Sorry I don't see it could you please quote it for me? I pulled up the text online and the translation is the same as my KJV. I don't use any other version because it is the most accurate translation I know and even that one has some minor errors.

I would if there was only one true Doctor. Monotheistic religion believes in only one god, there is no need to pluralize the title. The major religions are monotheistic even back then. Most people that worship multiple gods usually latch onto one as their god with respect to the others in varying degrees. I know this because my mother and oldest son are Hairy Krishnas, (smile) they worship more than one god. Sort of like how the Catholics latch onto a saint or the mother Mary as their protector. In using “In God we trust” it still fits and serves the desire of others to feel included and not excluded. So no one belief is above another in the eyes of the Federal Government. Now if the money said in Shiva we trust then there would be a violation of the law. That is the name of a specific god in a specific religion.

Sure:

ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד יהוה ויאמר יהוה אל־יהושע בן־נון משרת משה לאמר

"Now after the death of Moses the servant of YHWH it came to pass, that YHWH spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying"

(I used the King James translation and inserted "YHWH" where the Hebrew text says the name.)

Literally: "now after death (of) Moses servant (of) YHWH and (he) will say [the "and" makes the future tense into past tense: (he) said] YHWH [Hebrew uses Verb-Subject-Object word order] to Yehoshu3a attendant ("minister") (of) Moshe to say ("saying")."

And that's your claim that "In God we trust." is not specific to a religion falls apart.

I would prefer it if you read what you yourself wrote. You put it quite excellently:

"I would if there was only one true Doctor."

The "one true" is the most specific you can get. The statement is either NOT specific to a religion or it is. But it cannot be NOT specific but refer to a "one true" anything. "One true" IS specific.

Speaking of the one true god, did you figure out what's special about the three letters in His name or have you given up on the "Well, if you knew a little bit about God" angle?

I am in favor of keeping the Constitution as is.  It's perfect as written.    Freedom of religion.....not freedom from religion. 

1. KFC, don't even go there; you said state mottos. That is a very different thing than state preambles; how else was I to know you meant preambles, instead of mottos?

2. I believe our nation was founding by Theists. Theists of many, many different flavors. However, I believe,and as the words in our founding documents support such, that while our founding fathers were Deists/Theists, their actions were to establish a secular government.

3. You know, ask any constitutional lawyer and he'll say the same thing. The bulk, if not all, of our nation's principles were based off of enlightenment thinking.Which, as I have stated before, has roots in Deism - which mind you, is a form of faith, but one that relies on reason.

Pray tell, if our constitution was based off of Christian principles, where do we get freedom of speech, or freedom of religion for that matter?

4. It is not a lie. Our nation was founding, primarily, 90% of it, on enlighten ment principles.

5. Tell me, if we were founded to be a Christian nation, or the founding fathers wanted to establish Christianity as the de facto faith of the nation. Then tell me, why do we have this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You know, it seems to me, a fairly reasonable and rational individual - that there is something wrong here. According to your logic and beliefs, wouldn't there be no need for this amendment? Christianity, sorry to say, doesn't leave any room for freedom of religion. Nor did the founding fathers put in anything that says we have to follow that religion.

Fact of the matter KFC: The founding father's actions speak louder, MUCH louder, than their beliefs or written words. They may have been, again I will say...they may have been religious individuals - I'm willing to concede that; however, they obviously had the intentions of keeping their government secular. Through the enlightenment principles.

Okay, if you wish ot pick and choose parts of my statement that is fine. In monotheistic religions there is one true god and all the rest are fakes. For those that believe in many gods the believers usually pick on sometimes two of them as their main belief or god with the rest as minor gods subordinate to the one they choose to believe in. Again "In God we trust" is valid. It is not in the one true god we trust, or in a god we trust. I wrote what "I" believed and thought not what the constitution said. You just chose to take what you wanted and ignored the rest. Let us look at what the constitution actually says instead of paraphrasing.

Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So you can see none of what you object to is actually written in the constitution so your argument is invalid.

What say you?

In order for it to be constitutional it has to conform to the intent of the framers and founders of the nation when not actually written in the constitution.

and neither do I.  AJ  you're way out of line.  You don't seem to have much reading credibility these days.  How many times have I said that I am not trying to establish a Federal Religion?  How many times have I said that the Constitution is perfect as written?  How many times have I spoken about "freedom of" vs "freedom from?" 

You need to do some historical reading....not revisionist history mind you....not somebody's opinion mind you....go back and read the founding father's own writings.  We are fortunate that we have a vast library of historical evidence to wade through.  Dead men, in this case, do indeed still speak. 

Oh, and while you're at it......I got this advice from a person who spends a very large amount of time sifting thru these historical records.  She said this to me when I told her about this debate: 

My suggestion is to go to the 1828 dictionary and learn the definition of deist then and then look at the modern version of the meaning deist.  And another suggestion is to learn as much as you can about the so called ‘deist’ Thomas Jefferson and ask people why he wrote a version of the bible using only Jesus’ words and quote them the quotes that Jefferson stated about Jesus.  Lastly – have fun educating the public!

The Federal Government left it up to the States.  That's where it should be left up to....... exactly as intended.  What's happened is the Federal Government grew and grew and grew and the States virtually have no rights anymore when it comes to the big stuff.  The Federal Government should stay out of religion all together. 

The only reason we should have the Federal Government is to build roads and protect its citizens.  The rest should be left up to the States. 

I understand what you are suggesting and using your logic then sincce it is in caps it proved the existance of God. Seriously, the founding fathers clearly did not want a national religion like in the UK that was the purpose of the clause, The only mention of seperation of church and state came from the courts not the constitution.

I'm glad someone understands what I'm attempting to get across; admittedly, I can be atrocious at it sometimes.

Actually, I believe Jefferson mentions a separation between church and state; I'll have to look it up.

As a Christian it is normal to screw up, it is better when one learns from ones mistakes and adjusts. I am not aware of your past and could care less. The past is only a learning tool for the furture. Some learn others don't.

I'm with SC on the definitions AJ.  Overkill was what came to my mind. 

I'll save you the trouble.  He mentioned it in a letter.....yes just a letter to a member of the Danbury Baptist Church.  Pretty interesting that the seculars have to go past the 55 men who are considered the Founding Fathers (those involved in the constitution) and take what Jefferson said in a letter to change the landscape of our country these last 50 or so years.  A lot has happened in 50 years around here because of that one eight worded sentence.....in a letter....mind you. 

he's not a Christian.  But we all screw up anyhow Christian or otherwise.  There was only one perfect being who walked this earth and he was crucified.