They were talking about the Deist "God", not the Christian one, and besides we are not governed by the Declaration.

Ofcorse you are bothe absolutly right. The Decleration is just that, a decleration and is not used to govern the country. However, Bush uses these referances as if it were law or a moral justification for say, sining a bill in to law. So people acsept it as a confermation of there beleaf that the founding fathers were indeed religusly motivated. Now, "under God" in the Pledge, "in God we trust" on money, the song "God Bless Amarica", the fact that you have to swar on the Bible in cort, and that the presadent, and enyone holding public offace, has sence around 1903 had to swar on the Bible when taking offace, and these ar'nt things that govern our country ether, but people will use these examples for justification of an Amarica founded on religun, or justification that we are a christion nation. And it becomes increesingly deficult to argue the facts when facing this infection of religun in the political arena. So how does one combat this avelanch of ignerance, when clearly there are religus influances at work in the political world today?

Unfortunately there is both a point being missed here and some information not being said, well, perhaps a couple points.

The first is that, as has rightly been pointed out, the declaration of independence was in large part a propoganda piece, designed to promote a specific mindset concerning the justification for leaving the tyranny of England. The theory being used by england at the time was a version of the divine right of kings and so to combat this thinking you have wording here that harkens to Locke and the inalienable rights given by the Divine. Though it should be mentioned here that if these rights are "inalienable" then by definition they cannot be bestowed or taken away so bringing the Divine into the discussion seems superfluous. In any case, the Declaration was never intended to be a governing document, only a so-called letter of intent.

The second point to bring up to those who use such examples to justify that America is christian is that of tradition. Even if a case could be made for the Christian, this at no time is a justification for continuing such a practice. Slavery, lack of women's rights and child labor were also a part of early american society, but I don't see any of them saying that those practices should be continued. In addition, usage of such historical articles is disengenous anyway, as they would be the first to disparage usage of the Crusades, the trials at Geneva under Calvin and many other atrocities committed by Christians as pointing to a problem with their beliefs. History, like so many other things, is used by them for their own purposes an disposed of when it no longer works.

Some information that might help is to look up the Treaty of Tripoli, created and ratified by George Washington and the Senate in 1797, outlining the peace between the U.S. and Tripoli, a Muslim nation. Here is the quote most used in Article 11.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen..."

While there will be those to debate the meaning behind the wording, it is rather a strong quote to point out.

I don't have anything new to add, really, I just want to say that I totally agree with your point. Just because something has always been done, doesn't mean that it should always be continued. I look forward to the time when people can let go of their beliefs in their imaginary friends.