Seperation of Church & State.

[Ghosthustler]

Does it bother anyone else to see the phrase "In God We Trust" on American currency? It seems like such a disgusting violation of this political/legal doctrine. How do you feel about this issue? Do you believe the phrase should be removed? Or; are you contempt with our currency the way it is? Elaborate.

[Sage]

It wasn't there originally, shouldn't be there now.

[sweetmisery]

Our government should represent everyone, not just those that believe in God (the majority). Honestly, I'm not hell bent on having it removed or anything because it's already there (and we're spending the money anyways) but it's sort of like a slap in the face because not everyone trusts this higher being. It's obvious the separation of church and state was not taken seriously. "In God We Trust"? That's implying all of us, and to say all of us is false - some of us don't believe in a higher being.

I don't know, I think if they put "In God Some of us trust" it would be a much more correct inscription on money, but honestly (and don't slap me) it's done. It's there.

[INFERNO]

Does it bother anyone else to see the phrase "In God We Trust" on American currency? It seems like such a disgusting violation of this political/legal doctrine. How do you feel about this issue? Do you believe the phrase should be removed? Or; are you contempt with our currency the way it is? Elaborate.

Christianity was believed by the founding forefathers of America and has been a dominant belief ever since (even though atheism is increasing, majority still are Christians). Also, having it imprinted on the bill doesn't require one to believe in Christianity and it's not forcing you to. It's akin to any slogan of a company, you don't need to believe in it even if you're part of the group. It's not saying that you must believe in god, it's making the assumption you do because the majority does and if you're not in the majority, you're not affected.

If it gets removed then the problem I see is a big outcry from the believers of Christianity and others who are fine with it as it's been engrained in America's history. By removing it, it's pretty much saying "well screw the history, patriasm and screw the majority who believe in it, I want my say so let's get rid of theirs". It's not going to go well. I believe in England or the UK somewhere they had atheist slogans on public buses and despite the immense Christian slogans everywhere, the Christians exploded and said it was unfair, etc... . Bare in mind though, only some of the buses had it. With that in consideration, changing a slogan of Christianity on something so common as a bill is going to drive people up the wall because the question/argument will be, "If we get rid of it, then what makes yours so special?" as you would be putting your belief on a podium above the majority's.

[Ghosthustler]

Christianity was believed by the founding forefathers of America and has been a dominant belief ever since (even though atheism is increasing, majority still are Christians). Also, having it imprinted on the bill doesn't require one to believe in Christianity and it's not forcing you to. It's akin to any slogan of a company, you don't need to believe in it even if you're part of the group. It's not saying that you must believe in god, it's making the assumption you do because the majority does and if you're not in the majority, you're not affected.

If it gets removed then the problem I see is a big outcry from the believers of Christianity and others who are fine with it as it's been engrained in America's history. By removing it, it's pretty much saying "well screw the history, patriasm and screw the majority who believe in it, I want my say so let's get rid of theirs". It's not going to go well. I believe in England or the UK somewhere they had atheist slogans on public buses and despite the immense Christian slogans everywhere, the Christians exploded and said it was unfair, etc... . Bare in mind though, only some of the buses had it. With that in consideration, changing a slogan of Christianity on something so common as a bill is going to drive people up the wall because the question/argument will be, "If we get rid of it, then what makes yours so special?" as you would be putting your belief on a podium above the majority's.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2009/01/atheist-bus.jpg

Is this what you speak of? I don't see how removing the phrase would imply those things you mentioned. It's not as if I said that I wanted to replace the phrase with one derived from Atheism rather than Christianity. I simply wonder why this doctrine isn't honored. This isn't about Religious deceleration(s). It isn't as if the phrase has always been there, It almost seems like the United States government digressed. So, I don't see how honoring this legal doctrine would be denouncing history or patriotism.

In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States and the U.S. state of Florida. The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.[1][2] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: "In God we trust" is the national motto".

