I'm curious... do the Greeks have, In Zeus We Trust on their money?

Jesus...is that you? :p

Charlatan,

Found this I have no idea who Ronald Bruce Meyer is (looks like maybe a left leaning writer/talker/pundit)...but it's got the dates... the coins were done in1864 at the end of the Civil War, and bills were during the Red Scare. Both of which were pretty emotionally charged times for ye olde Americans.

TS are you sure the great seal is the Illuminati? I thought it was the masons, since just about all of the FF's were Masons. Annuit Coeptis something roughly like "May He Bless Our Undertakings".

It is a Masonic symbol... many believe the Masons were infiltrated by the Illuminati who then took over the Masons from within so they could hide in plain sight (or so the conspiracy suggests).

Is that true? There is no reference to God in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? If true, I find it interesting that for Men of God, the Founding Fathers should leave His name off these documents.

EDIT: Just Googled and while it doesn't appear to be in the Constitution (at first glance) there are references to "Nature's God" and "their Creator" in the Declaration of Independance (I didn't see any treasure map though).

From the DOI, no mention in the constitution though.

Charlatan, yeah I think that's pretty much the jist of it. My personal take is that the Declaration took such huge flipping balls to write and send in the first place, that you'll add whatever it takes to get concession...I think most of them had some belief in some sort of spirituality, I just think they differed on the flavor. I've always thought our Founding Fathers really wanted to keep religion out government and vice versa, based on the experiences in England with the Anglican Church, etc. Who knows? Maybe they were all Mormons...

Actually that’s not true Tspikes if anything our country was not only founded by christians, but Deist's, pagans, Jewish, Native American, and many other cultures/religions, we've even had a President or so found to be Deist, and though I do agree Christians were the majority that doesn’t say they were the only ones. Religious groups from around the world flocked to the idea of religious freedom and that’s what founded the United States, and then we are given our religious freedom but at the price that we have to stair at the majority’s idols and sayings all day long. Its freedom but its freedom with conditions. And on a second note stop using the idea of Christians being the founders only became there the majority, there’s no choice but for Christianity to be the majority the founders of Christianity raped, pillaged, destroyed, and killed their way to that status.

i don't think i'd lead the charge, i wouldn't mind if God came out of some of the political vocabulary of our country. to be quite frank, i don't think America is a Christian nation, to say otherwise is misrepresentation of God. i don't know that there can be a nation as we define them that is Christian.

Yes Jesus and all of the Matryr'd Apostles were so truly vicious.

What does Jesus and all of the Martyred Apostles have to do with the founders of Christianity?

Jesus laid down some Idea’s and people followed, Jesus did not create Christianity, and he did not say, "I am a christian" obviously...

So that statement you just made meant nothing it made no sense.

Deny the carnage that the Churches brought, and all the stronger followers of this dominating Christian religion brought. This is the religion claimed to found the United States, im not speaking of what the Christian religion is suppose to be or what it is today. But go ahead let me see you deny history.

Deny what Christians were in the times when it spread like wild fire, Deny them walking into pagan towns and says “ you will all die if you don’t follow our ways “ Deny christian kings raping villagers cause its their god given right.

I am not saying what Christianity is one way or another today, but I do not live in a fantasy world were I do not acknowledge what history tells us.

Not saying you do. Just saying.

You are kind of really negating the reality of the time there Elven, and I'm not trying to justify what happened in the past. But the reality was that's the way the world worked, and it wasn't just Christians that did.

People conquered shit back in the day, and it was brutal. Just so happens that "En Hawk Signo Wonka" was a very effective unifying principle for the Roman kings of yore. The same Roman kings who brutalized the Christians for hundreds of years prior to the establishment of the religion with Roman rule.

Finally, I shall call you Peter (Petro) and upon this rock I will build my church. Take a stab at who said that.

Sorry for the threadjack.

Ben Franklin? :D

Peter, doing his best Jesus impression?

Vote for Pedro?

While much nastiness has been perpetrated in the name of God, there has also been a lot of nastiness perpetrated by Muslims, Hindus, Seikhs, etc.

The point is, humanity is flawed. The point of this tread is not to dump on one religion or another. The point was to examine the place of God in the trappings of the US government and politics... with specific reference to non-Christians.

