C4K,
Your citation of the religious test clause is a separate debate. Remember the rest of that clause which is
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The two items in the OP have nothing to do with a requirement of public office. That there is no religious test was not a mandate that religion or a belief in God be stripped from the public square. It was a further protection against an established religion. Our history is very clear with what an "established religion" was in the sanctions attached to worship and belief which the Founders opposed.
Also, please clarify the typo in your OP:
Surely there is no clear historical argument for their continuation since are were not a part of our foundation ?
I would note that "In God We Trust" was made our motto, there is no mandate or sanction attached to that motto.
Why is it only in the last 100 years or so that anyone saw the need for these things?
One thought is that someone saw the need, and that it was seen as a need because our nation had slipped its moors stated
repeatedly by our Founders.
I do somewhat disagree with Aaron's statement that
An acknowledgement of a Supreme Being is not a religious test. when the Constitution was ratified 11 of the 13 states required an acknowledgement of God, and many states do today, of their officials.
Though he wasn't talking about public officials, Jefferson wrote
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The same Jefferson, however, asked in the same work (
Notes on the State of Virginia)
[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?
Aaron is not entirely correct, either in his statement that
An acknowledgement of a Supreme Being is not a religious test. When the Constitution was ratified 11 of the 13 states required an acknowledgement of God.
It was not simply "an acknowledgement of God" that the states required. The Pennsylvania Constitution required that
And each member before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz/ I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the Universe the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments be given by Divine inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state.
North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina, denied public office to Catholics. Some states, such as New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts rejected such a limitation. I believe that Massachusetts required only that officeholders "believe the Christian religion".
It should stand as a contrast that the U.S. Constitution prohibited
any requirement of religious belief.
C4K,
Adding those two phrases in 1954 and 1956 certainly has not done much to keep us on the right track. Do you really thinking keeping them is somehow going to get us back on track?
I believe there is certainly some value in helping us to "keep our eyes on the prize", though. They confirm the value of such belief, in the face of repeated assaults on such public expressions by the Supreme Court, expressions which are
not an establishment of religion. What is a shame is that when "under God" was added it was done so in response to the Communist bloc's denial of Him, but that now the primary opponent of such expressions is our own Supreme Court. Stripping those items from public expression would serve to validate the Supreme Court's consistent efforts to secularize the public square.