I hope you can see the difference between the phrase "religious morals" and the phrase "christian morals". One is inclusive and the other is not. Nobody's claiming that religion didn't play a part in the formation of america, just that christianity can't pretend to take all of the credit.
Besides, even if you are convinced that the ffs were all purebreed christians, you still can't claim that under god is constitutional based on current interpretations.
The argument that "under god" should be there because this country was founded on such and such values is ethnocentrism hidden behind a selective appeal for historical accuracy.
This plea for accuracy is selective because nobody who uses it ever wants to mention all the shitty things that were necessary for our country to develop as it did.
If we want to be accurate we should acknowledge the good and the bad. If we want to be constitutional we should not acknowledge any god in official pledges.
I'm not sure where it was said that broken moral codes are equated with invalidated laws.
btw, what do you think about "under god" in the pledge? We know you're intelligent, perhaps you could spare us the feigned outrage and give us the intelligent view on the matter.
thanks
btw, i hope that username wasn't created for the sole purpose of posting that message. Or maybe you're the march 24th version of surfer.
