Is "In God we trust" appropriate?

You should consider studying the history a bit more, as the slogan came about way before the 1950's, and as one poster stated that by simply saying 'God' you can put in whatever you want there. It is the ambiguity of the statement that allows it to exist on the money. Though as everything in the government it is steeped in tradition, and a change would shake up a lot of things that would lead to a huge drop in approval rating for any president which isn't what they want.

 

And therein lies the problem.

This is all based on an approval rating, and winning over votes for the next election. Our republican and conservative comrades in this country are so set in their ways that they refuse to accept progress towards a better needed country.

Let me put it this way, my fellow countrymen, your ways didn't work. One nation under God has failed and has a greater debt than the rest of the world. Maybe God failed accounting, who knows, but he's not looking out for our financial security, our well-being, or anything of the sort.

Now, I'm not saying we need to put the entire blame on the motto, but maybe something's clearly wrong, and sticking to traditional beliefs isn't going to fix the issue. We need to have a change, not Obama-change, but a complete overhaul of the American values and exactly what it means to be an American.

In God we trust implies Christianity because 'God' is defiantly capitalized. 10% of American's are non-religious. This does not represent those tax-payers. You can try to blind us with your "oh, you need to see past what it really means"... if that were the case, then those voting FOR it need to also see it in a different light. I guarantee you that the large number of yay votes it received are based on personal religious preference, fear of god, or fear of disapproval ratings. All of which hold no ground in making such important decisions.

We need clear, rational thinkers as our nations leaders... not bible-thumping pansies who would sooner jump on the band wagon than drive it.

/yay for original thought.

 

I have no idea what this means. If you are implying everyone used to believe in a god, you are very sadly mistaken.

You are making up reasons for their actions without any proof. It is just as likely that they kept quiet about their skepticism so that they would not be shunned or killed for their non-belief.

It was on the money dating back to the 1864 during the civil war. This is much past the founding fathers and again, they made it clear there was to be complete and total separation of church and state and this is an obvious violation of that. I do not believe a god exists, sorry. There just isn't one. God has no place in my life and never will. He is nothing to me. There is no belief set that I have that god fits into. Anything related to god is simply religious mythology that I do not believe in or pay attention to. God implies religion. It does not matter what religion, it is still religion. I am not going to put up with my rights as an American citizen being violated just because the majority of people hate us for not believing in some fairy tale. There is absolutely no way that you can disconnect god from religion and just like civil religion is slowly disappearing, this will too when people realize that it is indeed a blatant violation of a large number of people's rights.

God either exists or he doesn't exist. Religion is either right or it is wrong. There is no gray area. It is only black and white. I am ignorant for not beveling in god? That seems to be what you are saying. God is only related to religion and if you do not believe god means nothing to you except for some religious myth. Please also note, "God" is capitalized in the motto. Just saying.

You can not separate god from religion and if you do not believe in god then you can only put religion in place of god. Your point just proves me right. And yes, it was on our money from 1864 but that is no where near the founding of the country. And, it would lead to a drop in approval ratings? The country IS NOT A DEMOCRACY FOR A REASON. Our elected officials are supposed to do WHAT IS RIGHT regardless of what the voters think. It is OBVIOUSLY right to remove the motto but no president has the balls to do it or would never do it because they are Christians zealots that want to impose Christianity on the rest of us.

 

I could not find a person to properly quote to make this point, so I'll just post a reply.

"In God we trust" is, yes, not atheist friendly. But the fact is that less than 10% of Americans are atheist. This government is by the MAJORITY of the people, for the MAJORITY of the people. Atheism is on a steady climb in numbers but as of now they are still very much a minority. "In God we trust" was created under Lincoln's presidency because most of the nation believed in a God and believed that He defended the United States. (I myself am a Deist, more classical than anything [a God designed and created the universe but let it run on its own; no intervention, miracles, etc.], but my views are complicated so that keeps it simple)

SuF, though, was correct in a way when he said that the motto came around in the '50s. It was officially adopted as the motto in 1956 but was stamped on currency during Lincoln's presidency.