I don't see where non-christians are so heavily biased against? If anything I would say that Christians are biased against, it seems that it is "in" to bash Christians or to target them, and the level of hypocrisy circulating the country right now in the name of "separation of Church and State" is appalling.

I'm not sure I follow you on where there is " hypocrisy circulating the country right now in the name of 'separation of Church and State'".

If anything I see Bush name drop the name of Lord on a regular basis and I see his acceptance of fundamentalists like Robertson and I wonder in what direction he is taking the nation. Like anyone I see professing anything too much I begin to wonder at their sincerity.

I ultimately see God being used as a marketing tool and that troubles me.

In the end, I see a proper acceptance of other religions in general. The freedom to choose your religion remains in tact and, I suppose, that is what is ultimately important.

Hearing the name of God continually intone just makes me a little uncomfortable and I wonder at the need of it. Why is important to plaster his name over your money like a Teenage Hunk in a girl's locker. Why the need to intone his name continually like a mantra?

This probably has more to do with my firm belief in a secular government than anything else.

1. What do "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" mean to you (especially if you aren't Christian).
It doesn't mean anything to me religiously. Traditionally though it has always been there and I don’t see why it bothers people so. Are there not bigger things to worry about in this country than that?

2. Does the presence of God in US rhetoric represent a melding of religion and state?
Not in my opinion. We pretty much have to assume that politicians are going to make decisions based on their faith and or moral beliefs as much as other factors that affect their opinions. Presidents have been known to comment that they have prayed over certain issues. I can recall presidents asking for Americans to pray for our troops, victims of disasters and others. It isn’t as though he can mandate that we do it. We can’t expect that an elected official become atheist, asexual or anything else once they are sworn in.

To me, "in god we trust" is an ironic thing to put on money, because the people who have the most of it generally are the farthest from having any sort of clue what christ was about. "In god we trust" should be followed by "we hope he isn't pissed that we're completely ignoring anything valuable in his son's teachings".

The presence of god in u.s. rhetoric to me is just another example of how politicians exploit the underwhelming critical thinking skills of the average american. God is to the bible belt as the race card is to the inner city.

While I'm not sure if I'd call "In God We Trust" an unconstitutional establishment of religion, I would certainly prefer that it be taken off money. I do not "trust in God", thank you very much, so why is my money speaking for me? I also hate the fact that it's used to justify required recitation of the pledge, as if two wrongs make a right (no, that would be three lefts). It's like clockwork, any time there is a debate over the pledge, you'll get a, "Oh, but it says In God We Trust on money, why don't you just stop spending money?" or something ridiculous like that. What exactly is it about money that made people think, "Hey, this stuff would sure look great with a reference to God on it" in the first place? I don't see the connection between money and God. I thought religion wasn't supposed to be about money. It seems more like something The Church would have had done in the 12th century.

And, well, yes, I completely agree with the premise of your posts that religion seems to (sadly) have a major place in US civics. I wish luck to anyone trying to get elected to public office who's publicly known not to be a follower of a mainstream religion. (At least in the majority of the country. Perhaps you could get away with it in certain parts of the Pacific or northern Atlantic coast, or if you're an ex-pro wrestler.)

Now, they all talk about how this country was founded on Christian principles, ad nauseam. Nevertheless, I think it was quite deliberate that there is only a single religious reference in the Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". Yes, the date. I contend that it is only recently that the Leadership of this Fine country (I think that old-school noun capitalization is starting to rub off on me) has felt it necessary to affirm our Trust in God and Existence under God. The Pledge has existed for a longer time WITHOUT a reference to God (1892-1954) than WITH one.

I can't vouch for this idea, but I think back then, it was more of a concern to people how effective the governance of candidates would be than how much "faith" they have (apparently that Someone Else will do the hard work for them while they go on ranch vacations for weeks at a time). Unfortunately, it also seems that a number of major political issues these days have a direct connection to religion, particularly abortion, that historically have not been important issues if they were issues at all and certainly aren't in other countries.

http://www.calfx.org/const.png

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Im going to drop this topic as I have to many personal fealings involved here.

Sorry guys, good luck.

Filtherton... "God is to the bible belt as the race card is to the inner city."

