Slavakion

Yeah... and our country also has this thing called the Bill of Rights
If Congress is not supposed to establish a national religion, then why is "In God We Trust" on our money? Not every religion believes in the Judeo-Christo-Muslim god. What about Buddhism? Hinduism? Neo-Paganism? There's three well-known and well established religions that do not believe in a singular God. Therefore, putting "In God We Trust" on our money clearly shows favoritism towards monotheistic religions (and it would follow that we favor Christianity since our money doesn't say anything about Allah, Yahweh or Jehovah).

So... we were founded by theists. And these theists that decided we should be an independent country said "Hey, maybe it would be a good idea if people weren't pressured into other religions. That way they wouldn't have to leave and found a new country." What a fuckin' concept.

alansmithee

I read her post. There's nothing there that would point to the slogan being illegal. And there's also no mention in the constitution of exclusionary practices being prohibited. And it's only exclusionary if people choose to think that. I don't recall the slogan being "In God we Trust, and we are forbidding anyone to believe otherwise." If someone sees that, they are being overly sensitive and should possibly look internally instead of trying to change everyone else into fitting in their world view.

JumpinJesus

All this is fine and dandy, but what I'd like to know is: Who is this "We" in "In God We Trust."

Before adding anything more to this thread, I'd like to get an idea who some of you think "We" are.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Slavakion

Well, I think that the "we" is supposed to be America as a whole.

Charlatan

Does "we" = those who have the most money? It seems they would be the ones that have the biggest say in the matter as they control most of it...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JumpinJesus

I realize that our representative form of government allows our elected officials to speak for us in matters of taxation and such, but I didn't realize it also meant that they get to speak for us spiritually as well, which, if I am correct, is exactly what the first amendment intended on preventing.

Some may say it's a small matter, having "In God We Trust" printed on our money, and inasmuch as it doesn't represent policy, they are correct. Where it becomes an issue for me is when they take that paradigm and apply it to policy under the guise of speaking for me. The assumption is that I believe as they believe so therefore any action taken in matters spiritual I am by default agreeing with them and supportive of policy that reflects this thinking.

Is this a reach? Possibly, but then I look at the policies of our current administration and think that maybe it's not such a reach anymore.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

filtherton

It seems to me that whatever you or i think about the constitutionality of the phrase is irrelevant. The courts, the actual interpreters of the constitution, don't agree with you. In fact, when ruling on "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, lower courts don't agree with you, and the SC has really done everything in its power to avoid having to rule on the matter because they apparently don't want to deal with the political aftermath of ruling the phrase unconstitutional.

It is pretty easy just to write people off as complainers and not think at all about what something may mean to them, but unfortunately, this is america, where everyone is constantly encouraged to change everyone else to fit their world view. This country wouldn't exist if everyone took your advice about "not changing everyone else to fit our world view". Imagine the founding fathers looking within themselves.

Even so, in this instance i fail to see how removing mention of a god from our money results in "changing everyone else to fit our world view". All it would really accomplish would be to remove a certain phrase from our money that is both meaningless and non representative of a certain portion of our populace. There are a great many people who do not put their trust in god, where is the sense in them being forced to use money created in their name, for their use, which attributes to them a religious belief of which they do not have? No one is saying that theists can't still in their heart of hearts tell themselves that america truly cares about their faith. To me it just seems a little empty to try to show your nondenominational diety how much you trust him/her/it by writing it on your money, as if this is the only way you can possibly convey such a message.

How would you feel if whenever someone complained of racism, the response was "You are being overly sensitive and should possibly look internally instead of trying to change everyone else into fitting in your world view."? I realize that we're talking about two separate issues. I'm just wondering if you'd have any problem with someone giving you that response? To me it just reeks of arrogance, and a refusal to actually address an argument on its merits.


EDIT:

The "we" refers to anyone not bold enough to tell their diety that they trust him/her/it on their own.

Charlatan

I asked my trial lawyer friend about this and it is very common to not swear on the bible.

Most poeple choose to Affirm, which means they just declare that what they are about to say is the truth. No mention of God.

He did mention some odd cases in Vancouver where some Chinese witnesses used a Chinese oath. This oath required the assistance of a Rooster and some other accoutrements. There are many other types of oaths one can take.

The court reporter should ask if you wish to swear or affirm. If they just thrust a bible at you, just say you would like to Affirm.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

alansmithee

Actually, you are wrong here. The motto "In God we Trust" has been affirmed by lower courts previously. And the "under God" in the pledge being ruled against depends largely on the court the case comes up in. As for the SC not wanting to deal with political aftermath, this seems laughable. The majority of the cases they rule on have political aftermaths, but they are life time appointments. Also, it seems you are already presuming you know how they would rule, where I think the SC would tend to side with me. But until a case actually reaches, we'll never know.

