Is "In God we trust" appropriate?

[SuF]

The house just voted 396-9 to reaffirm the motto "In God We Trust" that is used on US money and national buildings. My question is, Is this appropriate given our history, demographics, constitution and anything else about our society that is meaningful?

Note: I thought this would be much more fun than a simple "Does God exist" thread since Darren is no longer with us.

 

[Trinity19]

Eh, I see no reason not to have it. Mainly because I don't see it as a religious representation of the word god and more of a vague idea of finding something in a dark time.

So while I can understand why some may find it offensive, I think it just shows a historical placement of the ideals of our forefathers and shouldn't be changed because someone thinks "HEY I don't believe in god I don't want his name on MY money!".

It's kind of like getting angry of "in god we trust" in the pledge of allegiance, yeah it's technically your freedom of speech not to say it but in reality if you actually can't understand why its in there and why you shouldn't be offended then you deserve no freedom of speech cuz ya be dumb.

 

[Mechgineer]

It could swing both ways. Sure, if you look at it really hard it is a government shoving religion onto their currency but really, it's just the roots of the country. I think at this point it is becoming more about tradition as opposed to religious beliefs.

I also agree with the above point that it was the ideal of the "founding fathers." It's been a while since I brushed up on my constitutional history but I know that during the creation of the United States being a "good ol' boy Christian" was magnitudes better than being an atheist. I am not making this into a "Does God exist" topic, I am simply stating the fact that during the United States' creation atheism was very much frowned upon (hell, even today there are people that cringe at the word). With this, God was incorporated into this nation's history without a struggle. Now, it's just become a part of tradition and tradition helps to define every nation.


Also, I'd prefer to have "In God we trust" rather than "In Congress/the Government we trust."

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

I believe it's an appropriate phrase. While some people may not agree with it, a majority of this country's population believes in some type of deity, and a majority of THAT population believes in the Christian God. So a considerable number of people agree with the statement, thus, in my opinion, making it appropriate. It's also been around for quite some time and, seeing as most of the country believes there is nothing wrong with it, there is no actual need for change. So it's still appropriate.

Basically, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I don't see why the vote was cast anyway.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

The United States is not officially a Christian nation, so I don't see why it is always portrayed as one. This, along with the "One nation under God" line of the Pledge have always baffled me. Popularity does not imply correctness. Just because the majority of the nation is religious does not mean that religion should play a role in government. Separation of Church and State is good for religion as well as government.

 

[The Riddler_]

Also, I'd prefer to have "In God we trust" rather than "In Congress/the Government we trust."

Who says either of those phrases are needed?

I believe it's appropriate only because it does not name a specific religion. If it did, regardless of the majority favoring it, it would be inappropriate because it would be announced as the State's religion.

 

[SuF]

Eh, I see no reason not to have it. Mainly because I don't see it as a religious representation of the word god and more of a vague idea of finding something in a dark time.

So while I can understand why some may find it offensive, I think it just shows a historical placement of the ideals of our forefathers and shouldn't be changed because someone thinks "HEY I don't believe in god I don't want his name on MY money!".

It's kind of like getting angry of "in god we trust" in the pledge of allegiance, yeah it's technically your freedom of speech not to say it but in reality if you actually can't understand why its in there and why you shouldn't be offended then you deserve no freedom of speech cuz ya be dumb.

God means a god. There is nothing else about it. God implies religion. God is religion. Many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. They were extremely clear when they said they wanted separation of church and state and this clearly breaks that. This motto came about in the 50s and is not in any way a traditional motto at all and the founders obviously would not approve of it. Your last point makes no sense by the way... Everyone has freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

It could swing both ways. Sure, if you look at it really hard it is a government shoving religion onto their currency but really, it's just the roots of the country. I think at this point it is becoming more about tradition as opposed to religious beliefs.

I also agree with the above point that it was the ideal of the "founding fathers." It's been a while since I brushed up on my constitutional history but I know that during the creation of the United States being a "good ol' boy Christian" was magnitudes better than being an atheist. I am not making this into a "Does God exist" topic, I am simply stating the fact that during the United States' creation atheism was very much frowned upon (hell, even today there are people that cringe at the word). With this, God was incorporated into this nation's history without a struggle. Now, it's just become a part of tradition and tradition helps to define every nation.