I think this is a very astute observation. There are many that decry the involvment of the religion in, especially with reference to the last Presidential election. I'm not so sure it's all that easy to deny the fact that the bible belt represents a solid voting block with shared concerns and issues. Much in the way that the Black vote and the Women's vote are courted so too is this voting block.

It's what I was touching on above when I mentioned that I see the use of rhetoric such as, "God Bless America" at the end of most speaches these days. While it may be heartfelt, is it all that different from other trappings of solidarity? A high sign of inclusiveness.

What I am getting at is, for those of us who are not Christians, these trappings, while not neccessarily offensive, are in some ways exclusionary. I am not certain this is such a good thing.

1. What do "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" mean to you (especially if you aren't Christian).

It means absolutly nothing and if anything a weakness in our society. I'm not anti-religion, but when our own presidents put their own religion into their duties of abidding the laws it only causes problems. I never said it during our "Pledge allegiance" to the flag" either.

The terms should be removed.

2. Does the presence of God in US rhetoric represent a melding of religion and state?

They always have, and the two were never seperated as far as I'm concerned. You goto court and lay your hand on a bible and say so help me god? (yes that is not capitalized.) I personally would not do so and ask for an alternate method to swear my truth.

Religion has no part in the Goverment as far as I'm concerned.

*fixed spelling mistake*

Sorry. I somehow lost track of this one...

Sure God "is much deeper than any popular catchphrase," to some. When it's attached to the end of every soundbyte, every speech, et cetera, et cetera, almost as an afterthought, it seems incredibly cheap and certainly comparable to the "catchphrase du jour."

The intent and purpose of the words are what matters. Are politicians really expressing their beliefs and actually calling down the blessings of God when they say, "God, bless America" or is it cheap shenanigans simply to court the electorate and snag the 'religious' vote?

I agree with Filtherton. "God" is welcome in the government so long as "He" proves his usefulness. As long as invoking the name of The Almighty equals extra votes, politicians are more than happy to keep the ruse of "God" in government alive.

And it is exclusionary. I have no qualms with any particular religion and I certainly couldn't care less what denomination my President chooses as his own or how he professes his faith. To be honest, I want a President who consults his faith when making the big decision. I just don't want his faith making his decision for him. The Schiavo incident, gay marriage...incidents where personal religious beliefs (in this case Christian ideology) outweigh the common good of the republic, well, they make it exclusionary. It's kind of scary thought since I always heard it was "out of many, one." Says so right there on my quarter, "E pluribus unum" and not "We'll protect your interests as long as they coincide with ours." Of course, that'd be kind of long for a quarter...

I know I promised to steer clear of this for my own good, but I had a sudden question and don’t exactly feel the need to open a thread about it, but as I am going to be on the stands in a court room in about a week or two and haven’t had the chance to discuss it with a lawyer, what exactly do they make you swear on when you won’t swear on a bible or any other materialistic item of a religion?

I understand that there are alternative ways to make an oath of truth. One I read went like this:

"Under penalties of perjury, do you swear, declare, or affirm that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

Seems solid to me.

Just let your lawyer know that you don't want to swear on a bible or to God and he or she should be able to make alternative arrangements. I am having dinner with my friend the trial lawyer, I will ask him what he does in these cases.

When you join the Army, we ask if you want to swear on a bible or make a solemn declaration. Used to be that most would pick the bible, but these days most people are going the other way.

Instead of "Do you swear..." and the applicant holds the bible,
It is "Do you solemnly declare..." and the applicant holds nothing.

No big deal. We had a guy that would not pledge allegiance to the Queen. He thought that living in Canada allowed him that freedom. We are a democracy after all.

The Sergeant Major looked at him and growled "You aren't starting off on the right foot, son. If I remember your face or your name, you might have some problems here. Now, do you like the queen?"

The guy realized that it was not a great time to make a political statement.

Ben I can see how getting out of swearing to God can have a place but as a Canadian soldier you had better damn well be ready to swear allegiance to the Queen.

I am no monarchist but can clearly see that if you want to be a soldier in any nation you had better be ready swear allegiance to the Head of State.

Maybe it would be culturally more accurate to print on the US money, "In McDonalds We Trust."

Or perhaps, "In Big Oil We Trust?".

