Should we take "In God We Trust" off the dollar bill?

[Dave Ellis]

and what problem would that be?
are you now saying atheism is a religion?

No, Atheism is not a religion, it's just that not all people believe in a creator either.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It was on coins all the back to the mid 1800's. It was in due reverence to the Revolutionary War when citizens were outright declaring a trust in God because we came close to losing.
Even the expansion thereafter was deemed 'Manifest Destiny'. God was front and center of the entire rising and growth of the country.

People who are bent up about such things just shows their lack of depth. And their moral priorities as well. Having 'In God We Trust' on money is an inconsequential thing in a world of real issues, and they have the nerve to want to call it unconstitutional or forcing something upon them. From an outer perspective, that is just plain stupid.

From an outer perspective, it's a clear government endorsement of theism. That is unconstitutional.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

From an outer perspective, it's a clear government endorsement of theism. That is unconstitutional.

But it's not unconstitutional to endorse theism, it's unconstitutional to endorse a religion. And even that isn't in the original Constitution, that's not the type of attitude the Founding Fathers intended.

What you don't realize is that atheists got their past victories off of technicalities- you all really shouldn't have been granted those things, but the laughably over sensitive nature of an elite, pampered society demanded it.
Pushing it further is even more absurd, and that is why nobody has or will actually petition what you call unconstitutional. If they could, they would. God knows the onslaught of the Left on religion won't stop at an inanimate portrait of Jesus on a wall. What's next, cross symbols on nutrition facts?

 

[Dave Ellis]

But it's not unconstitutional to endorse theism, it's unconstitutional to endorse a religion. And even that isn't in the original Constitution, that's not the type of attitude the Founding Fathers intended.

The supreme court disagrees with you, there have been multiple cases regarding school boards and other public or governmental functions where theism is regarded as religious practice.

And what are you referring to in regards to it not being in the "original" constitution? Are you referring to the fact it was an amendment? If so, you do realize the constitution was ratified in 1789, and the bill of rights was added on in 1791, and approved by basically the same people who wrote and approved the constitution.

What you don't realize is that atheists got their past victories off of technicalities- you all really shouldn't have been granted those things, but the laughably over sensitive nature of an elite, pampered society demanded it. Pushing it further is even more absurd, and that is why nobody has or will actually petition what you call unconstitutional. If they could, they would. God knows the onslaught of the Left on religion won't stop at an inanimate portrait of Jesus on a wall. What's next, cross symbols on nutrition facts?

No, we got our victories based on the letter of the law.

We don't care if there's a portrait of Jesus on the wall, unless that portrait is in a school or other publicly funded institution. Likewise, if someone wanted to put a sign saying "in god we trust" on the wall in their private business, or print it on coupons, that's perfectly ok... but on the money it is inappropriate.

Public vs Private is the distinction you are failing to grasp. Private citizens can speak out or worship however they wish. Publically funded institutions on the other hand must be neutral in regards to religion.

 

[whois]

No, Atheism is not a religion, it's just that not all people believe in a creator either.

so?
what's the complaint here?
if your complaint isn't religiously motivated, then what is it?
you know, who really cares whether you believe in a creator or not.
regardless of what you, and others here, may think, it was not the intentions of our founding fathers to eradicate god.
their intentions was to ensure religious freedom, the freedom to worship any religion you choose to.
"you believing in god" is completely irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Dave Ellis]

so?
what's the complaint here?
if your complaint isn't religiously motivated, then what is it?
you know, who really cares whether you believe in a creator or not.
regardless of what you, and others here, may think, it was not the intentions of our founding fathers to eradicate god.
their intentions was to ensure religious freedom, the freedom to worship any religion you choose to.
"you believing in god" is completely irrelevant to the issue.

It is religiously motivated however, as you're just changing the word used from "god" to "creator". The intent is still the same.

And I'm not, nor have I ever advocated eradicating god. Likewise, I am fully in favour of religious freedom... however true religious freedom is only achieved through religious neutrality on the part of the government. Those who support the government endorsing one religious view over another are not in favour of religious freedom.

 

[whois]

Likewise, I am fully in favour of religious freedom... however true religious freedom is only achieved through religious neutrality on the part of the government. Those who support the government endorsing one religious view over another are not in favour of religious freedom.

that's why the word god needs to be changed to creator.
"god" can been seen as endorsing christianity, "creator" is religiously neutral.
there is no need whatsoever to completely remove the phrase.
like i said, no compromise?
do you honestly like the idea of a godless country?
are you the party pooper at christmas time with your godless nonsense?

 

[Skavau]

that's why the word god needs to be changed to creator.
"god" can been seen as endorsing christianity, "creator" is religiously neutral.
there is no need whatsoever to completely remove the phrase.
like i said, no compromise?
do you honestly like the idea of a godless country?
are you the party pooper at christmas time with your godless nonsense?

