Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?

[Giant Saguaro]

"...and to assume among the powers of the earth the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

I'd point out that our President has echoed the above when he's stated he believes that freedom is God's gift to mankind.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."

Okay, we're up to three references to God in the Declaration; I could go on, but I won't. So tell me that Congress shall not make a law respecting religion when this nation was begun on faith in God. But I guess the document which declared our freedom is still in violation of the Constitution according to the hardline interpretation.

What the first amendment was intended to do was ensure that the US Government would not establish a state religion (and force people to adhere to it - the Pledge of Allegiance hardly qualifies), and it hasn't. If they want to throw out the Pledge for having under God in it, they may as well throw out the Declaration while they're at it too. I'm sure the 9th Circuit Court could find someone it offends.

[Giant Saguaro]

i have no problem with god being on money or buildings but i have a huge problem with anyone being forced to take oaths or pledges to a god.

I definitely agree.

[Giant Saguaro]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

I don't care. Point is that the Pledge, as it stands now before under God is taken out, is not in violation of the first amendment because it's not a law respecting or establishing a state religion. The word God meant many things to our founding fathers and I suspect means many things to us today. It doesn't say "one nation under Jesus Christ," or etc. One also has the option of skipping the words and I'd also point out that in the Pledge, one is not swearing allegiance to God or a god, so it's not in violation of the first amendment. Other than spout the usual jargon about how we'd all be better off we saw the world through your enlightened lenses, you have failed to argue otherwise.

What I'd say is what about everyone else's rights? Ever hear that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? The US Congress voted a decisive vote of support for the Pledge as it is now and the vast majority wants under God to remain in the Pledge, so if somebody is offended, tough.

[Giant Saguaro]

Just a perfunctory glimpse at history will reveal the fact that the Declaration and the Constitution were written under two divergent legal standards. What kind of question is this?

I don't care. Ever hear that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

See, now this is EXACTLY why we have a Constitution designed to limit the power of government.  It is supposed to be a higher law, not subject to the will of the majority.  No law should be passed that serve the needs of the majority at the expense of the rights of a minority.

You stripped it of its context. We're not talking about sending people back into slavery, we're talking about one guy who's got issues with his wife and making a national issue of it and dividing the country is how he deals with it. Please.