It seems that the great majority of American citizens have forgotten that religious freedom in this country means religious freedom for ALL.  "All" means, quite simply, all - Everyone.  It includes those that believe there is more than one god or even no god just as much as it means to include those that believe there is ONLY one god.  To that end, the ONLY way for the government to represent ALL the people equally is to be completely neutral on the subject of religion.  

     The Constitution says in Article 6: "No religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  What does that mean?  It means, quite simply, that any citizen, regardless of their religious beliefs, can be anything from a teacher to the President on the government payroll.

     Was there a public outcry over this?  No.  Was Congress out on the front steps of the Capitol building denouncing it?  No, they're the ones that voted to include it.  They did it intentionally and they weren't sorry for it.  They are called our forefathers, these men that wrote and enacted the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the Supreme law of the land.

     If the United States were really a Christian country, as the fundamentalists claim, would our forefathers have made this the law of the land?  Would they have opened the door to atheists, Muslims and Buddhists becoming President if they really wanted to ensure that this is a Christian country?  Of course not.  They never said or intended that this was a Christian country or any other religion.  Read what THEY wrote in their lifetimes about it, not what the fundamentalist preachers of our day write.

     Then, our forefathers spelled it out quite plainly in the Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion."  What could be clearer than that?  The Senate approved it, President Adams signed it into law and it was published in the newspapers of the day.

     Was there a public outcry to the treaty or it's wording?  No.  None.  No one objected.  Try that today and see what happens.  Why no public outcry?  Why weren't the members of Congress out on the steps of the Capitol building denouncing it?  That's simple.  It's because they were the same forefathers that wrote and approved the Constitution and Bill of Rights that made private matters of religion and public matters of government separate from each other.  

     They knew that religion was a personal matter between an individual and his or her own beliefs and that the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon religious ideals (including Christian ones), nor that the government of the United States is entitled to espouse a view in the private matters of religion.  It was intentionally set up that way.  They intentionally set up and established by LAW a secular government, free from religious opinion, coercion and pageantry.

     Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams and the others tell us with clarity in their writings of the period that they intended to keep religion a personal matter for the individual and that the government of the United States has no business or mandate establishing or espousing religious ideals or tenets of faith.  

     The 1st Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"  What does that mean?  Let's see.

     Congress: We know who this is.  This is the body of men and women we elect to represent us in the Federal Government that propose new laws in the form of Bills.  Our elected representatives.

     shall make no law: That's pretty easy to understand as well.  No law means no law - Not any, not one, none.  There's nothing ambiguous about that.  So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law (about something).  About what?

     respecting: With respect to.  In respect of.  Regarding.  Simple.  Regarding something.  Regarding what?  Now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something).  Not only something in particular, but even something in respect to (that something).  What is that something?

     an establishment of: (Click the word to get the dictionary definition) This is not a reference to a place, like a bar or a restaurant you might call an establishment.  It is not a reference to a building, not even a church building.  It is the condition or fact of being established.  In this case, by law.  So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law.  What is that something?

     religion: (Click the word to get the dictionary definition) Notice it does not say church.  It does not say a religion.  It does not say a particular religion.  It does not say one religion over others.  It is a single word: Religion.  What is religion?  Here it is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.  A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.  It is all-inclusive.  

     So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe or a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader that will establish belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe or a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader by law. 

     That means the government is not allowed to make public laws and opinions regarding religious ideals.  Wait!  It doesn't say anything about opinions, you may say.  But here it is: The government is only capable of making and enforcing laws and then by abiding by those laws.  Opinions are reserved for individuals.  The government cannot have an opinion on a matter without the Congress debating and agreeing on what that opinion is and then having the President sign it and the Supreme Court upholding it as lawful.  That is then LAW, even if based on an original opinion.  And in matters of LAW, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are clear: NONE shall be made regarding religion.

     The government can't say there is no god.  It can't say there are many gods.  It can't say there is only one god.  It must stay neutral and not state an opinion in the matter, in order that it not entangle itself in the private beliefs of the individuals that are the citizenry of this country.  Quite simply, it's NONE of the government's business.  The government's business is the business of government, not religion.

     That is how we achieved religious freedom in this country.  It's important that we fully understand we're not talking about religious tolerance, but religious freedom for ALL.  That means the government can't say, "The United States is a Christian Nation, but others may live here as well."  That's tolerance, not freedom.  No, it means the government says, "The United States government does not have a religious position, believe as you will."  THAT is freedom.

     But what happened?  In 1954, while McCarthyism was running rampant, our elected representatives MADE A LAW regarding belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe!  Our elected representatives MADE A LAW regarding a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader!  Our elected representatives MADE A LAW that establishes belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe! Our elected representatives MADE A LAW that establishes a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader!

     The Pledge of Allegiance to our flag and country was originally written without the words, "under God" by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, in 1892.  It wasn't until 1954 that Congress, after a religio-political campaign by the Knights of Columbus (a self-proclaimed religious group devoted to the faith in Jesus Christ), added the words, "under God" to the Pledge.

     At that time, Eisenhower said of the change to the pledge and it's enactment by LAW, ""In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.  Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."  With those statements, he made it entirely clear that this new LAW was a religious proclamation by our government.

     And with that, the government made a law regarding religion.  The government of the United States suddenly took a position on whether there is one god, more than one god or no god.  It said, "There is one god."  It was no longer neutral in the matter of the individual citizens' private matters of faith.  It entangled itself in religion with a pronouncement that is nothing more than a religious tenet that does not represent ALL the people equally.  

