation were trying to protect religion from control/influence/stifling by the government, not the other way around.

That isn't to say there aren't some good reasons for keeping religious views out of government. But you weaken your case immensely by ascribing your own opinions to the founding fathers on little or no evidence.

*****In fact, you have it turned around exactly wrong: the founders of the nation were trying to protect religion from control/influence/stifling by the government, not the other way around.*****

How do you imagine that a government which is involved with religion is going to avoid stifling it?

My position is that the two should be viewed as intrinsically incompatible if everyone is to remain free to practice as they see fit. Religion is a matter of conscience. Each person has to come to their own conclusions, and plot their own spiritual path. This is an intensely personal process. As such, while it may have a place in public life, it should never be meddled with, one way or the other, by government.

Serial posting to add:

And that is exactly what the founding fathers thought. They were religious men, but they weren't so stupid as to imagine that government and religion should mix.

Perhaps I don't know exactly what you're complaining of. Have you been prevented from practicing your faith in a manner that the founding fathers would have found objectionable? I very much doubt it. They went or did not go to church, read or did not read their Bibles, said or did not say their prayers, and engaged their spirit as they saw fit. That is the meat of religious freedom, and is available to every American, as it has been since the founding of our country. What more could you possibly need, and why should it come from the government?