In God We Trust
 

I have always wondered what this term actually means to most Americans.


It is on your money, it is on your president's lips... God Bless America was practically a mantra in post 9/11.

Here in Canada, our leaders would never dream of speaking about their religious lives in a public forum (when they do they aren't likely to stay popular - ie Reform ex-leader Stockwell Day). In the USA is almost seems that being a Christian is a prerequisite to taking the position and once in power they must display their religion on their sleeve.

I suppose it could be argued that there is a large percentage of the population base that is Christian and therefore it is important to appeal to them.

So I ask:

1. What do "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" mean to you (especially if you aren't Christian).
2. Does the presence of God in US rhetoric represent a melding of religion and state?

It's nothing new. Most countries have done it at some point. The idea is, "if God is on our side, who will stand against us?" It's a good way to bring even quasi-religious people together and make them believe that the country is strong and shouldn't fear because a higher power is backing them. Look at almost any country in history, the leaders will always say that their god is somehow cheering them on rather than some other country. It keeps the population under control by having them questioning authority less because they aren't as afraid of outside attacks.

as a baptized nonpracticing catholic.. it means nothing but belief in a higher being of sorts. As far as it being a mdeling of church and state, I don't see it nor do I feel it. It onlly has as much power as I allow it to have, positive or negative.

Re: In God We Trust
 

I do not mind it, but I feel bad for my fellow Americans who either (1) believe in no supreme being, and (2) who believe in multiple/many supreme beings.

By leaving "in god we trust" off the money it does not imply "in god we do not trust" and thus it would not alienate those who do believe in god.
But by having "in god we trust" immediately those who do not share the singularity of god are alienated and feel opressed.

I agree with Canadian (and most European nations) who have an obvious understanding of leaving religion where it belongs: in people's personal lives.

Ofcourse it's just money, and I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of our money has trace amounts of cocane or other drugs on it. :eek:

The supposed seperation of church and state gone right out the fucking window.


Fucking hypocrites.

Spectre: I get that. The symbolism is powerful. However, in this day and age, given the decline in the actual belief in God, how effective is this...

The (over)use of "God Bless America" post 9/11 felt odd to me (a foreigner looking in). It seemed ironic given the equally fervent belief in Allah (or God) by the extremists that did the deed. A kind of, "God isn't on your side he's on ours..."

"In God We Trust"

speak for yourself
In Hal *I* Trust

It doesn't mean a thing to me.

I think the word "god" stands for something a lot of other people take an interest in.

Re: In God We Trust
 

1. That means absolutely nothing to me. I ignore it. I don't need to believe in an invisible man in the sky to get me through my day.

2. Again, religion is non existant in my life and I can easily ignore all of that bullshit.

I am a non-believer and I frankly could care less. It is a bromide that has been diluted in meaning so much it has about as much meaning to me as someone saying 'take care.'

Start putting up crosses or pentagrams in town halls and that's where I'd get a bit peeved.

I did find it curious too though when Billy Graham (Jr?) did the Jeebus prayer at the last inauguration.

I really don't care about the "In God We Trust". It's not a big deal and most Americans probably don't even know its there.

The rhetoric of our leaders, however, particularly at the national level, does bother me considerably.

Although it probably started with Jimmy Carter, he was very careful to seperate his religious beliefs from his duty as President. When giving speeches, he would hardly ever mention God.

Today, in contrast, we have people like Senator Lieberman and President Bush who often make their religious beliefs the focus of their speeches and policies. They actively work to tear down the wall between church and state here at home. And they actively try to manifest their fundamentalist beliefs abroad. They are not merely religious people, they are religious extremists and are as harmful to the well-being of this country as any terrorist.

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

Well, I am a Christian, but I do not (and will not) push my views on anyone. I also kind of hate hearing these phrases due to it being 'the thing' to say. It's like the "hero" bullshit after 9-11. Sure, we had several heros (ie, the guys who took down the terrorist on the plane), but if you were joe blow asking for a nickel on the corner of TWT, you are a 'hero'. to use a term often demeans it and makes it loose it's effect..

personally, against judgement of friends and peers (besides one sweet blonde friend) I say God bless Iraq. the citizens need help.. bad.


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

No. cuz if you arn't Christian (namely Baptist or Catholic) then your god will be beat up by our god is the basic mental power held by my fellow US citizens, especially the "Christians".

it fucking disgusts me and it makes me want to say "they are not my people". but I do follow Christ......

hmm. we need to create me a religious name!

