" The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,^[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle. "

I have nothing against religion, but the constitution itself, in particular the 1st amendment, is a protection for the practice of it and to protect the minority (and the government) from being forced to oblige by another religion.  It is a fundamental protection to keep the government from being hijacked and used as something it was never made to do.  The pledge and money changes are minor, but many would fiercely contest this same thing if it said, "In Muhammad We Trust" or "In Allah We Trust" (Islam is a great hot button topic and wonderful to use for the upcoming election season). 

Considering what the 1st amendment means, the "86% of Americans" is a useless statistic, as it protects the minority and majority (tries to) and never allows the majority or minority to destroy this founding principle.  The fact that some of these bills have passed show that corruption has made its way into some facets of government.  If you broke that "86%" down into specific definitions, many people would highly disagree on what the exact archetype God would belong to. 

The state is never supposed to have any say or opinion on these matters and many more or we lose our freedoms, piece by piece.  (I know some of you reading this believe this is true because of the current administration and the often remarked big-government accusations.)--(True conservative and original Republican thinking had more to do with state rights, limiting the government from creating bills en masse, enforcing already present constitutional law, conservative expenditures, and conservative social lawmaking--this meaning limiting the creation of laws regulating society).  Religion had very little to do with the original meaning of what it meant to be conservative.

Now religion is commonly thought of even mentioning Republican or conservative.  Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican nominated, and the first Republican president would not even recognize today's version.  Thirty years after the party formed it became factionalized, one side being closer to today's version (at that time Puritans and prohibition drove it) and the other more like the original.  When Theodore Roosevelt became president he took with him the majority of the old Republicans (progressives) and when his Bull Moose party died many of the the original concepts of the Republican party died.

At present the Democratic party (which also had it's changes) resembles more facets of the original Republican concepts than the GOP.  While the original message of the e-mail didn't focus on much of this, I feel it is important that people know the foundations of these changes and know that our government IS being usurped, but it is coming from many different places.  There is not just one bogeyman.  Labeling fellow Americans, basically, unpatriotic due to the changes in the pledge and monetary mantras because they feel are an example of overreaching politicians and law/bill creation, is a one sided conversation with the e-mail's targeted audience never ready to take the other side serious in any context.  This is the state of current politics.  It is, on both sides, extremely sociopathic in nature.  The parties are virulent in their conversations or dealings with each other to the point that our government and due process are being held hostage; compromise is unacceptable.  Within the parties, concerning themselves, issues have become idolized to the point that disagreement is tantamount to being a mole, unstable, unpatriotic, lying, backstabbing Judases for the other parties.  The parties are apathetic concerning discussion within their party.  Companies (banks, medical, pharmaceutical, oil, weapons/defense, etc...) are able to change the government more than even the 1st amendment was/is concerned about religion/state or majority/minority issues. 

We have come to nearly idolize the sociopathic behavior displayed by those in power, i.e. they're far more concerned with themselves and their imaginary world than they ever were with us, the citizens.  Yet, we also dislike their actions, but if they use party based rhetoric we quickly defend all and everything they are.

E-mails like these are made to break us into factions and find quick easy ways to dismiss each others values, beliefs, ideas, and sometimes even our society and community.  The message is divisive and filled with fear.  This fear is that of having made a mistake, if you vehemently agree or disagree; you're correct and all other sides are potential threats and must be fought or disregarded.  This is very insular logic and used by many...

The amendments were created to defend against these insular and divisive attacks.  We're all citizens of the United States not just the ones that have "x", believe "x", or are "x".

This was a bit windy and long, but I hope it was worth reading.