Why is it necessary to have "In God/Creator we trust" on currency exactly?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That's an interesting question. I would want to know how God himself feels about it. For example, the nation of Israel back in the Old Testament days was known for turning its back on God. God was not happy with their rejection of him, and he pleaded with them to turn back to him and honor him. So today, if we have "In God we trust" on our money, we are in some way honoring him or publicly recognizing him as God. According to Wikipedia, it is the official motto of the U.S. Back in 1956 when the U.S. started printing it on our money, the general population was in agreement, so this would be a way of honoring God by the whole country. The Bible teaches that those who honor God will be honored by him in return, and we could expect national blessings by honoring him, just like he promised to give national blessings to Israel if they would turn back to him. One cannot deny that over the years the U.S. has received blessings like no other nation. Of course, just having “In God We Trust” on our documents and money does not mean that we are completely at one with God, but it should be an indication that as a nation, we desire to be. Unfortunately, we probably aren’t as much so today as we were in 1956.

At any rate, when you ask, can we remove this quote from our money or documents?, we would in effect be saying that we are no longer honoring God if we did so. The Bible teaches that when we turn our back on him, he will leave off his interest in us and his blessing too. So I would say that, from God's point of view, it would be a very foolish thing for us to do - to remove our declaration of trust in him. It would not be a wise thing to do, especially after having already made that public commitment to him and about him back in our history. The U. S. would be making a mistake to do that. Our God is a loving and kind God who honors those who honor him. This is the path the U.S. has been on for most of its history. It could prove detrimental to us to reverse course. We should continue to put our trust in him without fear of some people's opinion, and to make room for that trust to grow deeper in us as a people as time moves along.

Can you give any constitutional reasons why this should be?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

But it's not unconstitutional to endorse theism, it's unconstitutional to endorse a religion.

Then it equally would not be unconstitutional to endorse atheism since that is also not a specific religion. All's we need now is the numbers to vote against you and the phrase is almost guaranteed to come down. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Rev Wayne]

that's why the word god needs to be changed to creator.
"god" can been seen as endorsing christianity, "creator" is religiously neutral.

Not true. "God" is simply the anglicized form of a non-specific term for deity, as as may be noted from other religions and languages. For example:
Deus--Latin
Theos--Greek
Allah--Arabic
Latin still had a "generic" word despite the many named Roman gods; Greek still had a "generic" despite the many Greek gods; "Allah" and the Old Testament god "El" have common root origins from other languages. Arabic Christians use "allah al-ab" for God the Father, "allah al-ibn" for God the Son, and "allah al-ruh al-quds" for God the Holy Spirit.

Trading in "god" for "creator" gains nothing one way or the other. Just as religions and languages share a generic word for "god," likewise one of the most "generic" attributes of god in any language or religion is creator.

 

[Dave Ellis]

that's why the word god needs to be changed to creator.
"god" can been seen as endorsing christianity, "creator" is religiously neutral.
there is no need whatsoever to completely remove the phrase.
like i said, no compromise?
do you honestly like the idea of a godless country?
are you the party pooper at christmas time with your godless nonsense?

Except creator is not religiously neutral, Deists often use the term creator to describe god. It's a loaded phrase.

And no, I don't compromise over clear violations of the separation of church and state.

And I'm not advocating for a godless country, when did I say that? I am advocating for a secular country, one where all religious viewpoints have equal weight under the government.

People who believe in a god have every right to worship, acknowledge or do whatever they want to for their religion (provided it doesn't break the law). They don't have the right to special privilege though, that's where this issue stands.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Then it equally would not be unconstitutional to endorse atheism since that is also not a specific religion. All's we need now is the numbers to vote against you and the phrase is almost guaranteed to come down. It's just a matter of time.

Good luck with that. What progressives have accomplished has always ultimately been through scrutinizing and reinterpreting constitutional law. If they have to do it the fair and manly way- through democracy- than they have their work cut for them. This country is very theistic, and no patriot is going to have it either.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Good luck with that. What progressives have accomplished has always ultimately been through scrutinizing and reinterpreting constitutional law.

So sneaky of them to even go so far as to convince federal judges to their side. How'd ya figure they pull that one off?... Inception?

Face it. Your side has only gotten by with numbers, not with arguments. That is why the dominoes of the tacit Christian theocracy (because no one is bold enough to just admit that's what they want) are continuing to fall. One by one.

If they have to do it the fair and manly way- through democracy-

Adorable. You say that as if being a woman is a bad thing.
As if democracy isn't something women could ever resort to.

Even still, we are a constitutional republic. We refer to a constitution, not the whims of the majority, like your side constantly has to rely on.

than they have their work cut for them. This country is very theistic, and no patriot is going to have it either.

I consider myself quite the patriot. That's why I'm fighting to defend the secular tradition of my country from God fearing theocrats who wish to take over my country and turn it into something it isn't.

It's no fun being on the receiving end of that argument, is it?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Even still, we are a constitutional republic. We refer to a constitution, not the whims of the majority, like your side constantly has to rely on.

We have democracy, the Constitution is not some magical device you can turn to whenever you don't get your way with something. And you all are going to be learning that very soon.