Z, the Christ loving hippy.

1. It's sort of a fuck you to me. It's a, "I'm part of this club (Christians) and this is who I'm watching out for.While I may tolerate you being an atheist, I certainly don't appreciate people like you." It certainly doesn't feel inclusive to me.

2. It's a by-product. I don't think saying God Bless America inheriently makes state and country intermingled, but the fact that it is said is a result of Christianity and state being mingled.

I view the Republican party as the Christian Party. They aren't really for smaller government. They support prohibition and all sorts of laws legislating morals. They are for "old-fashioned values" and "the past history of Christianity in this country." Often, they step very closely on the line between theocracy and democratic republic. Pat Robertson (who ran on the Republican ticket, and is now an outspoken Republican) basically has all but used the word theocracy. This is from the IMDB.

I view the Democrats as the slightly more flexible, but still Christian Party. You occasionally get legislation based on Christian morals from this side of the aisle (like Al and Tipper's many crusades against art and entertainment). One only needs to read some of the PMRC hearings to understand that Christianity as a litmus test is still very alive.

Either way, simply stopping them from saying In God We Trust (or saying the admended Pledge) isn't going to change the basic outlook of the government.

In God we Trust and such means nothing to me.
It's just another catchphrase of the month like "Let's Roll" and "Bling Bling." and almost as ridiculous.

Our nation has never had true seperation of church and state and I don't think it ever will and any argument to fully segregate the two is folly. While it's not as fanatical a melding as other religious states, church and state have melded none the less.

That thing about pat robertson sounds like a lie. I do not think he said that.

1. It means that the constitution is not being enforced. In god we trust is a violation of the establishment clause of the first admendment and needs to be taken off the money immediaty. George Bush needs to quit saying God bless America in his speeches, and public schools need to quit having their kids sing"God Bless America"

2. Yes it does. WHen ever the church and the state come together, good things never happen. We need to "build a wall of seperation" between the church and the state.

It does sound far fetched. I read it at the IMDB, so I posted it. They have been known to be wrong, though. If it's not true, it's at least funny, and better explains some of his positions.

But also, let's not forget he for sure blamed 9/11 on gays, feminists, and the ACLU. That's pretty far fetched too.

I don't think it is comparable to "bling bling" and "Let's Roll", although I see what you are getting at. God is much deeper than any popular catchphrase.

An interesting addition to all of this is that I was listening to a radio show on CBC Radio One last night and it featured a guy who was looking at the myth that Canadians and American's are becoming more alike. One of the statistics showed that over the past (I think) 30 years there has been a decline in those who say they are Religious in Canada while the exact opposite is true in the US. At the beginning of the period the US and Canada were about the same percentage.

Perhaps this is why I, as a Canadian, feel the disconnect when I see the precense of God in the US political sphere.

I am non-religious(agnostic?), but "In God We Trust" doesn't bother me in the slightest.

As far as Bush should say "God Bless America" in his speeches goes, he is not violating the establishment clause. The first amendment says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....".

Bush saying "God Bless America" does neither.

I am an atheist and I have no problem with "in god we trust", "god bless america", or "one nation under god." It's nothing but morale-boosting rhetoric, and it in no way harms anyone to have it on our currency or in our schools. Compare our religious freedoms with that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and perhaps you will see how ridiculous the "wipe god off of everything!" argument is.

Those who claim to be atheists, and have a serious problem with hearing or reading the word "God" need to do a couple of things. First, learn to take yourself less seriously, because what you are comfortable with is not the number one priority for the nation. Second, re-evaluate your choice of theology because if your beliefs (or anti-beliefs) are so fragile that you cannot be presented with an "opposing" viewpoint, then perhaps atheism is not for you.

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

I am a christian but I'll answer anyway. In God We Trust is a statement of the kind of beliefs the founders of this country held. Take it off the money, leave it on, I don't care either way. God Bless America is a short prayer full of good intentions. When it's twisted into a catch phrase it becomes a mockery.

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

No. The constitution says there should be no official state religion. Just mentioning God in a speech doesn't specify what these guys consider gods or which god they're talking about or imply that to be a good american you must follow their god. It reduces 'god' to catch phrase status. This, too, shall pass.

Also, regardless of how open that our past/current/future presidents are about their religion, it in no way establishes it as an official state religion. Even if Bush said "May Jesus Christ Bless America" on national television, it wouldn't suddenly establish Christianity as the official religion. So, please, lighten up.

