It claims 18 million people have voted and we are stuck at 11% sane versus, well, you get the idea.
Amongst the linked articles is one about US coins without the motto "In god we trust" being worth fifty times their face value -- and what might we read into this? Well, it isn't exactly a fair representation, but I'll claim it is what coins should be worth if they were not defaced with superstitious incantations.
I have a feeling that there are many people, who, for obvious reasons, won't vote on this (even if they knew about it.) Frankly, they could give a crap. I DO. But, actually, I hardly ever use paper or metal money anymore anyway.
I doubt we'll have an impact on the percentages, but if we could get it closer to the estimated 15% of the country that are non-religious, it would help.
They also bias the whole thing with the wording. In the "no" option they make it sound like patriotism to violate the constitution. If you vote yes, then by implication you are not patriotic, even though respecting the constitution would be patriotic.
The argument I've often heard is that it doesn't endorse a specific deity or religion and, therefore, it is okay. Of course, we all know what deity they really mean when it says "God".
I've never understood the purpose of it being on the currency. Do religious people need a reminder to put their trust in their deity? Do people go up to the cashier and think "In Jesus' name, I buy these Doritos and king-size Snickers"?
Let's look back at the pressure which was applied during the Civil War to get "In God We Trust" on the coin-money back then, and in 1954 the pressure again, this time from the Knights of Columbus, to put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance ... THEN tell me that these are nothing more than the mention of a generic deity!
First - I'm certain it's a typo. It was supposed to say "In gold we trust."
Also, I've gone on 'mixed' forums and often asked Christians why they want drug dealers, prostitutes, and other 'cash' businesses to have the sacred name of their deity (that isn't supposed to be taken in vain) printed on the preferred currency for those transactions, when most normal transactions nowadays are done on credit or debit cards.
Usually, they haven't thought of it that way and, often, it generates a bit of a stir amongst them. Some actually get fired up that I'm right (I usually don't make it clear exactly what i believe in) and others don't know how to answer. I think we need to start a 'parallel' debate about taking the 'Lord's Name in Vain' by printing it on 'That which is Cesar's.'