References to God by our governments on money

[McCulloch]

A Christian acquaintance of mine agrees with me that our governments should not be making reference to God, printed on our money, in oaths of allegiance, in our constitutions or anywhere else. Her argument is based on the third commandment (second if you are Roman Catholic or Lutheran).

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Many atheists, agnostics and non-theists, use the money and swear the oaths. In the case of the oaths, sometimes alternatives are provided, but it is a crime to deface the money. Thus, those who advocate printing references to God on the money are encouraging non-believers to take God's name in vain.

Is this a compelling argument? Should those who value and respect the name of their God be on the forefront of the political efforts to stop the secular use of their god's name?

[Clownboat]

A Christian acquaintance of mine agrees with me that our governments should not be making reference to God, printed on our money, in oaths of allegiance, in our constitutions or anywhere else. Her argument is based on the third commandment (second if you are Roman Catholic or Lutheran).

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Many atheists, agnostics and non-theists, use the money and swear the oaths. In the case of the oaths, sometimes alternatives are provided, but it is a crime to deface the money. Thus, those who advocate printing references to God on the money are encouraging non-believers to take God's name in vain.

Is this a compelling argument? Should those who value and respect the name of their God be on the forefront of the political efforts to stop the secular use of their god's name?

Interesting thought.
I am having a hard time understanding how having "In (a) God we trust" on currency is akin to taking the Lords name in vain though. Can you elaborate, or is just the fact that a secular organization (government) is doing it that would make it "in vain"?

[McCulloch]

Interesting thought.
I am having a hard time understanding how having "In (a) God we trust" on currency is akin to taking the Lords name in vain though. Can you elaborate, or is just the fact that a secular organization (government) is doing it that would make it "in vain"?

I do not believe in your particular deity. Yet, when in the US, I must use as a medium of exchange, either bills or coins which proclaim that we trust in God. Since I don't, that reference to God, in my case, is vain, pointless, futile, fruitless, ineffectual.

It makes no difference that the organization is secular (the US government) or nominally religious (the UK government, which proclaims on its money that the monarch reigns By the Grace of God, Latin Dei Gratia, abbreviated D.G.).

Now, I don't particularly care if the name of your God is taken in vain, although out of respect, I endeavor not to. But, I would think that those who believe in the God and in His commandments should care.

If the Saudis put All�hu Akbar on their currency (I don't know if they do or if they don't), I would expect that they might be upset that infidels might handle that holy phrase and debase it.

[Miles]

Interesting thought.
I am having a hard time understanding how having "In (a) God we trust" on currency is akin to taking the Lords name in vain though. Can you elaborate, or is just the fact that a secular organization (government) is doing it that would make it "in vain"?

I too think this is a weak argument.

• Idiom
  6.in vain,
  a.without effect or avail; to no purpose: to apologize in vain.
  b.in an improper or irreverent manner: to take God's name in vain.

Now, whether or not this is improper or irreverent would seem to be a subjective judgment that's up to god-believers of all stripes to decide.

I prefer to eliminate all religious reference simply on the basis that they're religious, and as such have no place on anything to do with the government.

[Atlantius]

Any government by the people should remove religious statements from money if it claims to allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The government does not get these rights, the citizens do. It'd be OK if everyone shared the same belief, but there are nonbelievers and even followers of other religions, who I imagine are the most offended.

I was not aware that it was a crime to mark on money, I've seen it several times. Jesus money, Humanist money, peace symbol money... even one bill covered in the signatures of the people it passed through.

You make a good point that Christians as well can take offense when a secular government uses your beliefs and plasters them as political bait for atheists. The only group who would support 'in God we trust' are Christians who have serious religious imperialism going on, or those nostalgic to the less varied religious scene of the 1700s. For Christians influence in government is something that can be used against their faith, and it's offensive if not at least untrue for everyone else. No one wins.