I consider myself quite the patriot. That's why I'm fighting to defend the secular tradition of my country from God fearing theocrats who wish to take over my country and turn it into something it isn't.

Yeah, how persecuted you are and what a theocracy we are in for having 'In God We Trust' on a dollar bill.
It's not surprising coming from people who would complain about crosses on nutrition facts if it were ever brought up.

You aren't defending 'secular tradition', you are just assaulting 'actual tradition'. The Declaration of Independence refers to the Creator as the source of our rights and separation from tyranny.

It seems to me like progressivism is just the bastardization of American virtue. To call that patriotism is absurd.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

We have democracy,

Really? Where does it say that?

the Constitution is not some magical device you can turn to whenever you don't get your way with something.

You're right about one thing. It's not a magical device, it's a legal one. And obviously, any objection any atheist (or anyone else) brings to a court must be heard and ruled upon by a judge. Funny you leave that part out. How do you think it is that those judges seem to rule in favor of the atheists when things like this come up and not the other way around? More constitutional magic?

And you all are going to be learning that very soon.

meh. You never back up your words so your threats mean very little to me as of lately.

Yeah, how persecuted you are and what a theocracy we are in for having 'In God We Trust' on a dollar bill.

Only by the efforts of good Americans have Christians not advanced their theocratic agenda any further than it already is. Only by the foresight of the founders do we avoid tyranny from your majority. Thank God for secularism!

You aren't defending 'secular tradition', you are just assaulting 'actual tradition'.

Just stop man. You don't know anything about me.

I'd appreciate if you could stop making assumptions about my character without personally knowing me.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Really? Where does it say that?

America is a democratic republic. You're trying to reinterpret that to, just like the Constitution

You're right about one thing. It's not a magical device, it's a legal one. And obviously, any objection any atheist (or anyone else) brings to a court must be heard and ruled upon by a judge. Funny you leave that part out. How do you think it is that those judges seem to rule in favor of the atheists when things like this come up and not the other way around? More constitutional magic?

You all haven't won much. Why don't you go look at a list of your victories, it's not exactly a revolution. And if you paid attention, the Justices did not like it at all because of how it all went on complete technicality. You all took the Lemon Test and made it a freaking atheist canon where every syllable demands instruction.

All you all are doing is making trouble for theists. It has nothing to do with secularism or religious freedom. How you all even survive day to day life with that sort of complex is beyond me. Unless of course it's all just bogus nonsense..

 

[whois]

And no, I don't compromise over clear violations of the separation of church and state.

2 things:
how is this a "clear violation" over the separation of church and state, and where in the constitution as originaly written does it even imply such a separation?
our founding fathers never intended such a thing.
they intended a country where any religion could be openly practiced without persecution.
and it certainly seems you are trying your best to subtly persecute.

And I'm not advocating for a godless country, when did I say that?

then why are you going absolutely off the wall bonkers over a phrase that most americans don't mind?
do you also go this crazy when you go past a church and see a nativity scene sitting on its lawn?

I am advocating for a secular country, one where all religious viewpoints have equal weight under the government.

advocating would certainly seem like a correct choice of wording.
unfortunately the overwhelming majority of americans, and the world, believes they are more than what physical laws can account for.

People who believe in a god have every right to worship, acknowledge or do whatever they want to for their religion (provided it doesn't break the law). They don't have the right to special privilege though, that's where this issue stands.

but it's okay for you to have privilege.

the only problem i see with the phrase is the use of the word god.
a simple one word change in the phrase would be sufficient to bring it within the the law.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I have not seen anything like “In God we trust” on the money of Jamaica, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, The United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Guatemala, The Dominican Republic, Yugoslavia or Cambodia. It spent just fine without it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

2 things:
how is this a "clear violation" over the separation of church and state, and where in the constitution as originaly written does it even imply such a separation?
our founding fathers never intended such a thing.
they intended a country where any religion could be openly practiced without persecution.
and it certainly seems you are trying your best to subtly persecute.

The establishment clause of the first amendment clearly lays out a separation of church and state, that was made very clear by Thomas Jefferson.

And demanding that the government remain neutral in regards to religion is not persecuting you. We are asking that you get the same treatment we receive.

then why are you going absolutely off the wall bonkers over a phrase that most americans don't mind?
do you also go this crazy when you go past a church and see a nativity scene sitting on its lawn?

A) I'm not going bonkers over anything... I'm not even mad. I'm just debating a point.
B) Why would I get mad over a nativity scene on a church lawn? That's what the church is all about, it's a private organization, and they have the right to display whatever religious stuff they want to. They don't have a right to put a nativity scene on the local courthouse lawn though.

advocating would certainly seem like a correct choice of wording.
unfortunately the overwhelming majority of americans, and the world, believes they are more than what physical laws can account for.

And they're wrong. All you're putting forward here is an argument from popularity fallacy.

but it's okay for you to have privilege.

the only problem i see with the phrase is the use of the word god.
a simple one word change in the phrase would be sufficient to bring it within the the law.

How is asking for the government to acknowledge no religious, or non-religious position possibly considered privilege? Get real.