Politics and religion don't seem to be a good match. Do you think the US should get rid of references to religion in the anthem and courts?

The phrase "under god" should definitely be removed from the Pledge for a couple reasons: 1) It simply isn't true. There is a significant portion of the population that does not believe in a deity, so why should they be excluded?2) The original version of the Pledge did not include the phrase.It was added in 1954 because the government wanted to make a statement against the "godless Communists" of the Soviet Union. The author of the Pledge was a Baptist minister, and even he didn't feel the need to mention "god" in his work of art-- no one should have had the right to alter it.

References to "god" should also be removed from the courts. The courts are supposed to be neutral on issues concerning religion. Having oaths that include references to a deity shows favoritism toward those who believe in the deity and goes out of the way to exclude non-believers.

People are free to believe in "god" if they want, but they shouldn't need reminders from the government via such things as the Pledge, oaths in court, and currency.

Yes. Get rid of all the references. In the end Christians like myself seem to be the last people to care about "In God We Trust".

And whether it's on the money or not I will still believe it to be true. The government spends lots of money in court keeping the founding fathers' references alive. If we remove them all, it will stop the lawsuits, and save the taxpayers money.

There will be a one time cost of a few billion to remove the references, but it will be like adding an inch to a mile at this point. Worshiping God seems to have gone out of style or at least is being replaced by The Green Religion. Worshiping Earth sometimes to the point of failure.

I'm 100% for doing what I can to be Green, but when it comes to worship...I'll stick with God.

Separation of Church and State has it's place. Banning the use of terms and references weighs in the other extreme by favoring one method of Free Speech over another. As long as laws that acknowledge religious concepts are left for the churches themselves to mandate and not enforceable by Government legislation or authority, I believe the separation is enough.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 1. The founders knew the oppressive potential of the Church of England being established on sovereign soil.An establishment of religion had the potential to be equally as oppressive as a king.

The constitution was designed so the King could not control the people and instead produced a legislative, executive, and judicial sphere to prevent tyrany. 2. The Constitution protects the right for religions groups to organize.

Government may not "Prohibit" the "free exercise" of religion. Individual should be given the right too exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. These are God given rights.

The constitution acknowledge the supreme authority of a divine being and respects the powers of free choice within that realm. The Judicial activism of modern legal tension now seeks objectivism rather than reflecting on the implications of divine law and rights. The secular logic attacks the very fundamentals the constitution protects.

Secularism by itself is religion and Godless in its scope.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.