... to the phrase "under god" in the pledge (though I personally omit it when reciting the pledge). Nor do I particularly care about the motto on our money, as long as it doesn't have any effect on its spendability! On the other hand, the motto wasn't added to our money until the Civil War, which tells me that the founders of the country weren't all that worked up to emphasize religion on our currency.

>> God is not religion specific. It is a generic name
>> given to the belief in a higher being.

But, Bob, that's the very definiton of "religion". See, e.g,, the first entry under "religion" on the Dictionary.com website:

>> Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or
>> powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Thus, belief in "God" is "religion". Furthermore, the First Amendment's prohibition is not "religion specific" either. It says:

>> Congress shall make no law respecting an
>> establishment of religion.

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion." Hence, the prohibition is against any governmental act which promotes the "establishment" of religion in any way. That provision makes sense only if seen as a continuing prohibition (that is, as also prohibiting any government promotion of an already existing religion).

>> Placing that name upon our currency or having it included in a pledge
>> to our country does not violate any provision of the constitution.

I disagree with your interpretation of the constitution in that regard, Bob. As I said, however, I don't have any real strong feelings about it, as I see the "harm" as rather minor. And (as I said here recently in another context), I am not a believer in the "slippery slope" approach to things, so am not all that concerned that use of the pledge or the motto will lead to further governmental entanglement in religion. As long as we can rationally review and prevent other government involvement in religion, I don't think we necessarily need to do anything about these rather inocuous religious references.

On the other hand, today's US Supreme Court decision on vouchers for parochial schools does ring alarm bells.

----- jim o\-S