Court Rejects Separation Of Church And State

The long standing argument opposing the use of "In God We Trust" on our currency along with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was brought before a federal appeals court in San Francisco. The count (as reflected by the title) rejects the notion that the use of these words on our currency and pledge, violate the separation of church and state. The case was brought forward by an atheist named Michael Newdow, hopefully he keeps pressing this issue. Both of these uses of the word 'God' are offensive for those that are not Christian. The problem is that Christians are unable to think outside of their own personal views coupled with a poor capacity to think objectively about issues such as these.

Let's focus on the currency issue for a moment. "In God We Trust" has a nasty message behind it, one which many do not see. This message is stating that if you do not "trust" in God you are not part of the "we", which is outright stating that those that don't trust in God are not part of this country. How can any legitimate court that is seeking to uphold the constitution, not view this as so incredibly in violation of the separation of church and state? Federal currency having a religious phrase on it doesn't violate the separation of church and state? The incompetency of these courts is disturbing. What is more disturbing is that they are so willing to ignore the constitution when serving their own agenda.

Now let's look at the Pledge Of Allegiance, which was also brought in-front of the court as well. Judge Carlos Bea said "The Pledge is constitutional", and "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded". Judge Carlos Bea is obviously not fit to be a judge (along with all the other judges that voted with him). As a judge you have a duty to uphold the constitution, period, and this wasn't done here. Having 'God' in the pledge unites no-one, it only separates this nation even further. This will become more and more obvious as the number of non-believers increase further -- or in-fact non-Christians in general (think of the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc)

The concept of the separation of church and state is so straight forward, so mind-numbingly simple, a child in kindergarten could probably understand it (many Judges didn't make it past kindergarten because of Noah's Flood). What we have now is a partial separation between church and state -- the pledge and currency for some reason fall into a gray area in the separation of church and state -- a gray area which should not be there at all.

Isn't it great that we Americans get to live in a country that has people who are so self-centered that they will have a complete disregard for the constitution, and a complete disregard for the feelings and views of others -- just to have the name of their imaginary friend on our money and pledge. One cannot wait for these old-hag judges to kick-the-bucket, get some non-senile minds in there, some minds that aren't based on views that are 60+ years old. Their old-timer views do not reflect the diversity of this nation, they are holding back social progress and ignoring those that view the world through a different spectrum than their own.

This issue needs to continue to be brought up, it is a major injustice. Like the civil rights movement, it takes time along with a lot of energy. And don't be fooled, this is a rights-issue like any other, the federal courts are stepping on your right of freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.