Oh, not this nut, again! After she went on Laura Ingraham's show, and looked like an idiot, why didn't she just slink off in to a corner, somewhere? She is a joke, and it isn't a funny one.

 Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Interesting analysis, though astonishingly shallow.

The use of "under God" was indeed a mark of the Cold War era.  However, the REASON is entirely opposite Ms. Miller's "educated" suggestion.  The phrase was inserted as a reminder to a public which had become all to blase about the historical roots of the country.  Sadly, it marks a point in our history from which things have only worsened.  Rather than a public gratefully acknowledging the blessings of their Creator, we now have a public that is ignorant of Him, ignorant of history, and ignorant of basic reason.

Ms. Miller, your America is not one in which I would like to live.  Fortunately, I live in the real one.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Interesting analysis, though astonishingly shallow.

The use of "under God" was indeed a mark of the Cold War era.  However, the REASON is entirely opposite Ms. Miller's "educated" suggestion.  The phrase was inserted as a reminder to a public which had become all to blase about the historical roots of the country.  Sadly, it marks a point in our history from which things have only worsened.  Rather than a public gratefully acknowledging the blessings of their Creator, we now have a public that is ignorant of Him, ignorant of history, and ignorant of basic reason.

Ms. Miller, your America is not one in which I would like to live.  Fortunately, I live in the real one.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Interesting analysis, though astonishingly shallow.

The use of "under God" was indeed a mark of the Cold War era.  However, the REASON is entirely opposite Ms. Miller's "educated" suggestion.  The phrase was inserted as a reminder to a public which had become all to blase about the historical roots of the country.  Sadly, it marks a point in our history from which things have only worsened.  Rather than a public gratefully acknowledging the blessings of their Creator, we now have a public that is ignorant of Him, ignorant of history, and ignorant of basic reason.

Ms. Miller, your America is not one in which I would like to live.  Fortunately, I live in the real one.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Our new president might use his Inauguration then to showcase the values that have made this country great: pluralism, moderation—and the separation of church and state. Though not as politically expedient, the better choice might be to pray in private.

While we're at it, let's remember that early Congresses saw no Constitutional problem with printing Bibles to evangelize Indians (a/k/a Native Americans), holding church services in the new Capitol building, and paying chaplains for the two Houses with taxpayer funds. If the First Amendment meant what libs today claim it means, then it was trashed immediately by men who were around when it was drafted. That makes no sense.

Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!

The public prayers by two Christian ministers are more problematic. Today, the greatest threats to our safety come not from godless communists but from religious fundamentalists abroad.

Did she actually write this with a straight face?  She's absolutely right that a major threat is religious fundamentalists...but not CHRISTIANS.  It is ISLAMIC fundamentalists that are causing problems.  It wasn't a group of Evangelicals who crashed planes into the World Trade Center.  The Pope does not issue videos recorded in some cave, threatening us with death and destruction.

Liberals are constantly warning us about the supposed "religious right" (read: Christian) boogeymen hiding under our beds, waiting to pounce and take away our freedoms while they, with the blessings of supposed "liberals" and moderates, slowly chip away at our freedoms - speech, religion, thought, expression, gun ownership, etc.

We're being sold a load of bulls*** here.  LIBERALS, who aid and comfort radical Islamists, are the ones stripping us of our freedoms.

It's pretty damn scary that this passes for reasonable journalism in 2009.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Sssssshhhh, don't tell Miller, but the both the Senate and House of Representatives have chaplins.  Both political bodies are opened each day with prayer either by the appointed chaplin or a guest chaplin and have been even before there were a Senate and a House of Reprentatives.  In fact, one of the first acts of the newly convened Senate in 1789 was the appointment of a chaplin.  That same year the U.S. House of Representatives appointed a chaplin as well.  You can read about it here:  http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm.  and here:  http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html. 

If our elected repsentatives find the need to have and maintain a chaplin that prays with them each and every day that these bodies convene, then doesn't she think that the president has a similar need if only for his inaguration.?  The only question I have is why isn't there an office of the chaplin for the executive branch and the supreme court?

The facts are that this country was founded for religious freedom and not the proscription of it. You can find the word of God in our most revered public documents and throughout the writings of the founders of our country.  They feverently and without reservation believed in God.    

Miller isn't a journalist, but a godless socialist propagandists.  

The best part of her article is that like so many published by Newsweek it helps seal the "news" magazine's fate - eventual bankruptcy due to readers growing every more tired of its blithering BS.

"As the Cold War began with its threat of what was known as "Godless communism," American expressions of religiosity grew fervent. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" as the national motto—all these were innovations of the 1950s."

Allow me to introduce Lisa Miller to an innovation of the 18th century founders, particularly the last paragraph of the US Constitution: "....Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

The Founders did not want a theocracy, but this idea of total removal of all references to God is more French than American. The French revolutionist were so fervent in their anti-religion efforts they even tried getting rid of the seven day week.

I believe she has the two countries histories confused.

"to showcase the values that have made this country great: pluralism, moderation—and the separation of church and state."

Can anyone's perspective be more out of kilter than Mssszzzzz Miller's?????   When I think of what made this country great,  pluralism, moderation and SOCS don't even register.  

First of all, it isn't pluralism, it's UNITY that made us great.  A group of diverse peoples and cultures UNITED as one.  

Secondly, moderation???  Please!   Our country became great because of it's EXTREMIST vision.   Extreme in it's embrace of freedom.  Extreme in it's founding principles.  Extreme in it's hard line stance against evil.

Lastly, seperation of church and state?   Where is this mentioned anywhere in any of our founding documents??   The ONLY place this was mentioned was in Thomas Jefferson's reply to a group of churches in Philadelphia, who had written him with their concern that government was getting so big and powerful, it would eventually encroach upon their religious freedoms.   Jefferson quelled their fears by stating that we had basically created a wall of seperation between church and state to prevent this from happening.   This has the exact OPPOSITE meaning to how liberals have bastardized it. 

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).