Also, none of us can say with certainty what the founding fathers intended the constitution to mean. Allow me to explain. They wrote the first amendment but its wording is rather broad. We do not know to what extent they meant for religion to be excluded from law. We also do not know to what extent "religion" or "the establishment of religion" was to them. All we are given are words that we must interpret and the majority are the ones who are the interpreters.

So, does "In God we trust" ignore atheistic beliefs? Yes. Are atheists prominent enough in numbers to change this right now? No, at least, not for now. Atheism will, though, reach a good amount of people in a few decades and should be able to make a good fight for this change.

For now, though, "In God we trust" is still stamped on currency out of "tradition." "In God we trust" is a relatively minute detail, but I understand the debate over it being the official motto.

 

The United States is not a democracy. The government is by the majority, for EVERYONE. It is not a democracy so that the minority does not get its rights violated and everyone gets as good of a life as possible. That means that politicians need to do what is right instead of doing what their voters want or the country is going to run like shit.

 

I don't disagree with you, and this is why I don't define the government as a Democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. The people vote for representatives who then represent the people in a shared venue (congress). Doing what is "right" is a complicated topic because some could argue that what is "right" is what the majority wants, but now I'm straying from the original topic so I'll stop here.

 

Sigh, please read it again if you don't understand it I will try to rephrase but I shouldn't really need to, it's pretty straightforward and no I'm not insinuating that everyone used to believe in a god.

I'm sorry what?

Sigh wow where to start, okay first off I am atheist as well so I don't understand why you felt the need to drag on the explanation of you disbelieving in a god but to each their own I suppose.

Second, there you go with the literal interpretation of god, god doesn't just represent religion. Maybe to YOU it does because thats how you choose to perceive it, but I see it as simply a vague term used for any higher idea that someone chooses to believe in, whether it be god,science, alien overlords, etc etc. Because you choose to see it as a specific idea that is religious is childish because you are taking something for face value without looking at the essence behind it.

Third, infringing on their rights? Are you joking? First of all, you aren't required to say the pledge (Although you fucking should out of respect for your damn country but that's besides the point) and last time I checked have words written on your money doesn't violate any rights, what if someone disagrees with a new jersey license plate saying "the garden state" maybe they just don't quite agree with that statement, does this violate their rights? What about a stop sign saying stop instead of cease, the idea this infringes on rights is crazy because if you assume that this break separation of church and state then again you are technically right on a face value but in the grand scheme of the idea you are over blowing it to ridiculous proportions.

Eh you are technically correct, but it's not so black and white. The metaphysical god isn't real and doesn't exist because the only way this one could be decided true is through our laws and logic and obviously we can disprove this very easily, whether or not the idealogical form of god exists is the gray area because it would be an idea that couldn't be disproved of proven simply because it's an idea that is already decided to be placed outside of this reality.

God is capitalized because it is used as a personal idea in the sentence, whether this pertains to an actual 'god' or whichever the holder chooses is just that, up to the holder.

Also, I said you are ignorant for only taking everything apparently for face value, and idea that has seemed to pass right over you for a second time.

Wow so much wrong in one paragraph, well might as well jump in.

Obviously 1864 was not the founding of the country (and nowhere near? not even 100 years had passed, hell we are still a developing country by contrast with the rest of the world.) but simply stated the country is still represented by what takes place, simply saying the founding fathers wouldn't approve is pointless because our founding fathers supported some things we find absurd and vice versa, we don't know what their reaction would be, but we can take their ideologies and make assumptions.

The shit are you going on about? Also "what is right"? Don't make me laugh, if you think you know "what is right" noone does because what is "right" is an individualized idea.

Okay, your first sentence has no place in this because its just a stupid phrase, also as I stated, what is "right" is individualized, so good thing you know whats best for our country >.>
You honestly think its the christian zealots? Are you mentally ill? First of all this phrase was mass produced because of the fear of the cold war Eisenhower used it to give people something to hold onto whether it be a god or any form of power the persons holds faith in (Science included) hell it was even included in a different variation of the phrase in the star spangled banner which is a purely moral anthem.

