This wording seems to allow Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroaster, and nobody else. Like no Hindus and many others, not just no atheists.

Unless one is out to make a point ... I'm an atheist but could accept the "being of almighty God" -- as a persistent meme in the heads of many religious folk. Also as long as they didn't ask me what I thought it means, I wouldn't feel under any obligation to hurt their (often surprisingly fragile) feelings.

Why is it not removed? To send a message that they don't care about the constitution if it doesnt suit them.

@gnasher729 Jah live! Rastafari!

@TigerGuy Just so you know, that's not "coining," that's the original invention of the phrase.

Often laws like these aren't removed so that they can take effect if SCOTUS ever reverses their previous decision. This is most well known in the case of anti-abortion "trigger laws", which are waiting for Roe to be overturned.

@Hobbamok Laws struck down as unconstitutional are often not repealed. The repeal would have no effect, and it would be an admission of error on the part of the legislature. It is not always to have the law take effect if the court changes its view. It is often mere inertia, as there is usually no pressure to pass a bill of repeal that would have no effect.

@DavidSiegel Per the question, the relevant Constitution was rewritten in 1971 expressly to remove such ambiguities and conflicts, so no separate repeal would have been necessary, they could simply have not included the clause, since they knew by then that it was unenforceable.

@IMSoP Quite true, I was speaking in more general terms. I don't know why that provision was not included in the 1971 rewrite, and I decline to speculate. I find it hard to imagine that it would ever become operative, or be held constitutional by a SCOTUS decision.