Just wondering...

"In Money We Trust" or "To Me Do You Belong" would be more appropriate. :D

I really like ObieX'smind. Thanks for a good chuckle....

SCOTUS has dutifully avoided the issue of making an official ruling as to whether having "In God We Trust" as the national motto (since 1956) and on our money is constitutional. There have been three lower court rulings that all affirmed the motto.

Personally, I think it's pretty clear that both are a violation of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment:

Changing the national motto to "In God We Trust" and adding that phrase to our money was a result of . . . an act of Congress. Ok, so the law part can't be disputed. So, does is this law "respecting an establishment of religion"? I don't see how it can't be. It's clearly an endorsement of the monotheistic God of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim religious tradition, and leaves out alternate religions that are polytheistic or nature based or endorse no supreme being whatsoever, or the religious beliefs of those who deny the existence of a supreme being.

Now this might seem to indicate that I'm in strong opposition to having "In God We Trust" on our money. Not so. I think it's unconstitutional, but I don't really care very much, as it's essentially harmless.

Having it as our national motto? That pisses me off, not because it's religious, but because it's so banal, and it replaced the most kick-ass perfect national motto ever concieved. E pluribus unum: Out of many, one. There, in three Latin words, the ideal that drove the fomation of the United States. That's not just good, it's perfect, it's both an ode to our past, or origins, and a noble goal for us to strive for as a people, and it's descriptive of the US as a country and as a people in a way a generic "God is on our side" statement isn't.

Does the presense of God in US rhetoric represent a melding of religion and government? For some it's lip service, necessary to be able to get elected, without really guiding political policy. For others, it seems to be a big part of what guides their political beliefs, and I find that disturbing.

I think religion should be left to the churches and individuals who choose to attend them. Government should be neutral.

Gilda

I don't believe in much.....does that answer your question?

its funny how, things are as they are in America, but in Britain were the state and church are so entwined, where you are forced to say hymns in school, where the head of state is also "The Defender of the Faith"... that Christianity is a minority and fringe religion, and the Church is openly mocked by most.

I think that the word would be...ironic. In any event, I was not aware that Christianity was a minority in Britain. (color me another uninformed, self-involved American) What, would you say, is the "prevailing" religion? I don't like that the "Church" is openly mocked, but then again the Church has done it's fair share of mocking.

I've made no secret of the fact that I am an atheist. I do not believe in a "Divine Creator", or a "Supreme Being". If pressed into anything, I would probably lean toward an earth based religion, but I'm not there yet, either. I believe in Freedom of Religion. Freedom of ALL religions. To me, that also encompasses a freedom from religion. What you believe, what the old lady down the street believes, or what the checker at the grocery store believes should not affect my life. And, for the most part, it does not. I only have a problem with "religion" when it's forced upon me. How does that go? My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose? Or something like that.

"In God We Trust"? "One Nation Under God"? To be honest, neither really bother me all that much. Do I wish that they weren't there? Yeah, I do. But, with gas prices climbing to what they predict may hit upwards to $5.00 per gallon, and Winter coming with natural gas prices expected to rise by 70% over last years costs, I don't really care what the hell they put on my money. I just worry about having enough of it, at this point. In other words, I've got more important things to worry about that a deity that I don't believe in anyway.

Gilda? I'd say that you pretty much nailed it with your last post.

There are more practising Muslims in the UK than Christians.

Not sure about UK specifically, but I think that might be more because muslims are generally more likely to be pracitcing than christians. I bet in many places in the US there's more practicing muslims than practicing christians, even though there might be more christians as a whole.

And again, a slogan does not establish a religion. Are people forced to convert? It it a requirement for gov't employment that you practice christianity? I still have yet to see a logical argument why "In God We Trust" being on money or the national slogan is in violation of the 1st amendment (and I seriously doubt there is one).

It doesn't only prohibit laws establishing religion, but laws respecting an established religion. Including the word "god" anywhere is always a bit exclusionary if you can acknowledge the fact that not everyone is a theist. See Gilda's post.

Even so, it still was founded by theists, not atheists. Most theists believe in a god, so there you go. Still, our country was founded by a Christian majority, and guess what, majorities have to rule in a democratic society. What a fuckin' concept.