But shouldn't the people with the problem also have to think what the phrase means to those without the problem?

And I don't follow the rest of the paragraph, could you clarify?

The meaningless part is your interpretation, not everyone's. And, even though it doesn't represent some, it does represent most. Also to remember it's the American slogan that is printed on money. I don't see a problem with the American slogan being printed on it's money.

I would only have that problem if I believed it was a true case of racism. But removing "In God we Trust" from currency and as the motto because of the views of some non-monotheists would be akin to me crying racism everytime I went to someone's home and cried racism because there weren't any black people there. In this case, it's only offensive if you go out of your way to find something offensive about it. I personally do think that many black people (myself included) are often oversensitive, so it isn't necessarily arrogant. Also, if the issue at hand is ridiculous then there's no need to address it on its merits (because it lacks any).

Slavakion

It would be more akin to going to someone's house and having them say "White Power!" The motto on our money endorses a certain ideology that alienates people. "White Power" endorses a certain ideology that alienates people.

Also, you seem to be implying that non-monotheists are a small, irrelevant group. According to the 2001 census, the percentage of Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and "others" totaled 15.7%. Not a huge number, but still significant.

alansmithee

Again, there is a big difference between the two. "White Power" endorses a ideology that is directly counter to large groups of people (namely, any non-white). "In God we Trust" isn't. Anyone who sees it that way is chosing to not based on anything that has happened in the last 300+ years, but more because THEY are opposed to monotheistic traditions.

Sue

I think the two terms are over-analyzed personally. I believe in them myself, but that's just speaking for me, not for everyone else.

__________________
Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

filtherton

Why?

This country wouldn't exist if the people behind the american revolution were averse to changing people to fit their world view.

The fact that it's the american slogan is irrelevant to what i said. The slogan is meaningless, it doesn't represent the beliefs of a large group of americans.


Is that the same as going into someone's workplace and crying racism because there aren't any black people working there?

That's fine if you want to pretend that a given position lacks merit. But the fact that you feel the need to argue against something means that you find it somewhat compelling.

If what is written on our money is such a nonissue, that why does it matter to you if it says "In god we trust" or not? Aren't you making a huge deal about nothing as well?

Slavakion

I'll admit my analogy was a bit stretched... I was trying to reuse yours. I'll try again: How about if you moved to a country that printed on its money "There Is No God"? Or "In Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu We Trust"? How would that make you feel? It may be the dominating religion of the region, but doesn't that make you feel like your religion is being belittled?

alansmithee

It wouldn't bother me one bit. If I went to India, for instance, and they had Hindu slogans on their money, I wouldn't care-it's primarily a Hindu country. They are not forcing me to follow their beliefs, they are merely stating the belief of the majority of their population.

Charlatan

I don't think he meant as a visitor. I think he meant as a citizen of that nation.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pig

I think it might also be relevant whether or not the country had a highly debated concept of separation of religion and government inherent in its government. I just don't understand the positive benefit of having a slogan on the USD that is obviously very open to interpretation. Is God supposed to replace the gold standard or something?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tspikes51

Not at all. Honestly. It's their culture, I'm the foriegner, and it would be to my advantage for me to assimilate into their culture (and religion is most certianly part of culture), or at least be tolerant of it.

Although I consider myself a believer in basic Christian principles (like Jesus died for our sins and there is one all-powerful God), the fact that "In God We Trust" is still just a matter of history to me. It isn't at all applicable to today's America, nor was it designed to be. Hell, we have "E Pluribus Unum" on our money too. We don't speak Latin, so why put it on our money??? Tradition. Why should we do it any differently??? It all comes down to what I think the OP was really asking: does it really make that much difference to you. I honestly don't give a fuck, and I don't think most people do, it's just that we'd rather bitch about it than not. I'd much rather see the budget deficit fixed, or the Social Security/Welfare system revamped, but I guess most people would consider it a major victory to take a couple of non-functional words off of the money that we don't even have for long.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

maximusveritas

Saying "it's not a big deal" or some variation is not a good argument. Either it's right or it's wrong.
I agree that it should be very low on the list of priorities for this country, but once the case is taken up, judges shouldn't hide from making the correct decision just because they are scared of going against public opinion.

alansmithee

Wouldn't matter. Even if I lived somewhere, I wouldn't care. All it means is that my religion is not in the norm. It doesn't mean they are trying to convert me, or force anything.

Slavakion

"E pluribus unum" is a basic philosophy of our country. "Out of many, one" -- all of these states are supposed to unite together.