Ever notice that People against the united states(i mean REALLY hate the united states) has a different religions than US? I wonder if we changed the Slogan to In Mohammad we trust, or in Budha we trust. Would these people come to like us? Well then I guess the christians would get all pissed off, thats far worse than muslims and Budhist combined..

*Cybermike looks around to see how many people he pissed off*

I think some of you are missing the point on the rhetoric coming for our political representatives. Do you really think its harmless when President Bush refers to the war on terror as a "crusade"? Even when the rhetoric itself is not harmful, it is indicative of the role that religion has on that politician's policies.

This article from the CS Monitor focuses on the role of religion in shaping Bush's foreign policy, but it can also be applied to his domestic policy:New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush's policies

The "crusade" slip-up is widely accepted as being just that -- a misuse of the word. Nothing more. It's been said over and over again that the religion of the people of Iraq is not under attack, the "regime" is. In fact, most Iraqis are more free to practice their religion now than they were under Hussein's rule. If Bush were truly a Christian zealot that intended to convert the world to Christianity, he could have made steps to do so.

Instead, he has promoted religion domestically -- not necessarily only Christianity, but religion in general -- which I don't see as a bad thing. Obviously Americans, especially our children, are sufferring from a serious lack of morals whether due to incompetant parenting, lack of religion, the media, or all of those factors and others. I respect his attempt to guide the "lost sheep" sotospeak back to some sort of established moral system, even if it is a religion that I dislike.

I think the "crusade" slip-up was just that - a slip-up that revealed what was really going on inside the President's head.
I don't want to debate the war with Iraq, but religion and its ties to Israel surely played a major role in the Bush administration's decision.
And Bush has taken steps to convert the world to Christianity. He's tried to tie money in his AIDS proposal to religious groups that preach abstinence and finding God. Right now, Franklin Graham, the man who called Islam "an evil and wicked religion", is waiting for the White House to give him the greenlight to send his missionaries into Iraq to "help" the poor, evil Iraqis.

I'd like to BUMP this thread.

It was started back in 2003 and I am curious to see if the general consensus is the same now as it was back then:

So I ask, again:

1. What do "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" mean to you (especially if you aren't Christian).
2. Does the presence of God in US rhetoric represent a melding of religion and state?

Im posting this to the OP's statement and haven’t yet read anything anyone responded with, so with that stated here goes.

In god we trusts, and god bless America, it has been around since I was born and longer, it has been served to me on a golden platter with the most tastiest of foods, it is waved under my noise like the sweatiest smelling treat, and yet it is completely and utterly annoying and insulting to me. Though I know its not stated "what god" we trust, or under what god, there still remains to be religions such as mine that does not call their deity types god, and find it insulting to do so. For the most part I ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist, but it still stands to be the one of the major things about America that I could do without.

I think the capitalization on the word God makes it pretty clear that we are talking about the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.

Other deities are just gods.

My question is this: is it REALLY that offensive? Assuming we are talking about the Judeo-Christian God, and you are an atheist, or a buddhist, or a gnostic or whatever else...

The United States was founded by Christians. It's foundation was built upon by Christian men with Christian beliefs and ideals. These men put their faith and trust in God, and they sought His wisdom and direction as the United States was born and began to grow.

Now there is today in the USA a large contingent of people who don't trust in God. But I think that if you asked the majority of Americans, regardless of their faith preference, you would get a resounding response in favour of keeping the "In God We Trust" motto in place. It's historical and spiritual in significance.

Americans on the TFP, I ask you... are you truly and deeply offended by the phrase "In God We Trust" ? Are you offended to the point where you think that because of your being annoyed, the United States should forever remove this motto and replace it with something far less significant, or historically relevant? Is it fair to remove it, keeping in mind the rich tradition and culture of Christianity in the United States past and present???

To me, "In God We Trust" is just an embracement of America's freedom of religion. We aren't communists, we shouldn't have to worry about hiding religion just to avoid offending some people. I don't understand why it's such a big deal to some people.

i'm not christian and i'm with those who could care less. to be honest, i consider those statements meaningless. i rank it right up there with all the state mottos and other catchy phrases like "land of the free and home of the brave."

i suppose if "we" trust in god, i'm not a part of the crowd. but really, who cares? it spends the same for us non-believers as it does for the devout.

if we were going to change anything about our money, i suggest the color. green? come on, let's brighten it up with a nice shade of pink ;)

as for bush and his fun statements, well, let's just say it is one more thing we disagree on.

