It's not state mandated, more of a tacit imprimatur I think.

are you denied any services or benefits for not belonging to a faith group? are those of us who do believe in something given special membership or privileges? i don't understand why you think anything is forced upon you.

It's all semantics. There is state supported religion. Mandated, supported. What's the difference?

The government has preachers on its payroll. The Congress has at least one to lead prayers during official government ceremonies. The Supreme Court has official prayer as well at times. Public schools are required to recite the "under God" phrase every day, even if individual kids can opt out.

All of this is complete bullshit. The government has no business pushing religion. Any religion. It should remain silent on the issue. That means it doesn't ban it, or support it. It keeps its mouth shut.

The Puritains and Pilgrims settled this country because they were both religious minorities and they wanted to be able to get away from all the crap that is identical to what is going on in this country today to athiests.

You mentioned earlier that athiests are a small group. That's exactly why we should cut this crap out. It's the small groups that need to be protected. The Pilgrims were a small group in Europe in the 1600s.

Removing "under God" from the pledge hurts nobody. Keeping "under God" in the pledge hurts atheists. The correct path is obvious.

I'm curious - Is there anyone who supports "under God" and "in God we trust", but would not support "under Jesus" and "in Jesus we trust"? Why? Is it because a few more percent of people in the US believe in God than Jesus?

Not me directly but:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/char_choi4.htm

I'm a non-theist myself, but when I have to hear a president say he is told by god that he's here to save the world I have to worry.

the puritans left not because they believed differently. they left because they were persecuted. in many cases they were unable to work, or purchase food for their families because of their beliefs. that is why they came to (what became) america.
don't even pretend that atheists are persecuted in such a manner. atheists lose out on no opportunities due to their belief. they are not forced to recite the words or face consequences.
do the words "under god" cause blood to come streaming from your ears? the mention of something you don't believe in injures you how?

again - i would absolutely agree with you if the words were faith specific. they aren't. to a muslim, god is allah, to a jew, it is jeshuah, to a christian it is god, the father. in those 3 cases they are all referring to the same god. for others god is nature, for some it is self. god in this case is so non-specific that only an atheist, or possibly some eastern philosophies are left out... but here is the thing - i know of NO circumstance where you would be forced to say the word "god" if you chose not too. but you are prepared to take it away from the many who want it there rather than skipping the word.

You can start by reading Section 8 of Article 6 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Other examples from other states.

you said athiests are religious, and their religion is that they don't believe in God. If the government has "God" in its pledge, and on its money, that is an official condemnation of the athiest "religion."

The government has no right to do that.

Who is hurt if "God" is removed from government?
Answer that. Seriously. Answer it.

Athiests are hurt if "God" is in government.

The correct choice is obvious.

And by the way, this is totaly irrelevant, but I attend church every Sunday.

does the president not have 1st amendment rights? if he can see his way to speak a complete sentence so the world can understand it and he wants to mention HIS faith, i don't really care. if he starts telling others that they have to belong to his, or any other faith in order to receive benefits, i'll stand alongside you and shout him down.

what i got from that link is that they are concerned that some people may go hungry, lose their electricity, etc... because they are unwilling to accept help from a charitable organization which is affiliated with a faith group. if it is charity, then who cares where it comes from? these programs don't require a belief in any one thing to receive services. i believe part of the initiative was that organizations from ALL faith groups had access to the same support. that doesn't sound too exclusionary to me.

ok, now you are talking state issues, not federal. i don't believe any of those are inforced, but that is unimportant. i would support you in removal of all of those statements. they are exclusionary, even if they aren't enforced.

this one is just my belief here, but methinks everyone has a god of some form. if you deny any supreme being or natural force, or power greater than yourself, then by definition you are your own god.

what could be more uplifting that listening to everyone in class mention you in the pledge? LOL sorry - just a little really dry humor there.

I'm all for a little humor, but I notice you didn't answer the question.

Who is hurt by removing "God" from the pledge of allegience and from other areas of the government?

Athiests, full citizens of our country, are hurt by keeping "God" in the government.

I'd taken this a a forgone conclusion really.

Hurt? no one. no more than anyone is hurt by leaving it in. you never answered earlier when i asked you how atheist are "hurt" by hearing people say those words. i was being absurd with the blodd running from the ears bit; but really how is an atheist hurt by the anothers' utterance of words they choose not to believe in.

///////////and btw - i'm am not trying to prove there is a god or anything like that. anybody who has read my other posts knows that i believe that faith is a personal choice. faith by definition cannot be proven one way or another./////////////

so then you actually acknowledge that everyone does have some sort of god.