Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[East of Eden]

Except the Declaration has no force of law.

It explains the thinking of the men who wrote the Constitution.

My nation is not constitutionally secular.

Neither is mine, the Constitution just says Congress can't establish a state church.

Our Head of State, is also titular Defender of the Faith.

God save the Queen!

No, but they are authoritative.

So you admit they can be wrong, as I think there were in the cases we've been discussing.

No, I am not for book banning. You misunderstand. I do not believe that the authority of the public school system should be co-opted by religions

You think it should be co-opted by atheists.

as a means to distribute religious instruction to children. When teacher hands out a Bible to all the students, there is significant peer pressure to accept. If anyone wants a Bible, a Qu'ran, or any other religious book, they can contact a church, temple or mosque. I know of very few who would turn away someone who is seeking empty handed.

Jefferson disagreed with you. It is impossibe to be educated in the Western tradition without some knowledge of the Bible.

Would this be the same Jefferson who produced the Jefferson Bible? From Wiki: The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.

That wasn't the Bible he put in schools, was it? As far as the cutting up, as I said before he was a bit of a flake when it came to religion, and out of the mainstream of the Founders on that subject.

Yes, we have progressed some in over two hundred years.

I don't call apostasy and turning from God progress. Nothing new about that, OT Isreal did it many times, without the modern excuse of 'science'.

No you are not. You are currently a nation with a majority of nominal Christians,

Who greatly outnumber atheists, and BTW, is there such a thing as a nominal atheist?

but there have been Jews, Deists, Unitarians and Agnostics in America since the Revolution.

EXACTLY. Contrary to what the militant secularists say today, there has never been a time when America has been 100% Christian. That didn't stop the Founders from saying things that sound like Jerry Falwell.

I agree. If you are not going to raise a child properly, don't have one. But I think that applies evenly to all parents, not just to mothers.

The problem is with all the illegitimacy, many kids are shortchanged from the start.

How many die from marijuana, an illegal drug classified as Schedule I?

It is a gateway drug, as my son has unfortunately shown.

How many die from alcohol, a legal drug?

My son uses that argument.

Yet you still have significantly and consistently higher murder rates than we do. And ours would be lower still, if our border were not quite so porous to gun trafficking.

You don't have the minority populations we do, or tens of millions of illegals.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyp ... -1.1152838



I came across an interesting passage that I believe relates to the OP:

"I can understand why public Christian theological affirmation might disturb non-Christian or non-theistic citizens. It might confront them with views that they do not agree with. It might require them to tolerate an alien element in public institutions and rituals. Nevertheless, encounter with difference is a normal feature of social life, and tolerance is a classic liberal virtue. So why would it - absent of any restriction of civil or political liberties - offend their dignity as equal citizens?

There can be no such thing as a public order that is morally, anthropologically, and metaphysically neutral. It must commit itself one way or another. Therefore, it is inevitable that some members of any plural society will find themselves in a public order that affirms a world-view that is somewhat different from their own, and feel irritated by it.

Secularist public institutions that refuse to make any theological affirmation need not be intentionally atheistic; yet they are still not neutral. They cannot avoid implying that theological affirmation is unimportant for social health. Many theistic citizens - not least Muslims - will disagree strongly with this implication, and feel somewhat disturbed by the studiously agnostic silence of public space."

Rev'd. Dr. Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford

[Nickman]

What religion is being favored by saying 'God'?

How is mentioning God endorsing Him, as the Declaration did?

First, the Declaration of Ind. is not a binding legal document for our countries laws. It is a declaration to King George that the US was separating from the motherland because of tyranny and abuse.

"In God We Trust" is a statement that encompasses the entire USA. Not everyone supports this claim. It is not a motto for a nation that has a diversity of citizens. It is inappropriate to encompass all of the US into one motto that not everyone agrees upon.

And those rights, according to the Founders, come from God.

Says who? Do you mean the DoI when it says inalienable rights? That does not mean god given rights.

Inalienable rights The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property.

Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival.

Please provide one quote from a Founding Father that claimed that these rights were "god given". Also please show me one instance of the word god in the Constitution and the Amendments. Its not there. The only word thats close is the signature which states; "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." This is a common expression of the time and not an endorsement of god or Jesus.

The citizenship oath mentions God.

The words, "so help me God" are optional.

It shouldn't side with minority atheists on this.

It should side with the Constitution which is what the atheists are trying to get them to do.

Exactly, which is why theists need to stand up on this issue.

Taking the words "in God we trust" off of our money does not violate anyones rights whatsoever. There is nothing that states that it is neccessary to have the words "in god we trust" for the protection of the citizens rights. What this does is cause people who don't believe in god to have to carry around something they don't believe in. What if we put there is no god on the money? Christians would be upset. I don't think this should be allowed. I wouldn't want a Christian to have to walk around with currency that states something they don't believe. It is fair for the government to have a neutral stance on the subject. It is in the best interests of all citizens.

[McCulloch]

My nation is not constitutionally secular.

Neither is mine, the Constitution just says Congress can't establish a state church.

Which nation is that? I re-read the Constitution of the USA and I could find no reference to a state church. However, it does have something to say about not establishing religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Maybe we are reading a different document. The USA was the first nation with a secular constitution. The founders recognized that. The religious leaders of the day recognized that, and some protested it vigorously.

Our Head of State, is also titular Defender of the Faith.

God save the Queen!

I believe that monarchy is obsolete. I think that the only reason we have not abandoned it, is that an elected Governor General would have to have some democratic legitimacy and our parliamentary system might evolve into something more presidential. We're not really big on that idea.

So you admit they [the Supreme Court] can be wrong, as I think there were in the cases we've been discussing.

My point is that if you, who are not a constitutional lawyer, makes the claim that the Court is wrong on some point of constitutional law, the onus is on you to demonstrate your case, perhaps even cite the views of experts in that field to support your case. Until you actually make your case, a reasonable lay person is justified with going with the authoritative justices on the Supreme Court and the vast majority of American Constitutional lawyers.

No, I am not for book banning. You misunderstand. I do not believe that the authority of the public school system should be co-opted by religions

You think it should be co-opted by atheists.

Not at all. Atheism should not be taught in the schools either. On the topic of God, our schools should be strictly neutral. That is the point of secularism. Our governments should neither promote nor prohibit religion.

[Thomas Jefferson] was a bit of a flake when it came to religion, and out of the mainstream of the Founders on that subject.

And yet you wish to cite him in support of your case.

Yes, we have progressed some in over two hundred years.

I don't call apostasy and turning from God progress.

That is one point where we differ. I do call turning away from supernatural explanations towards scientific ones progress. I do call a meaningful discussion of what is best for society without resorting to an ancient text, held to be holy by the priests and prophets, as progress.

You are currently a nation with a majority of nominal Christians,

Who greatly outnumber atheists, and BTW, is there such a thing as a nominal atheist?

Yes, right now the Christians outnumber the atheists. That is not the point. The point is that the American atheists, the American Jews, the American Hindus and yes, the American Muslims are not second class citizens.

I do not think that there is such a thing as a nominal atheist, someone who calls himself an atheist but actually believes in God. There are however, implicit atheists, those who do not live and act as if there is a God, yet have not explicitly rejected the notion of God.

Contrary to what the militant secularists say today, there has never been a time when America has been 100% Christian.

I am unaware of any militant secularist who says that there was a time when America was 100% Christian. Please provide a source.

How many die from marijuana, an illegal drug classified as Schedule I?

It is a gateway drug, as my son has unfortunately shown.

It is a gateway drug because the only way to get it is illegally. If it were regulated like alcohol, marijuana use would not lead anyone to harder drugs any more than tobacco or alcohol does.

How many die from alcohol, a legal drug?

My son uses that argument.

Is that an ad hominem argument? Your son uses it, therefore it must not be valid.

