First the Pledge of Allegiance didn't originally contain "under God", it was added in the 1950's.

Second "In God We Trust" wasn't put on the coin until around the civil war when religious sentiments were high. The change was suggested by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania.

"A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate."

One might argue that religion and specifically one religion, Christianity, has increasingly invaded government despite the intentions of the founding fathers. I agree that US wasn't as secular or into equality as it presented itself to be, the obvious being the institution of slavery, but the point is that the written word of this country aimed to be just that. This Senator is so quick to forget that people were fleeing religious prosecution when they came here. I don't think we should erase Christianity from the history books, we can't when the Bible was used as a justification for slavery, but we can't forget the secularism was meant first and foremost to protect religion and not the agnostic and atheist. Trends in religion change, as far as what religion dominates. If you mix church and state you don't want to be around when a religion that isn't your gains in popularity (ie Islam).

So yeah this dude is being a single minded douche bag.

The visitors' center at theCapitol is all about government?! Shocking.

In my opinion, absolutely YES, it is appropriate that religious references stay outside the new building. I'd even go so far as to say it's necessary, and maybe even awesome.

The founders were NOT christian. They were deists. This Senator needs to go back and actually read the constitution... no where does it even mention christianity or god or anything of the like. This building is for visitors to congress, not to god. If people want to visit god they can go to one of his many houses - they're called churches, and they're everywhere.

Since our nation was established with the freedom of religion, I would've liked to have seen something celebrating that. Not necessarily celebrating any one religion, but it was historic when our founding fathers decided that there would be no "national religion", and that everyone was free to practice whatever religion they want.

Well said Jessie! I completely agree that we should keep the religious references outside of the building. "Keep your theocracy out of our democracy."

whatever happened to the separation of church and state? or, as previously stated, freedom of religion?

Seperation of church and state... hmm.... makes sense to me. Also, I didn't realize America worshipped the Christian God alone. I thought America was about religious freedom.

I wouldn't see a problem with something in the building that did mention our religious history. Separation of church and state should remain to laws of this country. I don't see why it is a big deal to reference our religious background in a building that is portraying a history museum.

UnDave, I think your comment makes sense but its for the very reason you stated - freedom of religion, that no one deity should be referenced or espoused in this center.

"Absent references to religious heritage, does the Capitol Visitor Center misrepresent America for the sake of political correctness, or is it appropriate that religious references stay outside the new building? "

Not having seen the new Visitor Center, it is difficult to answer this question. What is the message they are trying to convey?

Historically, the US has been a Christian nation. At the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most Americans wanted freedom to practice whatever Christian sect they liked. It is disingenuous, false, and misrepresentative to ignore the Christian aspect of our nation's religious heritage. Period.

On the other hand, it is not up to the government to push a particular religious belief in presentday America. If Senator DeMint wanted to push a contemporary Christian agenda at the Capitol Welcome Center, than it is appropriate to keep it outside the building. Also Period.

I agree Shadow, no One religion should be referenced, but they all should be referenced. I think it's important that we embrace the "Everyone is welcome to worship the God of their choosing" mantra (Even if that "god" is consumerism), and we should proudly display that in a museum about our government.

Kudos Jessie, well said!

ok, maybe it is just me, but interior decorating of a building that is pretty much useless from a practical standpoint is just not high on my list right now!

Members of congress, like this wonderful man, need to stop creating controversy over what posters hang inside buildings and worry about my *&^*&^ house payment!

The worse things get, the dumber and dumber politicians seem. GOD! (and that was to piss Jim Demint off)

God and religion are mentioned at plenty of historic landmarks, it's not necessary everywhere.

What historic landmarks are you referring to?
Anywhere where there is a museum with the history of the U.S. and the government, it should be included.

well said jessiebanana!

This "oversight" amounts to revisionist history.
The nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom.
Our laws and social standards are based on Judeo-Christian values.

Secularism is the new religion, and its proponents are intolerant of any other viewpoints.

Very good points Laine.

"Members of congress, like this wonderful man, need to stop creating controversy over what posters hang inside buildings and worry about my *&^*&^ house payment!"
Your Problem.... Why should congress have to solve the mess you got yourself in???

And Laine- Awesome points.
Anti-Religion persons, please don't push your secularism on me! It goes both ways. Like I said, separation of church and state in written laws and the practicing of it only. Don't distort history because you don't like seeing anything religious.

