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.

[Boots]

It seems to me school violence is much worse since we stopped school prayer.

What data do you have to support that "seems," and what evidence is there that the data you have shows the "seems" to be causal rather than casual?

[East of Eden]

It seems to me school violence is much worse since we stopped school prayer.

What data do you have to support that "seems," and what evidence is there that the data you have shows the "seems" to be causal rather than casual?

Why would it be otherwise, just about every crime category is worse today than in 1960.

[STLSkeptic]

I wonder, on this subject of "In God We Trust" "Under God" and "So help me God" and the placement of the Ten Commandments on public property along with other things such as crosses and etc, has it been discussed yet, as I have not seen it, about how having "In God We Trust" on the currency and the other uses of religious symbols if they have considered this.

The use of such monuments and phrases seem to clearly violate the 2nd and 3rd Commandments which call for the death of those that would use the items in vain use and place such monuments as craved images as worship and reverence above that of their God.

When one considers that cash is used to participate in every order of what the religious adherents would call acts immoral such as drugs, sex, corruption, vice, murder, bribery, and the list goes on. Why are not the religious adherents the ones pushing the hardest to have the name of their sacred deity removed from such activities.



In the 57 years that the motto has been on the currency and since the Civil War on the coinage I have never heard where the engraved image of this phrase has ever resulted in anyone behavior being modified or enlightened.

But even more so than the lack of evidence for the national motto to affect and change the Federal Courts of the United States have ruled, clearly that the use of "God.s" name is simply meaningless and represents no religious nature whatsoever.

From the case Aronow v. United States

...It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

So, my question is this, why are not the religious adherents fighting against the vain use of their God's name for what easily concluded nefarious reasons?

Not to mention that it was at the urging of "The Knights of Columbus" a Catholic organization that placed these two phrase in the public arena.

Why would the Protestant adherents want to have the will of a Catholic organization inflicted upon their life? [/quote]

[Wyvern]

When the authorities are leading and promoting prayer that is a form of coercion, why is it you think its such a bad thing to allow everyone to pray or not pray as they wish? Realistically what do you think would happen to a child that does not wish to pray or is of a different religion in a school where praying is promoted by the school leaders? Do you think they would join in just to fit in even though it's against their own beliefs or the other option is they would not join in and the other children would persecute them? We are trying to limit violence in schools this would just create more.

It seems to me school violence is much worse since we stopped school prayer. As far as forcing someone to do something they don't believe, the left seems to have no problem with forced unionization for workers and the mandatory collection of dues that go to political causes they morally object to.

Really, have any data to support how things seem to you? What connection does your rant about unions have to do with the first amendment and specifically the forced prayer in schools? Or is this just another of your unending jabs at your political rivals whom you continually try to villify.

Considering they have also had other religions come in to say prayers as well why would you say they are promoting christianity?

I don't say they are promoting Christianity, you do.

Really? Care to point out where I have ever said such a thing? Now coming up with a strawman argument are you now.

Although it should be noted every time anyone other than a christian is brought in to say a prayer it is the christians that usually raise a stink about it. As I would think someone as into politics as you should know it is not required to put your hand on a bible. When Ellison was sworn in he put his hand on a koran since he is muslim and yes I remember reading how many christians raised a stink about that too.

Which has nothing to do with me. I don't care if Ellison puts his hand on a Koran, and I wouldn't care if someone didn't want to be sworn in on any religious book. Most in the US would want to do this, but it is simply tradition. Someone who violated that oath would be prosecuted whether or not they were sworn in on a Bible or not.

So why did you bring up this issue at all in the first place?

Lol you've known me this long and you still make such a basic mistake as this. Are you actually going to sit there and say christians have not been skewing biblical interpretations for centuries? How do you explain the literally thousands of different christian sects? I always enjoy how instead of replying to the post you take the opportunity to make this a personal attack. Why do you keep doing this to me in particular and why is it you have never apologised for your unwarranted attacks?

There weren't any unwarranted attacks, and I'd like to know how it is a personal attack to note you aren't a Christian? Are you? Most of the disagreements in the Christian world are on secondary issues, there are very few on the essentials of the faith, as expresssed in the creeds for instance. If there is true disagreement the place to go to correct it is the Bible, not a non-Christian.

Look at my user groups, do you see atheist as one of them? Do you see non-christian there? I was born Catholic and have never renounced that faith. Your attacks are personal and unwarranted because firstly you brought me into the issue which makes it personal and it is unwarranted because you had no reason to assume I am a non-christian. In what way is my faith in any case relevant to whether the various christian sects each make different skewed interpretations of the bible? Are you trying to say only a fellow Christian can possibly see that the literally thousands of sects within the faith are due to skewed interpretations of the Bible? Why is it you keep making these attacks on me and never once have apologized for any of them? What next, are you going to call me out as a witch? The disagreements all hinge on different skewed interpretations of various sections of the bible. How can the Bible be used as the final arbiter of truth in Christianity when there is no final arbiter for interpreting the Bible.