[Kahn]

The print is little anyways. It does not bother me. I barely read it, and I agree with INFERNO. It is not trying to convert you and the founding fathers were mostly Christian. Hell some were free masons. It is in the free mason code that they must believe in a higher being. (I read so myself. I really want to become a Free Mason when I am older. I think it will make me feel linked to the past.)

Also, just like INFERNO said, if it gets removed the majority of Christians will create a large uproar and attempt to get it put back on the bill. But again it isn't that big of a thing that I think it should be removed.

*Lol at the ATHEIST BUS. I've seen one of those in New York. People usually just stop and stare. Here's the site if anyone is wondering about it. http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/bus-photos/*

[Appleton]

The whole idea behind the separation of church and state was originally to prevent a state run church like there is/was in England. The founding fathers wanted people to have the freedom to choose their religion and practice that religion without the interference of the state/government.

That being said, the link below is from the U.S. Treasury and has the history on how and why it's on our currency.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[enzenzz]

You can never separate church and state as long as the leaders believe in some sort of religion. They will always let their religion guide their decisions. So even if you remove all the outward signs policies and decisions will still be affected by religion.

[Appleton]

You can never separate church and state as long as the leaders believe in some sort of religion. They will always let their religion guide their decisions. So even if you remove all the outward signs policies and decisions will still be affected by religion.

I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying that the original idea for the separation was to not have a state sponsored church.

[Grinchilla]

I think it's wrong of Christians to promote separation of religion and state. We're dealing with Hell here. Something far worse than anything Earth can cook up and it's forever. Half the world going to Hell. I loved when my school of let preachers preach in an all-school assembly and let red-neck Christians rant about how our government was founded on Christian principles (principles of any sane human being actually). I go to a wicked small school; 90% of students are in this Christian Association that basically just plays dodgeball and stuff. Even if students are not Christian they join it. People get credits for going to this religious class - as I understand it. And no one complains of this. Preachy Christians are the only caring ones in my opinion. My best friend in real life apparently doesn't care if I go to hell.

I'm however and atheist. I'd prefer if Christians were just brought to the freedom of logic. I hate that in god we trust is on our money like idiots. I hate that we vote against gay marriage.

It's hard not to offend a lot of people anyway you answer this question.

[Ghosthustler]

You can never separate church and state as long as the leaders believe in some sort of religion. They will always let their religion guide their decisions. So even if you remove all the outward signs policies and decisions will still be affected by religion.

I don't mind their personal beliefs. They have a right to believe whatever they please. I'm only bothered by the currency & things similar.

[Aspiringanonymous]

In a democracy, the majority holds the final say. Accommodating the wishes of everyone is simply not possible.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that Christianity is the pre-dominant religion, and is also rooted deeply in history and tradition. It's too bad if followers of other beliefs find Christian-centered policy offensive - that's just how it is. They have the larger numbers, and therefore the power to implement policies in their favour.

As for the phrase, that's all it is, a phrase. Nowhere has the individual's freedom of belief been revoked, here or anywhere else.

[TheKingDavis]

Our government should represent everyone, not just those that believe in God (the majority).

Thats right, the majority, America works for the majority, we are a democracy, if theres 50.01% who agree and 49.99 that dont, guess what, the believers won, we are the majority.

thats a democracy for ya


In a democracy, the majority holds the final say. Accommodating the wishes of everyone is simply not possible.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that Christianity is the pre-dominant religion, and is also rooted deeply in history and tradition. It's too bad if followers of other beliefs find Christian-centered policy offensive - that's just how it is. They have the larger numbers, and therefore the power to implement policies in their favour.

As for the phrase, that's all it is, a phrase. Nowhere has the individual's freedom of belief been revoked, here or anywhere else.

crap, you posted that right before i did

[Sage]

Thats right, the majority, America works for the majority, we are a democracy, if theres 50.01% who agree and 49.99 that dont, guess what, the believers won, we are the majority.

thats a democracy for ya

And I can only wonder if you'd phrase that as smugly if you held a single viewpoint that a raging mob can't back you up on. :rolleyes:

[CaptainObvious]

Thats right, the majority, America works for the majority, we are a democracy, if theres 50.01% who agree and 49.99 that dont, guess what, the believers won, we are the majority.

thats a democracy for ya

An integral part of democracy is minority rights and protections.