I came across an interesting passage that I believe relates to the OP:

"I can understand why public Christian theological affirmation might disturb non-Christian or non-theistic citizens. It might confront them with views that they do not agree with. It might require them to tolerate an alien element in public institutions and rituals. Nevertheless, encounter with difference is a normal feature of social life, and tolerance is a classic liberal virtue. So why would it - absent of any restriction of civil or political liberties - offend their dignity as equal citizens?

There can be no such thing as a public order that is morally, anthropologically, and metaphysically neutral. It must commit itself one way or another. Therefore, it is inevitable that some members of any plural society will find themselves in a public order that affirms a world-view that is somewhat different from their own, and feel irritated by it.

Secularist public institutions that refuse to make any theological affirmation need not be intentionally atheistic; yet they are still not neutral. They cannot avoid implying that theological affirmation is unimportant for social health. Many theistic citizens - not least Muslims - will disagree strongly with this implication, and feel somewhat disturbed by the studiously agnostic silence of public space."

Rev'd. Dr. Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford

We should have religion in the public space. However, we should not have religion supported by our governments. But neither should our governments be atheistic.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 163:

...mine fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

...
Any intentional mind-altering substance is a sin, just as drunkenness.
...

I challenge you to show a god considers such to be a "sin".

1st challenge.

>snip<

2nd challenge.

3rd challenge.

4th challenge.

And this from one who declares atheists have no basis for morality.

It is my contention these claims are utter rubbish, and that the claimant lacks the moral basis to admit to such.

Why even have a rule 5 if some are immune to it?

I will continue to challenge these claims on a daily basis until the claimant fesses up, or the mods tell my I'm no longer allowed to challenge claims.

It is my firm conviction this claimant is entirely incapable of showing he speaks truth. I propose that by repeatedly challenging these claims the observer will see the claimant will avoid any challenge that goes against his deeply held beliefs.

Will the claimant continue to receive a supernatural immunity to rule 5?

[East of Eden]

From Post 163:

...mine fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

...
Any intentional mind-altering substance is a sin, just as drunkenness.
...

I challenge you to show a god considers such to be a "sin".

1st challenge.

>snip<

2nd challenge.

3rd challenge.

4th challenge.

And this from one who declares atheists have no basis for morality.

It is my contention these claims are utter rubbish, and that the claimant lacks the moral basis to admit to such.

Why even have a rule 5 if some are immune to it?

I will continue to challenge these claims on a daily basis until the claimant fesses up, or the mods tell my I'm no longer allowed to challenge claims.

It is my firm conviction this claimant is entirely incapable of showing he speaks truth. I propose that by repeatedly challenging these claims the observer will see the claimant will avoid any challenge that goes against his deeply held beliefs.

Will the claimant continue to receive a supernatural immunity to rule 5?

You might want to read rule 5, you know where it says opinions require no proof. Meanwhile, can you let the rest of us discuss the OP? Your game where proof for the existence of God is asked for every time I mention him gets tiresome. I will also remind you it is up to the mods, not you, to deal with alleged violations.

[East of Eden]

What religion is being favored by saying 'God'?

How is mentioning God endorsing Him, as the Declaration did?

First, the Declaration of Ind. is not a binding legal document for our countries laws. It is a declaration to King George that the US was separating from the motherland because of tyranny and abuse.

As I've said before here, the Declaration is the 'why' document, the Constitution is the 'how' document.

"In God We Trust" is a statement that encompasses the entire USA. Not everyone supports this claim. It is not a motto for a nation that has a diversity of citizens. It is inappropriate to encompass all of the US into one motto that not everyone agrees upon.

Nonsense, non-believers have no more right to be offended than I do because Obama won. There has NEVER been a time when everyone in the US believed in that motto, so exactly what is different now other than the emergence of a bunch of militant secularists?

Says who? Do you mean the DoI when it says inalienable rights? That does not mean god given rights.

What exactly do you think 'We are endowed by our Creator' with these rights means?

