Should Separation of Church and State be more Heavily Enforced? (US)

Argument #1: Response to "under God." "They believed that we had certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. "Under God" signifies this idea of these unalienable rights and reminds us how paramount our rights are. The government cannot take your rights because they are endowed by a Creator, a God." Yeah, except everything you say here is something I don"t believe in the slightest, you know, because there are people in this world that don"t believe in God (like me.) Why do you think religion has a right to insert itself into the pledge? The pledge was made by the government, which makes it impossible to say that it is constitutional to have the word god in the pledge. So legally, it shouldn"t be allowed. Not only that, but it is something being said on the intercom of schools every morning. Also, of course Barack Obama didn"t have a problem with the pledge, he"s a Protestant. To a person who is religious, having God in the pledge and money means nothing because it is something you personally believe. Why should it matter if you see something you believe in the world? That would hardly be noticeable to you. It matters to people like me because I am part of a group that realizes that religion is all over government and wants the Separation of Church and state to be enforced like it should. It isn"t even that society will fall if we have god in the pledge, it is just a violation of basic rights. Would you mind if we added "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" to the pledge? I can guarantee that most religious people would be upset with that. You are literally pledging against your own personal beliefs on a day-to-day basis. God has nothing to do with our rights and it is really ironic that you talk about god giving liberty when it is actually taking it away. Argument #2: Atheists are being discriminated against by religious people. It"s a violation of the Separation of Church and State, and allows bigotry to reign. There are states where Atheists can"t even run for office, those which are Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Why else would this happen except for religious people overstepping their boundaries? Also they are discriminated against when it comes to child custody too (2). I think that basing how capable a person is to do something based on their belief (or lack of) is overstepping their boundaries and should be considered unconstitutional. It is also obvious that these biases are only based on a person"s belief and stereotype of atheists because those were the only factors to go into this. Also you can"t be a boy scout. I know this doesn"t sound like much to you, but this is literally allowing bigotry to other groups, and that is f*cked up. Imagine if they did that to Muslims, or even black people? Sometimes in individual cases people have not been allowed to do things such as start school clubs, create organizations and anything else they can get away with. Also some people don"t even trust them, even though all they"ve done is not believe religion (3). They assume that it would be an Atheist to do something wrong, even though statistically there are more religious people who commit crimes and go to jail (and religious people make up most of the population as well.) (I didn"t really understand why they didn"t say the rapist either, they have proven to be untrustworthy because they do terrible things to others without remorse.) It is clear that these feelings people have towards non-belief will affect the law, and have plenty of times before. Argument #3: Refuting the refutation (In response to "Protestants and Catholics are both Christians.") Yeah, but guess what else? They have consistently conflicting beliefs. There is no way they would agree on having Christianity as the country"s religion since there are so many things they would consistently argue about. Why is the founding fathers religion an argument either? They have no idea what is best for our country because it"s been two-hundred years and they don"t know what is and isn"t socially acceptable. The argument from authority won"t do anything to add to the case. ""it is especially important to be inclusive with other groups since we are supposed to all have the right to life, liberty and property" Not seeing the connection between life, liberty, property and religion. Well, maybe for liberty." Property. I can just refuse to sell a home to a minority I don"t like. Gee, great. Also they could have their things taken away for an arbitrary reason. Yay. Life? How can you not see that? If one person has the right to life their own life the way they see fit, why shouldn"t a minority? There is a connection. First of all, there is nothing unconstitutional about a child praying in school. I think it"s really weird how people continue to say "they don"t allow us to pray in school!" when that is totally not true (1). You could even write college reports about the bible too! The only thing that is officially unconstitutional is any type of government interference with religion (that includes things like teacher lead religious clubs, they have to be student lead for it to be constitutional.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Also I need to ask a few questions: Do you believe it is right to have religion and government connect? Do you think Christians are persecuted? What do you think of Atheism? Sources: 1. https://www.au.org... 2. http://www2.law.ucla.edu... 3. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...