Also, I'd prefer to have "In God we trust" rather than "In Congress/the Government we trust."

Look above. It is not the tradition of the country in any way nor was it the ideal of the founding fathers. They would have never supported it. Even if you believe the US is a Christian nation, the first amendment prohibits the government from favoring a religion and that is what this motto does. It is a clear and non-argumentable breach of the Constitution.

I believe it's an appropriate phrase. While some people may not agree with it, a majority of this country's population believes in some type of deity, and a majority of THAT population believes in the Christian God. So a considerable number of people agree with the statement, thus, in my opinion, making it appropriate. It's also been around for quite some time and, seeing as most of the country believes there is nothing wrong with it, there is no actual need for change. So it's still appropriate.

Basically, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I don't see why the vote was cast anyway.

The US is not a democracy just for this reason. The majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority.

The United States is not officially a Christian nation, so I don't see why it is always portrayed as one. This, along with the "One nation under God" line of the Pledge have always baffled me. Popularity does not imply correctness. Just because the majority of the nation is religious does not mean that religion should play a role in government. Separation of Church and State is good for religion as well as government.

It's actually much better for religion to be within government as then they can control non-believers.

Who says either of those phrases are needed?

I believe it's appropriate only because it does not name a specific religion. If it did, regardless of the majority favoring it, it would be inappropriate because it would be announced as the State's religion.

It is favoring religion and it would be appropriate if everyone believed in a god but not everyone does so it can't be.

 

[Pshynosis]

Your country is built on the civil religion. It's there to stay.
Religion is opium for the masses, like Marx said...

 

[SuF]

Your country is built on the civil religion. It's there to stay.
Religion is opium for the masses, like Marx said...

Not really... But civil religion has been disappearing over the last 10 or so years. If you look at the 9/11 ceremonies you can that people are moving away from the general religiousness to non-religious stuff.

 

[Pshynosis]

Not really... But civil religion has been disappearing over the last 10 or so years. If you look at the 9/11 ceremonies you can that people are moving away from the general religiousness to non-religious stuff.

At least 58% of USA prays weekly, Robert D. Putnam and David E Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (2010) ch 1 at note 5.
Religious people are the masses, they're way easier to control.

 

[Mechgineer]

Look above. It is not the tradition of the country in any way nor was it the ideal of the founding fathers. They would have never supported it. Even if you believe the US is a Christian nation, the first amendment prohibits the government from favoring a religion and that is what this motto does. It is a clear and non-argumentable breach of the Constitution.

Actually, it is not such a clear-cut violation. The following clause, and any other clause in the constitution, has many interpretations.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

One way of interpreting this is that this Establishment Clause means that congress shall make no law that establishes a singular, national religious identity (United Christian States of America, for example). A second way is that Congress shall make no law showing preference of one religion over another. In Aronow v. United States, the court ruled, on this very issue, that "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency '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." According to the official (this may not be your interpretation, but it is the government's for now) interpretation, the Establishment Clause only prohibits the government from establishing a national religion.

As the motto "In God We Trust" does not establish a national religious identity, this motto is not, in the eyes of the officially held interpretation of the constitution, in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[BuckIlluminati]

Its stupid to mix politics with religion, since one of em is not proven correct.

 

[aznguy94]

Its stupid to mix politics with religion, since one of em is not proven correct.

Wait, but both of them are incorrect...

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

The US is not a democracy just for this reason. The majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority.

This is where my thoughts contradict each other. I agree that the majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority, that would just be blatantly unfair. But I believe that the Government is simply trying to keep the majority happy, because, well they're the majority. And that makes sense as well - why cause an uproar by changing something that's been around for over 50 years and not caused any problems when you can keep it the same and make the majority happy?

I don't know which side I agree with more, I'm torn.

Wait, but both of them are incorrect...

Also, aznguy, I don't think that was the main point of his statement. I think he was mostly getting at the idea of Seperation of Church & State.

 

[Pshynosis]

Its stupid to mix politics with religion, since one of em is not proven correct.