To end this, you are actually hurting me by the pure fact you can't see past something for its base face value. If you can't understand what I mean then I'm sorry but you're wrong, you and much of the country are so focused on the idea that something is taking away your "liberties" that you don't even take a second to actually understand that its not. All you see is the word god and assume its some type of conversion tactic brought on by the theist's propaganda ninjas, when in actuality all it is, is a moral phrase that has evolved over the years to simply mean something you hold faith in whether it be god, Darwin, or Bazuzu from the second exorcist movie.
If your only argument is "god means religion" then don't even bother replying because not only is it getting old, it's also horribly wrong.

EDIT: Also I just got a chance to read the other posters ideas on the subject, very nice job literally taking their argument and just putting it in yours with very little integration. It's like you just said "Hmmm I like that *Copy* *Paste* Awesome my argument is so much better now".

 

The split of the legislature over this non-issue, coupled with the fact that the courts have consistently upheld it as not violating the establishment clause makes your contention that it's "OBVIOUSLY right to remove the motto" not so obvious. Do you really think that damn near every member of Congress, as well as countless federal judges refuse to remove this because they're "Christian zealots who want to impose Christianity on the rest of us"? Would you also have Congress change the national anthem because it makes reference to God?

 

I just want to expand on this idea a bit and offer my view.

You are right in saying that righteousness is defined in the eyes of an individual but when it comes to a general population "righteousness" changes. It is impossible to please everyone and it would be foolish to try. For me, what is "right" when it comes to government is appeasing the majority of citizens (I mean majority as in beliefs; I do not mean majority as in race or any other discriminatory factor) while making an effort to try to satisfy the minorities of society (once again, not race, beliefs).

Doing what is "right," in my opinion, for a government, is satisfying those who compose a majority of the country and therefore offer the best representation of what the country is while trying, conspicuously, to satisfy those that have less sway in governmental affairs (minorities).

 

I agree completely, however I don't think I personally would qualify it as doing what is "right" and is more doing what will sate the masses which is a common affair for the government. Either way though we are giving the same reasoning with just a personal preference of what to call the end result.

Thanks for you input =]

 

Your grammar makes absolutely no sense. It is in no way a explanation of the time. It is just something that some elected officials decided would be a good way to bring moral back into the country.

He isn't saying he believes in religion there. To me it seems he is saying that religion is important to control people and keep the world functioning civilly.

God is science? That doesn't make any sense. Alien Overlords would not be gods, even if they appeared to be so. If you hear god in speech, you do not stop and think "Oh, what is he referring to"? No. You think of a religious figure of devotion. Give me a specific example of when the term "god" does not directly or indirectly relate to religion and we can go from there.

In school you are told you have to listen to your teachers and they tell you to say the pledge. Yes, you do not legally have to but are compelled to by the government. There was recently a supreme court case that found that police pulling children out of class and questioning them in school without informing them of their rights (they were not getting arrested so they do not technically need to read you your rights) violated the children's rights as in school there is a precedent set that you must do what people tell you or face punishment. I would apply the same logic to the pledge where the precedent set in school is making it so that the teachers are violating your rights by having the class say the pledge even if you do not legally have to. And I think the pledge is a disgusting way of brainwashing our children, but that's for another debate.

Last time I checked, the government was not disallowed from establishing an official garden or favorite type of land use or what ever you want to call a garden. It is disallowed from establishing a religion or favoring one or more religions over another. This violates my rights as the motto says "we" meaning everyone who lives in the US. The US is establishing that everyone follows a religion which is entirely false. I have a right not to be lumped into any religion that the government thinks I should be lumped into.

I'll drop the founding fathers argument since it makes no sense. I only brought it up since people constantly defend the motto by saying it is what our founders wanted or something. And in 1848 most countries in Europe had revolutions that had all been put down. We really were not behind any other country as the whole world was still developing. Only maybe England was fairly stable through the 1800s.

