The first amendment and instances of the intertwined nature of church and state.

    Although the first amendment states that "Congress" will not make any laws respecting a specific religion, the US is plagued with many violations of the state institutionalizing religion. Most of the examples I will give are done by the states, but are still pertinent as the separation between church and state is important not just in the central government, but in other lower-level governments.
    I would write about some smaller, but arguably important, violations. For example, "In God We Trust" on our currency. Little "seeds" of religion in government are planted everywhere, and money is a key example. Currency, obviously, is very ingrained in our culture. The doctrine of religion, which is not universal, is printed on something that is universal. Theodore Roosevelt, who was religious, opposed the phrase on currency.
    Another example of this is the Pledge of Allegiance. In Elementary school, we had to recite the Pledge often. I personally had not matured enough to establish my own choice of religion (or lack thereof), but in a public school (which is supposed to be secular), we recited the Pledge. It reads:
    I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it            stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge asserts that a God exists and that, in fact, our Nation is one together under God (presumably the Christian God, based on the historical prevalence of Christianity in government). I personally believe that this short but important string of words has failed to uphold the constitutional values of the Nation- it pushes out nonbelief (and arguably non-Christian beliefs, for the aforementioned reason) as a right by implying that the unity of the nation is held together by God, therefore pushing religion.
    The next intersection I would like to touch on is not a violation, but a custom. Government officials in office, when sworn in, have typically been sworn in on the Bible. However, as implied, this is not always the case. There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible. The fact that this is custom, though, I think is a failing of the state. Presidents, for example, have overwhelmingly been sworn in on the Bible. This seems, to me, to be an act that at best denies the validity of the separation of church and state. A couple, however, have chosen not to be sworn in over the Bible (Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Pierce). As a personal note, I think that officials, ideally, would swear over something like a book of law (like Franklin Pierce) or the constitution. Or a Captain America shield! See: this clip.
    I could understand how these little connections might not be a huge deal, but right now I believe that the normalizing of little connections like the ones mentioned between the church and state undermine the workings of the state and violate the constitutional promise of the separation of church and state, which I think can be implicated from the first amendment and the intent of the the framers. I look forward to further studying the dynamic between the church and state in America.