Personally, I don't mind the slogan hugely, but it is definitely something that is philosophically in opposition to America's ideological underpinnings. It shouldn't be kept for "historical" or "traditional" purposes, since it is neither really historical nor traditional, but rather a 20th century Christian appellation as applied to America.

[Ghosthustler]

An integral part of democracy is minority rights and protections.
Why thank you, Captain. T:

[INFERNO]

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2009/01/atheist-bus.jpg

Is this what you speak of? I don't see how removing the phrase would imply those things you mentioned. It's not as if I said that I wanted to replace the phrase with one derived from Atheism rather than Christianity. I simply wonder why this doctrine isn't honored. This isn't about Religious deceleration(s). It isn't as if the phrase has always been there, It almost seems like the United States government digressed. So, I don't see how honoring this legal doctrine would be denouncing history or patriotism.

Yes, that is the bus slogan I'm referring to. When I brought up that example, my reasoning went as follows. The atheist bus simply challenged the Christian belief by having a poster of atheism as opposed to Christianity or some product. That alone caused a fuss amongst Christians but never involved tearing down a Christian sign in place for an atheistic one. By that example, tearing down a Christian slogan in place for any other one, regardless if it's atheism, is going to cause a shitstorm. In other words, if putting up B but not replacing it over A in only one small location causes a fuss, then actually tearing down A to put up B everywhere will cause an enormous fuss.

[Camazotz]

America was founded on Secularist views, not religious ones. "In God We Trust" does not belong on our money, and "under God" does not belong in our Pledge of Allegiance.

[INFERNO]

America was founded on Secularist views, not religious ones. "In God We Trust" does not belong on our money, and "under God" does not belong in our Pledge of Allegiance.

I stand corrected then.

I don't see how putting those phrases on money can be harmful and why it should be changed. It may not represent everyone because not everyone is Christian but what harm does it do by being on there? It doesn't single anyone out because you don't need to believe in Christianity to use the money, so why not leave it as is? I still stand by my other argument that if it will get removed, then many Christians will probably get all pissed off about it and seeing as how the majority of people are Christians, assuming only some of them get pissed off, it's still a pretty large amount that will likely create a large religious tension, even more than there already is.

[Camazotz]

I don't see how putting those phrases on money can be harmful and why it should be changed. It may not represent everyone because not everyone is Christian but what harm does it do by being on there? It doesn't single anyone out because you don't need to believe in Christianity to use the money, so why not leave it as is?

It doesn't seem fair that only believers of God should have a saying on our money. Shouldn't atheists have the right to have their say? Or polytheists? Or any other religion, for that matter?

And true, the words themselves may not affect the way we can use our money, it's what the words represent. Inequality and favored religion within our government.

I still stand by my other argument that if it will get removed, then many Christians will probably get all pissed off about it and seeing as how the majority of people are Christians, assuming only some of them get pissed off, it's still a pretty large amount that will likely create a large religious tension, even more than there already is.

I completely agree with that prediction. Many Americans will go crazy. Protests and riots will start over something so little. Frankly, the words "In God We Trust" and "under God" don't belong in any part of government property. If America was founded for religious tolerance, favoring one religion over any other belief or lack of one is unequal, which is not what our forefathers wanted.

[drumir93]

Thats right, the majority, America works for the majority, we are a democracy, if theres 50.01% who agree and 49.99 that dont, guess what, the believers won, we are the majority.

thats a democracy for ya




crap, you posted that right before i did

I don't recall getting a vote.

[INFERNO]

It doesn't seem fair that only believers of God should have a saying on our money. Shouldn't atheists have the right to have their say? Or polytheists? Or any other religion, for that matter?