The US is not a democracy, technically. The point of the elected officials is that they make decisions that are right, not that are publicly popular. Greece NEEDS to reduce its debt or else it will default and it will drag the entire world economy down with it. It is what is best for the country. The elected? officials need to do that even though there is massive and widespread protests against the measures. The elected officials need to do what they think is best (aka right) for the country instead of what is popular to the masses. That's all I meant.

Okay. I may have become a bit too emotionally charged with that. However, Christian zealots do want to impose Christianity on us. That's what zealots do. Just look at the Spaniards in the 1400-1600s. Who and who isn't a zealot doesn't really matter. We can drop that.

I'm sorry, but I am not wrong you are. You haven't given any proof or given any argument or explained what you mean by behind the "face value" at all. The US is held to not establish religion. That is a right of mine, to not have the government establish religion.

God is just something you have faith in? I think that is a fairly non-popular definition of the term god and I do not have "faith" in anything.

That's not what I did at all? I just do not respond to anyone that has the same view as me?

The courts issues an opinion that that started with "It is quite obvious" and I am simply taking what they believe is obvious and saying it to the other side because I believe they are very wrong. There also also never been a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the motto that I can find because they have dismissed them saying they have no grounds to bring a trial. I also have never heard the second part of the anthem that has references to god in it and since the majority of the song is about our flag and not god, I really do not care. It is so obscure and is not some random easily removable thing as the motto is that it is fine in my book, mainly since it is never said.

 

Just to clear the air, would you mind giving me your definition of the first amendment? I'm just being curious, not trying to bicker.

The point of disagreement here is just how we define "establish religion." My belief is that it prohibits government from directly associating themselves with a particular religion by inaugurating a nation religion or something to that respect.

I think, from what I've read, you view it as government should not instill any religious ideas, beliefs, or opinions into any of their affairs. I'm asking because I want to know where to head with this discussion without being oblivious to how you define the very core of this thread.

 

I would interpret "establish religion" as putting one or more religious faiths over another. I have no problem if they treat everyone equally, which is what they do with civil religion at ceremonies. They allow religious prayer and stuff at official ceremonies for things such as 9/11 but they allow any religion that wants a turn their chance and any non-religious groups a chance. That way they are not establishing a religion but rather allowing for the betterment of the ceremony by allowing what people want without violating the first amendment. However, the key difference between that and the motto is that there is a non-religious element that is lacking in the motto so it is not giving non-religious believers their fair spot.

 

So you believe that the government should equally appease both religious and atheist beliefs in their acts? Reasonable, I suppose. The best way of fighting "In God we trust" would then be to add on to it rather than eliminate it. Maybe "In God, and Reason, we trust" (just spit balling here). I know "reason" isn't the official "deity" of atheism (I know atheism doesn't have a deity, but you know what I mean), but what would you define as a good word or words to sum up atheistic beliefs that could, if you had the power right now, be added to the national motto to appease the non-religious groups? Or do you think that the motto should just be rid of altogether?

 

There doesn't even need to be a national motto but I wouldn't care if it didn't say that "we" (Americans) trust in god.

 

"In all arbitrarily different Gods we nonsensically trust"

 

im atheist. that being said i think it is appropriate for the simple reason that IT DOESN'T MATTER. i don't know if other atheists are like me but i put up with enough shit being an atheist from family/friends and the last thing i want is more confrontation between atheists and Christians. I'd like to think that atheists have more control and can put up with more crap. so i think this argument in general is giving atheists a bad name.

 

Yes. It wasn't that way in the first place, and didn't need to be changed to that. It was indeed done so by religious fanatics who felt the need to impose their beliefs.

Also, religion has been a way to control and establish domination for... forever. Why wouldn't they be doing it now? It's not like it's new... >.>.

 

why fix something that isnt broken?

 

It is broken if it is violating people's rights.