I don't follow you here. There is a difference between state sponsored religion and citizens being free to practice religion.

Yes, and "In God We Trust" I don't think is meant to single out any one religion, rather it is just meant to embrace the people's freedom of religion. I shouldn't have posted "America's freedom of religion" but rather the American people's freedom of religion. I guess that's what confused you.

Daoust hit the nail on the head. The Founding Fathers (most) were very religious, most were Chrisitians, some were Deist's. Documents such as the Declaration of Independence shows this, the document affirms that our rights are inherent and endowed by the God of Nature and creator of man.

The President praying at his innaguration(sp), the Senate opening/concluding business with prayer, The Supreme Court saying "God save the United States and this Honourable courts", In God We Trust on money, are not infringements on this phantom rule of law known as "Separation of Church and State", which has no basis/or place in the constitution.

Old Benny Franklin said it best for me:

Well the In god we trust like I said I can over look simply because im used to the insulting mannerism of such things, but things like "under god" in our song was added much later, in fact it wasn’t added until after WW2, and in many peoples opinions it was adding simply to annoy and insult Atheists and non-christians. And do not pretend that the Christians were the ONLY ones who helped make our country what it is today. They just happened to be the majority and history tells enough of that sad story.

Just because ‘Christians’ as you say are the claimed founder of the United States doesn’t matter to me simply because those Christians who did so were nothing more than Tyrants and money hungry heathens. In fact they founded the United States through shedding the blood of the natives who lived here.

We as the United States may not be communists but we are truly nothing more than Tyrants.

Of course that is in my own opinion

Mojo... I get that the founders we largely men of God and that with that comes certain trappings.

Should this change to reflect the increasingly secular, or better yet, polytheistic America? Or is America unchanging?

I find it facinating that your politicians must wear their religion on their sleeve, while other nations need not.

Seeing as "In God We Trust" was added to our money during the Red Scare, I think it's a funny little piece of American history. It has exactly nothing, nada, zilch to do with our nation's founding. I always find that amusing. I would prefer it wasn't there, as I think that explicitly mentioning religious beliefs on currency is unnecessary at best. I read the word "We" and I have to ask, who is "we?" It's not the American people as a whole, because "we" don't all believe in "God" or a "god." I think there are bigger issues, but I do find the whole thing annoying. To me, it's a breach of Church and State, but not a huge one and I always get a laugh out of it, so what the hey?

It's been on your coins since the late 1800s and on the bills since the late 50s early 60s.

Just so I don't come off sounding secular than thou... Our national anthem, Constitution (Canada Act) and other federal documents make reference to God as well. Had I couched this discussion under those terms, many of you would have just said, "What? More wacky Canadian stuff?"

We have all of these references and they have little to no bearing on my day to day life, and yet, there they are. I am almost always taken aback when I come across them...

God is fairly abscent from our politics and yet we too were founded by men of God. I refer again, to the stats I mentioned above. That not too long ago Canada and the US were about equal in the per capita number of those who considered themselves religious. Over the past 30 years or so our paths have diverged. There has been an increase in the US mirrored by an equal drop in numbers in Canada.

I find that facsinating.

I personally see nothing wrong with it. I understand Mr. Spacemonkey's point and agree with it-by having these small indicators of religion in and around gov't, you show that there is religious freedom. There's no need to hide your religion. Also, since it's not forced on anyone, it doesn't infringe on rights.

And the "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitiution, btw. All the constitution says is gov't cannot establish a nat'l religion. It doesn't even say anything about favoring one over the other. This is a primarily christian country, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't believe in christianity, that's fine as well. But to ignore the majority on the off-chance someone somewhere might be offended is silly.

Yes, since this was done recently. Fuckin shit people, like it or not, our country was founded by Christians. I'm not saying that everybody should go convert, but goddammit, it's part of our history. Get the hell over it. Does Alabama still want to secede from the Union??? No, but they still fly Dixie in their flag. What is having a couple of words on your money gonna do??? What about the all-seeing eye on the back of our one dollar bill??? It's a symbol of the Illuminati, who want to destroy the Catholic church. I'm sure Catholics would be opposed to that, but nobody gives a shit. The Greeks never tore down any of their temples. It's really not that big of a deal. Give it a break.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.