jgoins: Even though no specific "god" is alluded to it's irrelevant as it is an obvious mention of some religion and since it is endorsed in a federal way it still is an example of collusion of church and state.

My position in this is strictly that this still lies in direct opposition to the Constitutionally stated position and has nothing to do with keeping an open mind. WTF does keeping an open mind and strict application of Constitutionally stated governmental policy have to do with one another? That line just sounds like psychobabble designed to validate people of faiths agreement with having federal mentions of "god", but lacks a logical defense of the argument in relation to the strict application of law.

Blinky: To state that one must have had some negative religious event have occurred in ones life to be vocal about ones thoughts on atheism seems a bit shallow. No such event ever happened in my own life. I simply see agreement with religion as something I can't validate logically or intellectually and since these 2 always play a part in how things occur to me in the world it leads me to feel as if support of any religion is indefensible when viewed in a strictly logical or intellectual context.

Anytime someone asks me to accept anything strictly "on faith" without logical reasoning instead is quite simple asking for too much