Besides, the use of "In God We Trust" didn't start until the Civil War, and its use on paper bills didn't start until around 1960. Not a huge tradition there.

filtherton

Is that really how it is in the u.s. though? Try telling that to anyone who has ever been accosted by a representative of any number of christian organizations attempting to convert random heathens to the lord's good word, or anyone who doesn't want to learn about creationism and/or intelligent design in a science class, or anyone who wants to buy alcohol on a sunday.

Mojo_PeiPei

Filth it's called Wisconsin

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

alansmithee

If an independant orginazation approaches someone, it has nothing to do with the gov't whatsoever. And learning creationism in non-religious schools doesn't happen to my knowledge (ID is a different thing alltogether). And as for buying alchohol on a sunday, it goes back to this country being founded on a Puritain/Christian moral set. The majority of the people at one time or another decided that alchohol on Sunday was bad, so it was banned. The fact that the laws probably have a religious basis is irrelevant. That doesn't actively attempt to convert anyone, it just means people have to live up to a standard that they don't possibly agree with (same with many societies).

Nimetic

I didn't realize that this had been debated in the US so much.

The sad thing is that I'll bet the comment got translated in the Arab world much more than any subsequent debates. Regardless of his intentions - this really bothered me. It was a stupid, clumsy thing to say.

He's supposed to have a history degree yes?

Nimetic

Speaking as somebody living outside the US - the term "God Bless America" sounds offensive and arrogant.

If there is a god, why would he/she/it treat the US and its people better. Does it deserve better treatment? Are people still equal regardless? Should countries without god's blessing get equal votes in the UN?

I suppose this is just another case though of speeches mean for local political purposes (and audiences) being offensive when shown externally. I guess it happens with all democratic countries in some form.

5757

Can somebody explain to me please, why God's name can be on money if there is no proof he exists?? I simply don't understand it. I do believe in God and I see no problem with that being on money. I am just curious.

__________________
Hey! Wait! I've got a new complaint, Forever in debt to ((your)) priceless advice. - Nirvana

rsl12

Well, there are a couple arguments going around. The church/state separation argument has been done to death, so I'll ignore all of that. The 'seems arrogant if you're outside the US', however, is an interesting issue. Of course, a lot depends on interpretation/translation, but I don't think there's any need to be offended.

1. 'God Bless America', as some have mentioned, is basically a short prayer. When an English-speaking Christian goes to bed, it's not unusual for a prayer to include "God bless Mom and Dad and all my friends." Is this kind of prayer selfish, because it doesn't include a blessing for suffering North Koreans? Probably so, but not to any outrageous extent--it's quite normal to ask for blessings for those nearest to you. I can't quite see how this could be interpreted as arrogance unless there is a language/cultural barrier (which there very well may be). EDIT: On the other hand, consider a bumper sticker saying "God Bless America." Instead of being a personal plea to God, it's becomes, in that context, something quite different, like you're telling people "God Blesses America." I could see being offended by that. HOWEVER, also consider if you saw someone with a bumper sticker that said "God Bless Mom and Dad." Would you think that it meant "God Blesses Mom and Dad?" Probably not. You'd think it meant "I love Mom and Dad very much, bless them!" So the whole phrase is actually a strange one, open to many different interpretations:

*God, please bless America.
*God blesses America (over other countries, possibly).
*I love America, bless its heart!

2. "In God We Trust" to me seems like a prayer as well, but of a slightly different type. When someone boards a plane to go on a long journey, a typical way to send them off is to say "Godspeed", meaning basically, all sorts of crazy natural disasters could affect the journey, but I trust that God will see you through. I bet this is kind of meaning we can attribute to 'in God we trust.' America is going off on some uncharted path into the future (as are all countries), and so it's kind of acknowledging that all sorts of crazy disasters may be in store, but that God is in charge and has a long-term plan for everything. I have trouble seeing how this motto could be interpreted as arrogance under any circumstances.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

SERPENT7

vermin,
The founding fathers where not strong christian moralists. They were deiests, and Masons. (They often used religious arguments in the Federalist Papers to sell the new govenment to the population, however, which is where alot of the modern confusion arises from.)
This means in essence that they were VERY serious about keeping the country out of the hands of any one church.
This actually makes alot more sense when you examine history from THIER perspective.
You see, most of us do not see what the big deal is because we have never lived through a holy war. The FFs would have been all to familiar with religion as a motivator for murder and mayhem.
Also, most people came to the US to get away from the reformation/counter reformation wars. The C.o.E. was good for england, but suppressed all minorities, which was no fun for them. (IE, the puritans)
This is what the FFs were trying to avoid.