True, I cannot debate against that point because ideally there should be equality. I don't know much about American history so correct me if I'm wrong on this but whenever that statement got put on the money, were there massive protests? Have there been massive protests going on about it to this day? I don't mean a few people not caring for it or a civil debate about it. If there hasn't been massive protests about it, then although it is showing inequality, it would seem to me as though it's an accepted inequality. If non-Christians are content with it and if Christians are content with it, then although it may be a sign of inequality, why change it? It's working fine now as is so no point to fiddle with something that's working perfectly.

Perhaps it isn't what America's forefathers wanted, however, that was then and this is now, and now if everyone is happy about it, then why change it?
If we want to change it despite everyone's content, then that's likely to start a massive protest on its own because now people of all religions and cultures can speak up as their voices are being encouraged.

[quartermaster]

Personally, I don't mind the slogan hugely, but it is definitely something that is philosophically in opposition to America's ideological underpinnings. It shouldn't be kept for "historical" or "traditional" purposes, since it is neither really historical nor traditional, but rather a 20th century Christian appellation as applied to America.

Not entirely, it would be erroneous to call it in opposition to the United States' ideological underpinnings. In fact, we see that there were many calls for a statement respecting the Protestant religion within the United States Constitution. Throughout the country, it was actually a big deal that the Constitution did not address religion or respect Protestantism. To be sure, in order to understand why there was not actually a provision respecting religion in the US Constitution, one must first understand that the United States ‘plural’ was still the norm, not the United States ‘singular’ that we have today, on balance. As such, it was simply assumed that the issue of religion would be dealt with on a state level, insofar as there were no laws preventing the free exercise of religion. So, let us analyze where our so called “ideological underpinnings” really were in 1787:

Many a state constitution had laws endorsing religion, in fact, only two states in 1787 did not have laws respecting religion or championing Protestantism; one-third of those that had Protestant respecting laws, collected taxes to support Protestant churches. Pennsylvania representatives had to “acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” while representatives from North Carolina restricted Catholics from holding office: “No person who shall deny God or truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments” can hold office.

In crafting the Constitution, Madison believed that due to the numerous state laws respecting religion, the Constitution should limit discussions of religion as much as possible; as such, he only had two provisions that were to deal with religion, one of which was struck down. The first said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” this, of course, is now seen in our First Amendment (it should be noted that this is the only provision discussing religion in the Constitution, “Separation of Church and State” cannot be found anywhere in the US Constitution, as it is the result of a Supreme Court ruling). The second, and less known provision created by Madison is: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience.” This provision was not approved as it was seen as federal interference into the affairs of states; essentially, the framers of our constitution made it clear by rejecting this provision, that it was perfectly acceptable for the states to have laws respecting religion; their basic premise, on a state level, is as follows: other, non-Protestant faiths would be tolerated, but by no means equal.

So, is “In God We Trust” against our “philosophical underpinnings?” History would say, most certainly not (Such an idea is particularly erroneous in that the very same session of Congress that drafted the Constitution, hired Christian chaplains). Is it unconstitutional? Probably, as it is respecting religion on a federal level, and not a state level.

[joshuathebrainiac]

You guys are forgetting that "in god we trust" is our national motto its not just on money but on buildings and a lot of government documents.

You are also forgetting why there is a separation of church and state when the articles of confederation was in place citizens had to pay taxes to churches they didn't belong to. The founding fathers wanted every body to be able to support their own church without haveing to support churches they don't believe in.

America is in fact a christian nation. all most all the founding fathers were christian (or deists with a christian slant) It is part of American culture to be christian. Why is it that we get Christmas of but not Ramadan or yom kimpor (forgive my spelling) its because that's America for you. Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Changing the entire bases of American culture would cause massive effects.

If America was founded as an atheist nation with an extreme majority (what is it now 70% or 80% christian) of atheists. And the motto was "god does not exist" yeah i would be offended but I would have it changed that is the belief of the country. Even thought i don't believe it, I respect their wishs and beliefs.