"Members of congress, like this wonderful man, need to stop creating controversy over what posters hang inside buildings and worry about my *&^*&^ house payment!"
Your Problem.... Why should congress have to solve the mess you got yourself in???

How is it my problem, when I bought a house I can afford, but thanks to bad loans, and no oversight, Congress let banks get themselves into trouble and as a result my payment goes up? Or how is it my mess when thanks to the economic crisis created by poor oversight by the govt national spending is down and as a result price of food, health care, and everything else has gone up - making what I could afford not affordable anymore, or even worse, if I were to lose my job because my company can't survive when too many people can't buy their products because of the financial problems they have?

But you're right, making sure some building that almost no one will visit anyway is God-friendly is farrrrr more important than fixing the economy and getting us out of a recession (even one that we helped create).

Your payment would only go up if you had an adjustable rate.
You would only have an adjustable, IMO, if you *couldn't* afford a fixed rate or took bad advice.

Therefore, your problem.
Why should I fund bailouts for people who bought McMansions when I judiciously bought a small, older home?

The other scenarios are separate, "what if" situations.
However, it has already been noted in reputable news sources that ethnic enclaves, such as the Hispanic and Asian parts of Orange County California, are doing quite well. That's because they use cash, not maxed-out credit cards with extortionary interest rates.

You are the one that signed the loan. I have no sympathy. Sh!t happens. The government is not and should not be the answer to all of your problems. I probably could have "afforded" a larger house. But I chose to be a conscious consumer. I instead bought a house that is 40 years old. Probably half the square footage of the houses people think are necessities now days. Our mortgage payment is only 15% of our gross income. BUT we are comfortable and insisted of a flat rate loan. If you didn't know the difference and just trusted what a lender told you, then I'm sorry, but at some point in your life it's got to be buyer beware.
And in regards to the economy, we safe guarded ourselves there too. We can afford all of our bills on my income and I am far from the bread winner. If you did not do this, then IMO you are irresponsible. And if I were in your shoes, which I have been, then I would expect some consequences. And grow a garden if you don't like the food prices. I just fail to see how the answer is always the government.

You took the words out of my mouth Laine.

these comments are ridiculous. any way we can focus on the issue and not on attacking one another?

Religion should be kept out of government in the modern era. It is one thing to refer to history and religion when necessary but he is specifically upset over an engraving/plaque.

I am sorry for attacking anyone, I just get frustrated when people thinks they should dictate what certain people are concerned about. This man is concerned for this issue, and all some people do is tell him they should be concerned at something they are concerned with. Especially something that is their own fault.
So I am sorry for the parts of my comment that anyone took as an attack.

You both are completely missing the point. The point was there are bigger problems for these politicians to handle, problems that these politicians were elected to deal with and help fix.

No one is saying the govt is solely responsible, but in an economic downturn as big as this they hold a good share of the "fault" and a bigger share of the responsibility to fix it. That is their job - if every single consumer problem is the consumer's fault and the govt has no responsibility to fix the problem and keep the country on the right track, then what the hell is the point of having congress people - we could have an army and call it a day. You might even prefer that, but that is not how the US govt is, it is set up so that the laws and the people making the laws have certain obligations to make decision based on the best interest of the people - even if those people made mistakes or got ripped off by banks - the govt cannot say "tough luck - buyer beware" and turn its back and focus on non-issues like this one. It might teach a great lesson, but I hardly think a massive depression is worth teaching people to be more careful next time.

Second of all, "buyer beware" is pretty much dead, that is what contract laws are for - Congress has enacted a number of laws to stop banks from fooling people into signing things that would get them in trouble without them knowing it - maybe if congress had paid a little more attention to the banks this time around we - as in the country collectively, not the single home buyer, we as in our national security and status as a secure world power - would not be in such a dire state.

It is a wonderful sentiment on responsibility, but it is also not practical and idealistic, no country can survive if it does not safeguard its people and its economy and congress failed its citizens on that account.

FYI - All of my situations were hypothetical "what ifs"

Snarkypants: I did not see that anyone was "attacked".
The discussion was about political priorities, which was addressed by differentiating between personal and governmental responsibilities.

The current economic problems seem to have started with the mortgage meltdown, fueled by sub-prime mortgages.