Please provide one quote from a Founding Father that claimed that these rights were "god given".

See above.

Also please show me one instance of the word god in the Constitution and the Amendments.

Straw man, I never said it was there.

The words, "so help me God" are optional.

So is your believing 'In God We Trust'.

It should side with the Constitution which is what the atheists are trying to get them to do.

We disagree.

Taking the words "in God we trust" off of our money does not violate anyones rights whatsoever. There is nothing that states that it is neccessary to have the words "in god we trust" for the protection of the citizens rights. What this does is cause people who don't believe in god to have to carry around something they don't believe in. What if we put there is no god on the money? Christians would be upset. I don't think this should be allowed. I wouldn't want a Christian to have to walk around with currency that states something they don't believe. It is fair for the government to have a neutral stance on the subject. It is in the best interests of all citizens.

Baloney, the vast majority of Americans disagree with you on this, so you just have to deal with it, just like I have to deal with Obama.

[East of Eden]

My nation is not constitutionally secular.

Neither is mine, the Constitution just says Congress can't establish a state church.

Which nation is that? I re-read the Constitution of the USA and I could find no reference to a state church. However, it does have something to say about not establishing religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Maybe we are reading a different document. The USA was the first nation with a secular constitution. The founders recognized that. The religious leaders of the day recognized that, and some protested it vigorously.

I will again quote Joseph Story:

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

In other words, no state church.

My point is that if you, who are not a constitutional lawyer, makes the claim that the Court is wrong on some point of constitutional law, the onus is on you to demonstrate your case, perhaps even cite the views of experts in that field to support your case. Until you actually make your case, a reasonable lay person is justified with going with the authoritative justices on the Supreme Court and the vast majority of American Constitutional lawyers.

I agree with Justice Potter Stewart on the school prayer case:
"It led not to true neutrality with respect to religion, but to the establishment of a religion of secularism."

By your reasoning a lay person could not disagree with Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.

And yet you wish to cite him in support of your case.

Only to support my point that your views are more extreme than Jefferson's, himself out of the mainstream of the Founders.

That is one point where we differ. I do call turning away from supernatural explanations towards scientific ones progress. I do call a meaningful discussion of what is best for society without resorting to an ancient text, held to be holy by the priests and prophets, as progress.

Millions of Christians disagree with you, and they have just as much right to exercise their faith and inform public policy as anyone. You seem to think science will save us, yet the last century was probably the bloodiest one in human history.

Yes, right now the Christians outnumber the atheists. That is not the point. The point is that the American atheists, the American Jews, the American Hindus and yes, the American Muslims are not second class citizens.

'In God We Trust' would not offend the last three groups, in fact it is not they, but militant secularists making all the noise about what is really a non-issue. Here is a prominent British Muslim complaining about aggressive secularism:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831

I do not think that there is such a thing as a nominal atheist, someone who calls himself an atheist but actually believes in God. There are however, implicit atheists, those who do not live and act as if there is a God, yet have not explicitly rejected the notion of God.

That would be a nominal atheist then. There are lots of them, people raised with no religious education for whom non-belief is the default position. If you never taught kids math they would similarly be bad at math.

I am unaware of any militant secularist who says that there was a time when America was 100% Christian. Please provide a source.

Their implication is that things are somehow different today in that area. Yes, we have more immigrants today but most of them are Christian also.

It is a gateway drug because the only way to get it is illegally. If it were regulated like alcohol, marijuana use would not lead anyone to harder drugs any more than tobacco or alcohol does.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Yal ... 805532.php

Is that an ad hominem argument? Your son uses it, therefore it must not be valid.

What is your point, you want to make alcohol illegal?

We should have religion in the public space. However, we should not have religion supported by our governments. But neither should our governments be atheistic.

The purging of religion is de facto atheism, and in no way mandated by the US Constitution.

[PhiloKGB]

The purging of religion is de facto atheism, and in no way mandated by the US Constitution.