No actually that's smart and that's what christianity is based on, to control the masses.

 

[Proc]

No, America is supposed to be a secular country. Apparently, some people cannot read.

 

[Jimmy]

The US is not a democracy just for this reason. The majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority.

The United States isn't a democracy..?

While the mottos were added to the money and pledge at times of religious fervor (post-Civil War for some coins, and the Cold War for the pledge and bills), they don't amount to endorsing a religion. They also do have (something of) a historical legacy, with the motto 'In God We Trust' coming from the full version of the Star Spangled Banner (written by Francis Scott Key after the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812):

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

 

[Tcukid33]

I voted yes because our country was founded on religion. The founding fathers were not Christians though. They were a sect called Naturists. They believed God was nature. But they believed in God.

 

[SuF]

Actually, it is not such a clear-cut violation. The following clause, and any other clause in the constitution, has many interpretations.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

One way of interpreting this is that this Establishment Clause means that congress shall make no law that establishes a singular, national religious identity (United Christian States of America, for example). A second way is that Congress shall make no law showing preference of one religion over another. In Aronow v. United States, the court ruled, on this very issue, that "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency '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." According to the official (this may not be your interpretation, but it is the government's for now) interpretation, the Establishment Clause only prohibits the government from establishing a national religion.

As the motto "In God We Trust" does not establish a national religious identity, this motto is not, in the eyes of the officially held interpretation of the constitution, in violation of the First Amendment.

It is clear cut to anyone that does not believe in a god. God is religion and promoting god in any way is promoting religion and thus is establishing religion. It is pure and simple and the only reason that the judges vote in the way they do is because they are not only inherently bias but also because public sentiment has not shifted to understand the discrimination that the motto obviously presents. I guarantee that someday it will be almost universally considered unconstitutional and that may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will someday. Just because some judges can not see the obvious truth does not mean it is not true.

Also, about it being "patriotic": Patriotism deals with loving your country and if being under god makes you love your country you are implying the country is indeed under god which means the country is establishing a religion. Their own words prove them wrong.

This is where my thoughts contradict each other. I agree that the majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority, that would just be blatantly unfair. But I believe that the Government is simply trying to keep the majority happy, because, well they're the majority. And that makes sense as well - why cause an uproar by changing something that's been around for over 50 years and not caused any problems when you can keep it the same and make the majority happy?

I don't know which side I agree with more, I'm torn.

Slavery should not be abolished because the majority likes it. Women should not get the vote because the majority like it. We should lock up all the Japanese Americans because they might help the Nazis and that's okay because the majority likes it. The point of a republic is to protect the rights of everyone, regardless of what the majority wants.

 

[Trinity19]

God means a god. There is nothing else about it. God implies religion. God is religion.

No that is not it to the phrase, it's not just a phrase it's also an explanation and a representation of the time.

Many of the fathers were deists, not Christians.

And? Most of them still respected the place religion had in society, John Adams I believe was against religion but was one to hold his tongue against it because he still understood it's place.

They were extremely clear when they said they wanted separation of church and state and this clearly breaks that. This motto came about in the 50s and is not in any way a traditional motto at all and the founders obviously would not approve of it.

First of all it came about much earlier than 1950, around Lincolns presidency I believe. Second, most of the founding fathers accepted the idea of a god, a christian god? No but a god none-the-less. It acts as a vague word that is replaceable with any form of belief idea. If you simply see god and see nothing more than just a religion and nothing else surrounding it than I'm sorry but that is very ignorant.

Your last point makes no sense by the way... Everyone has freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

My point was expressed again in my last paragraph, if you see the word god and simply put it into a black and white category then you are ignorant. Yes everyone has the ability for free speech, however noone ever uses it correctly, if you simply speak out against something without a full understanding of it then you are using your free speech wrongly, something that was meant to allow ideals to be heard is now being used to support idiotic claims.

In short, I'm not saying the problem is whether or not god means a a specific religion, I am saying that you also have to look at the time period surrounding the introduction of this phrase, how the founding fathers TRULY would have taken it, and to simply take the phrase for more than face value.