     In effect, it said that the government does not agree with the religious tenets of those citizens that believe there are more than one god or no god.  It agrees only with those that believe there is ONLY one god.  President Eisenhower, acting as an instrument of the government by signing the bill into LAW, and NOT as a private citizen entitled to his own views in the matter of religion, not only made it clear that this was a religious proclamation by our government, but further defined this monotheistic god as "the Almighty", regarded by most people of faith as the Judeo-Christian god, and in keeping with the desires of the Knights of Columbus.

     That new LAW went against the Constitutional LAW of the 1st Amendment by establishing a religious idea by an act of Congress.  Quite simply, that made the new LAW UN-Constitutional.

     Back in 1947, a year after Congress first recognized by LAW the Pledge of Allegiance, it was ruled unconstitutional to force anyone to say it.  So what did they do about it?  They decided you could "sit it out" if you wanted to.  Teachers, as instruments of the government, on the government payroll, would still lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance every single morning all across America, with the blessing of the government of the United States, EVEN THOUGH it had been pronounced unconstitutional to FORCE anyone to say it.  They allowed and endorsed the continued COERCION by school teachers to lead their classes in the proclamation every morning.  

     In 1954, The Knights of Columbus, Congress and Eisenhower added "under God" to it by LAW, declared it a religious proclamation by our government in violation of the 1st Amendment, and continued to endorse using our taxes to pay teachers across the country to lead children in it every morning in public schoolrooms.  They again ignored the fact that the unconstitutional act of FORCING someone to say it, as opposed to COERCING someone to say it through teacher-led peer pressure is of little difference.  For a young child in a public classroom to take a stand against teacher and peers by sitting it out every morning, day after day, is an act that will tend to ostracize that child.

     That child would then be singled out as not only anti-patriotic, but as anti-God, in a classroom primarily composed of children from families where they have been taught that infidels should be avoided or even denounced outright.  The government, through it's endorsement of a religious nature in the pledge, had set up our public classrooms as one of division and derision towards a minority of it's citizens.  Few children have the strength to make a stand against such forces and simply go along with it rather than subject themselves to the harsh criticisms they would endure to do otherwise.

     The result was that no one was forced to say the pledge.  However, that set up the government as one of religious tolerance.  In effect, it said, "The Government of the United States believes there is ONE GOD, but we will allow others to live here as well.  We will allow others to sit out the daily government endorsed act of proclaiming that we believe and pledge allegiance to ONE GOD."

     The freedom for an individual to believe whatever they wanted with regards to religion without government entanglement, endorsement or opinion was gone.  If you did not believe what the government espoused concerning a monotheistic deity, you were excluded from the ritual of proclaiming your allegiance to flag and country.  You were suddenly an outsider; A second class citizen; one who is not in full standing with the United States Government's religious views.

     Nearly 50 years later, a United States citizen decided he was tired of being viewed as less than a full citizen and for his school age daughter to be viewed in the same way, simply because they do not share these views.  He decided to do something about it.  He took his case to court.  He said he believed it was unconstitutional for a public school teacher, as an instrument of the government and on behalf of the government, to proclaim each morning allegiance to ONE GOD, in exclusion of all other religious ideas, including his: that there is no god.

     The 9th circuit court agreed with him, and rightly so.  It was wrong when it was first instituted, as is obvious by it being deemed unconstitutional just a year later, and it is wrong now to continue the practice, despite popular opinion by one portion of our citizenry that happens to believe there is ONE GOD.  It excludes all other citizens in a private matter of religion and is therefore beyond the mandate of the government or it's employees, in the course of their duties, to proclaim it.

     The view of the dissenting judge, "...the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis." is nothing more than a political cop-out.  Are we then to assume that 'little' violations of the constitution are somehow OK?  By no means!  Our forefathers, citizens and leaders throughout the history of the United States have told us over and over without end that we should beware any and all intrusions upon our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  That would include this intrusion as well.  

     At first glance, one little intrusion may not seem like a very big deal, but many little intrusions will certainly add up to make the Constitution and Bill of Rights ineffective in guarding our rights and freedom.  We must not allow that to happen by being indifferent to even the smallest of violations of the Supreme LAW of our great nation!

     "Under God" is not by any stretch of the imagination a patriotic statement.  It is a religious statement.  If there is ANY doubt to this, Eisenhower's statement when he signed the bill into law should clear it up nicely.  Just read it again.

     The Supreme Court ruled nearly 50 years ago that it is wrong and illegal for the government of the United States to make such a religious claim, and it's time to right that wrong, once and for all.

     We the People of the United States of America must demand that the government uphold the Supreme Law of the land in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and remain neutral in matters of religion.  We are a country founded on the principle that the opinions of the majority do NOT overrule the LAW of the Constitution.  If we allow popular opinion to trample the LAW of the Constitution in matters of religious ideas and proclamations of faith, the Constitution means nothing at all and the United States is not a country of true religious freedom, but of mere tolerance.

     The solution is simplicity itself.  Remove "under God" from the pledge to make it a patriotic gesture to flag and country again, as it was originally written and intended.  There is no reason or need for a patriotic United States citizen to profess a belief in or allegiance to one god, many gods or no god, and it is unlawful per the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the government to be a party to such practices.

     Read history.  Embrace true freedom rather than mere tolerance.  Uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as our forefathers intended.  Fight for the rights of ALL the people, even when it is unpopular to do so, even when you do not agree with them in private matters of religion. 

     Don't just SAY you are an American, BE ONE!!