The debate hinges here. If you insist that the only two options are establishment-of-religion and establishment-of-atheism, you are wrong. And if you continue to be wrong in this manner, no amount of arguing lesser points will matter.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 205:

You might want to read rule 5, you know where it says opinions require no proof.

Dude, that's all I ask of ya is that ya clarify. I respect your political opinions - and find myself in agreement with 'em here and there.

But yet again we see that you can't show you speak truth, only that you have an opinion, and you're somewhat sheepishly proud of it.

Meanwhile, can you let the rest of us discuss the OP?

I've come to expect that challenging the claims of a Christian induces the quality of "stopping debate". I dare say, if you'd just fess up to begin with, we wouldn't even come close to it.

Beyond that, I'd dare say that having to repeat a challenge up to where I risk running out of fingers should be a sound indication to the observer that the one making the claims ain't got it so right as he may propose or imply.

Your game where proof for the existence of God is asked for every time I mention him gets tiresome.

By the feathers of a bull, I never asked anything of the sort, and I dare say you oughta know that by now.

But for those who haven't had it for the umpteenth time...

I made a promise to the mods that I wouldn't, at risk to my own credibility, be so thorough in my analysis as to dare challenge folks to show the god they speak of exists. In doing so, I see nothing that says I can't, nor shouldn't, challenge those who claim to speak on this god's behalf. I did it, I ain't proud of it, but I felt it more important to be able to continue to challenge the claims of theists than to get booted off the site for challenging the claims of theists - and don't that beat all.

I feel not the least bit responsible for your failure to support your claims beyond you're real proud for having claimed 'em.

I will also remind you it is up to the mods, not you, to deal with alleged violations.

Mine is an effort to assist the observer who may struggle to know who speaks honorably and who don't, and where's the truth and where it ain't, and I don't much fret if it upsets the claimant, the Pope, or the mods when I do.

Except for that whole "It ain't fair that you'd ask me to show a god exists, when all I'm a-doin' is declaring I know his properties, but don't it beat all, I can't point to him to show I do know his properties".


You've got a brilliant political mind. Brilliant, I say. And that ain't a bit an effort to butter your biscuits. I just struggle to understand why you may seem so reticent to admit when you offer opinion, where folks such as myself may take your words to be more literal, or perhaps presented in some other form than opinion. You hold the key to silencing me. I'm just flumoxed as to why you must be repeatedly challenged before you'll just fess up and say a given opinion is just opinion.

You're far too intelligent to employ the tactic of dismissal.

Far too.

I present pretty much any of your previous political arguments as evidence in this regard - whether I agree with 'em or not.

[Nickman]

As I've said before here, the Declaration is the 'why' document, the Constitution is the 'how' document.

Doesn't matter. It is not a binding document and has no bearing on the people.

Nonsense, non-believers have no more right to be offended than I do because Obama won. There has NEVER been a time when everyone in the US believed in that motto, so exactly what is different now other than the emergence of a bunch of militant secularists?

People are starting to get a voice now and are bringing up the issue. Regardless if people were hush about it in the past does not change the unconstitutional aspect of this motto on our money.

What exactly do you think 'We are endowed by our Creator' with these rights means?

Creator is not synonymous with god. It can be but this is exactly why they didn't use the term god. They were not preaching an absolute deity.

So is your believing 'In God We Trust'.

It is not optional to have currency that has this motto if you reside in the US.

We disagree.

So you are for that which is unconstitutional?

Baloney, the vast majority of Americans disagree with you on this, so you just have to deal with it, just like I have to deal with Obama.

Would taking the motto off of the dollar change the way you spend it? Would it violate your rights? As I said, I wouldn't want the words "there is no god" on the dollar either because it is representing a position that the government has no right to represent. The government represents the people not a deity. This can be concidered endorsement and advertisement which the government is not allowed to do. If the dollar said "we love cheese" would you have a problem? The theists should be concerned with the constitution. They should be just as adamant to have this motto removed if they truely cared about abiding by the constitution. This shows their preference for their beliefs over following the constitution.