The demand for sub-prime and "creative" mortgages was fueled in large part by government interference via legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act. It should have been foreseeable that forcing lenders to issue loans to people who could not afford them would not have a good outcome.

"How the US government is" has changed in the past and can certainly change again. It is not a static entity.

Misrepresenting history is not as urgent and critical as some other government concerns, but it is certainly no less important. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

While there are people who came to the United States seeking religious freedom, it is wrong to claim the founding fathers meant to establish a Christian nation:

“The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.”
- George Washington

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes”.
-Thomas Jefferson Dec. 6, 1813

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.”
- Ben Franklin

“The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system.”
-Thomas Paine

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced.”
- John Adams

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
-James Madison

“The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion.”
- Abraham Lincoln

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

The nation originated in the 1600's, not the 1700's or 1800's.
We were speaking of the original settlers--the real "founders" of what became the United States.

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!
[April 18, 1775]

etc., etc.

www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Separation of church and state! I HATE that republicans always ignore that! Republicans play politics the same way they play religion, pick and choose the rules they want to follow.

"I'm saying if the president does it, it's not illegal"
-Richard Nixon

Perfect example!

That quote is not pertinent, but it's nice that you've seen the commercials for the Frost/Nixon movie. It looks really interesting!

It's freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion.
The point is that we don't establish a state religion, such as the Church of England.

How funny - people change the meaning of 'founders' to suit their purpose, just as they change the definition of who's a Republican to suit their purpose! But I'm sure you guys know early American history better than George Washington did.

Yes Lainetm, but the Constitution, that we rule our country by, wasn't created until September 17, 1787 and was amended many times after that. Which is awfully close to 1800. The settlers were not the founders of this country. We didn't have control of this country from the native a and no government aside from England to speak of.

a=americans

"The settlers were not the founders of this country."

Uh, where would it have come from without settlers?
We're discussing history, here, IIRC, and they were the first piece of it. The Constitution primarily formalizes the Government.

If you want to look at documents, the Declaration laid the foundation for the Constitution. I'm sure you recognize this excerpt:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No one's saying they didn't believe in God - the point is that the United States of America was never designated by its founders as a Christian nation and the founders, while nodding to a Creator or God, clearly separated the operations of the nation's government from ANY church or religion. That's why we're not a Puritan, Pilgrim, Catholic, Dutch Reformed or Jewish nation.

Wow! Anyone else notice that the posters that are for the religious symbolism being placed everywhere they can possibly have it, happen to be the same people telling those who are having a hard time paying their mortgages, or for groceries, they have no sympathy for them. Isn't a part of religion to be humble and have humility to those people who are going through rough times in their lives? I mean, religious people claim to do so much for others, but the attitudes of those on this site show they only care for themselves, and promoting their religion to those who don't want any part of it. I don't want to be reminded of your religion when I walk into a courthouse.

Brandy, No I havent noticed that. Because its not true.

No, but I have noticed that the people who preach tolerance are generally the most intolerant.

Comments 40-42

"I wouldn't see a problem with something in the building that did mention our religious history. Separation of church and state should remain to laws of this country. I don't see why it is a big deal to reference our religious background in a building that is portraying a history museum." & "You are the one that signed the loan. I have no sympathy." Same person.

"It's freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion." & "You would only have an adjustable, IMO, if you *couldn't* afford a fixed rate or took bad advice." Same person.

Yea, I'm not hallucinating, as much as you want me to think I am. I've seen this stuff many times before. You can only be tolerant for so long, when you constantly have people trying to convert you (because that's their purpose) when you make it clear to them that you are not interested. "You have to believe in God, or you're going to Hell." Ok, that's nice, I bet it'll be a good time, considering all the people that Christians feel the need to condemn to Hell. Doesn't your book tell you that only God can place judgement?

If that ^^ was supposed to be a logical progression, I don't see the connection.

Didn't see anyone trying to "convert" anyone to anything.
Or condemn anyone.

I *did* see a lot of denial of American history and traditions, though. And a lot of weak attempts by (presumably) non-Christians to berate others for their allegedly un-Christian behavior.

RE: Christians "judging" others:
"2 Timothy 4:2 instructs us, "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction." We are to "judge" sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin and its consequences—the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6)."
www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." John Adams