Friar bhodisattva wrote:
Also Twizzle the case he lost over the pledge was not because they ruled its constuitionality but rather they ruled that because the man was not full legal guardian of the girl in which the case was about (he didnt want her having to say it in school) he didnt have the right to act in a legal role on her behalf therefore they threw it out of court 8-0.
Yup. The SF court was following the highest constitutional rulling that applied in this case. The SC never ruled on the constitutionality of the phrase. The tossed it out due to the plantiff not having sufficient cause (he wasn't the primary legal guardian of the child affected).
Personally, I think the phrase should be stripped from the pledge. Despite assertions to the contrary (interestingly enough always from Christians), there is no ambiguity in the phrase "under God". God, in the English language, when used singularaly and as a proper noun (as it is in the pledge) *always* refers to the Judeo/Christian "God". I don't think there are a whole lot of Buddhist's who buy the notion that "God" really means "Buddha", nor are there likely to be many Hindu's who think that "God" refers to the pantheon of deities that they follow.
The currency is a bit trickier. It's actually two issues. The official motto of the US was changed from "E pluribus unem" to "In God We Trust" about the same time the pledge was changed. That occurs as the result of an act of congress, and can presumably be declared unconstituation (the whole "passing a law with respect to religion" bit). However, the decision of what to print on currency is wholely the choice of the head of the Department of the Treasury. While the constitution says "Congress shall pass no law...", it says nothing about a member of the executive branch writing something religious down on something he has control over. So, in theory, they could continue to print that on currency if they wish.