[PhiloKGB]

Why would it be otherwise, just about every crime category is worse today than in 1960.

Citation needed.

FYI, I'm going to ask for references for this claim once a day until provided.

[Edit]
Looking at the raw data, I'm going to withdraw this request, with the note that, although rates of reporting have apparently confounded any meaningful interpretation of the increase in rapes and assaults, the murder rate has gone down.

[PhiloKGB]

Why would Christians need or want skewed biblical interpretations from those who have rejected Jesus Christ?

I've no problem using your own interpretation. Now, please explain how Congress' showboating is in any way consistent with Jesus' instructions on praying.

[STLSkeptic]

I have seen on this forum and in many other discussion places about "The reason that violence has increased in schools is because prayer was taken out."

But several years prior to that in 1954 and 1957 "under God" and "In God We Trust" have been added to the public discourse which is in clear violation of the Second and Third Commandments. The penalty for this is that "God" would not hold those blameless those that violate such Commandments.

So using the exact same logic and reasoning, one can conclude that the reason school prayer and "God" was taken out id because the religious adherents have been taking the name of their God in vain. To be honest, if one is to compare the time frames, the incidents of violence since school led prayer was rule unconstitutional have occurred much later than the governmental actions of "under God" and "In God We Trust" adopted by the government.

So, every time a comment is made about how school violence has increased due to prayer being removed, it is just as valid to say violence has increase once the USA started taking the "Lord's" name in vain.

Or to explain this more clear using the appropriate logical fallacy.

Confusing association with causation
This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.

This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.

Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation� logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x�, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.

What are some thoughts about this point?

[East of Eden]

Why would it be otherwise, just about every crime category is worse today than in 1960.

Citation needed.

FYI, I'm going to ask for references for this claim once a day until provided.

[Edit]
Looking at the raw data, I'm going to withdraw this request, with the note that, although rates of reporting have apparently confounded any meaningful interpretation of the increase in rapes and assaults, the murder rate has gone down.

Thank you, yes murder is the only category that has not increased.

[Untraveled Trail]

Removing "In God We Trust" from our currency would be just another step down a trail we really should not be traveling. It would be another sign of our rejecting God, a slap to the face of the Almighty. Taking God out of schools, allowing abortion, women in the workplace, and the thought that soon we may decriminalize marijuana as well as allow same sex marriage!!! We are hastening our own destruction as God sits in heaven shaking his head at us... we may soon provoke his anger and may feel his wrath like we did on September 11. These freedoms we have were given directly from the hand of God and flaunting our sinfulness and turning our back on God will have consequences like the downfall of America! As George Bush so eloquently put it, "terrorists hate our freedom" and I think from that we can extrapolate that since the freedom comes from God that they hate God too. If we want to continue to be the beacon of hope and freedom around the world that makes everyone jealous and want to live here, we need to keep God happy and retain "In God We Trust" on our money.

[McCulloch]

Removing "In God We Trust" from our currency would be just another step down a trail we really should not be traveling. It would be another sign of our rejecting God, a slap to the face of the Almighty.

Was He offended when you left Him out of your Constitution? When you did not think to add this reference to your paper money until 1957?

Taking God out of schools,

Your constitution keeps religious instruction out of the publicly funded schools.

women in the workplace,

Yes, I know. The man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of the Church. Thanks for that!

and the thought that soon we may decriminalize marijuana

What does the criminal status of a mild drug, less addictive than alcohol and less deadly than tobacco, have to do with God?

as well as allow same sex marriage!!!

In Canada, we allow same-sex marriage. God is not demonstrating His wrath upon us.

We are hastening our own destruction as God sits in heaven shaking his head at us... we may soon provoke his anger and may feel his wrath like we did on September 11.

Some lunatic believers in the same God as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, decide to fly large airplanes into buildings and you think that it is God's wrath on your nation for some kind of wrongdoing you permit?

These freedoms we have were given directly from the hand of God and flaunting our sinfulness and turning our back on God will have consequences like the downfall of America! As George Bush so eloquently put it, "terrorists hate our freedom" and I think from that we can extrapolate that since the freedom comes from God that they hate God too.

America allowed the sin of slavery and for almost a century God did nothing. God did not grant the freedoms found in America; the American people stood up and claimed them for themselves. George Bush did not eloquently put anything. I have more freedom ignoring the shrill voices of those who claim to speak for God than I had before I was an unbeliever. Your founders seem to agree. They left God out of the legislative process.

If we want to continue to be the beacon of hope and freedom around the world that makes everyone jealous and want to live here, we need to keep God happy and retain "In God We Trust" on our money.

Um. No. You cannot make God happy. Potential immigrants are not swarming to get in because of a phrase on the money. Really!

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "[...] 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. [...] These acts of ceremonial deism are protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." You do remember what the Jesus of Nazareth said about rote repetition without any significant religious content?