[antiRepublicrat]

How does it violate your rights? Just don't say it. The thing is that you want to violate our right to free speech and to express our belief in God.

First, let's start with the way I view the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, which applies to this situation. It was set up to protect us from government, to be a restriction on government powers. So whenever I read the Constitution I keep that in mind, and whenever there's a possibility of multiple interpretation I see it the ways that are most restrictive to government.Because of that, I'm sure our 2nd Amendment views are perfectly in line with each other.

But let's get to the First "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This can be taken as no laws about current establishments of religion (churches, etc.) or no laws trying to create (establish) a national religion and thereby belief system. It can mean protecting religion from government laws, or protecting government from religious-influenced laws.

As I said, I take it the most restrictive on government powers, so: NO LAW for any of those cases. The 1954 law adding "under God" was a law by the government respecting religion, so it is unconstitutional. Laws exempting churches from tax based on their status as religious bodies are unconstitutional (although most could easily go under the non-profit exemption).

But I don't actually have a problem with "under God." Until it actually affects me or my family in a clearly tangible way I won't think of doing anything about it.

488 of them are to be silenced on the whim of two

Not at all. Just don't put it into law and expect those two, if children in a captive audience, to recite allegiance to your god. But that's in general. I don't believe he has any standing since there is obviously no harm done to the Christian girl.

You are free to express yourself, but not free to use the government as your vehicle of expression. Besides, your religion's days are numbered if it can't survive without the help of the government's power. except that it reminded them of their emptyness

Had to get that in, didn't you? You don't want to keep this civil? I'm quite full the natural way, thank you.

[Dataman]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This can be taken as no laws about current establishments of religion (churches, etc.) or no laws trying to create (establish) a national religion and thereby belief system. It can mean protecting religion from government laws, or protecting government from religious-influenced laws.

Shallow thinkers tend to replace original intent with an anemic "I see it this way." Like Hillary, they like the idea of a living, changing document-- so long as its changes conform to the LEFT.

[man of Yosemite]

It is my understanding the the words "under God" were added to contrast our belief that government is not the highest authority, unlike the communist governments where the state holds supreme power. Unlike God, human governments really do make lots of errors, and our forefathers wanted to make sure that we could continue our "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion". I'm sure that nobody who signed our constitution would have dreamed that the document would be used to try to strip God from the public square.