"In Whom We Trust."

[only1specialed]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]Well I'm not one to start threads[SIZE=4].[FONT=Impact] (Too much pressure from the moderators...) [/FONT][/SIZE] Anyway i was reading this article. Now I'm not a religious person or anything but the same guy who tried to get rid of "under God" in the pledge of alligance is at it again. Now hes trying to get rid of "In God We Trust."[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[URL=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53050 ]In God We Trust[/URL]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]I read the article and i just got pissed off reading it. The guy is claiming that "In God We Trust" offends him cause hes an Atheist. What kinda country has America become that every one gets offended about something other people say or religious beliefs?
Now what the article says might be a bit extreme like saying if the guy wins then will have to change the names of certain cities like Los Angeles which means The Angels. I'll be damned if they change the name of my city. Again im not religious or anything but why do people cry on anything that has to do with Christianity.
I myself dont care about the words "In God We Trust" because God can be used for anything religion. Although yes this country was founded by Christians who ran away from Europe. They still welcomed anyone of any religion in their country.

I'm not a smart person and im pretty sure im probably gonna get picked on by people who are smarter.(dead im looking at you) but i just want to see what you guys think about this.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Me? I'm touched, but I only troll Sandy and Retribution.

It's pretty much a non-issue, people ***** about this kind of **** all the time. It comes up every couple of years, and the atheists bands together and make a lot of noise, but then nothing ever comes of it, because everyone else is too busy with the real world. Also, I'm pretty sure Los Angeles wouldn't have to be changed, dude, angels aren't a distinctly Christian concept (not to mention Christian/Mormon/whatever places names don't offend anyone anyway).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Rain]

[size=1][color=black]I just don't understand why an atheist would get 'offended' by something like that, considering that a lot of atheists delight in laughing at easily-offended religious people. This guy is just as bad as the Christians who he thinks are forcing their beliefs on him.[/color][/size]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#656446]While he's at it, somebody please remind him that the days of the week, the planets, the year tag "A.D.", most of California, etcetera, etcetera got their names from various religious institutions.

Forgive me if this sounds like I'm throwing a straw man into the argument, but if he's pissed with the government "inculcating religious beliefs" upon his daughter, clearly he should rethink the way he's indoctrinating her with atheism and the ideology of his institution. [b]Atheism IS another religion[/b], for chrissa--I mean, what the he--****.[/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]I read the article and i just got pissed off reading it. The guy is claiming that "In God We Trust" offends him cause hes an Atheist. What kinda country has America become that every one gets offended about something other people say or religious beliefs? [/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]The kind of country that allows everyone to believe differently, even his very belief that he?s been offended is acceptable because it?s just that, his belief. [QUOTE=only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]
Now what the article says might be a bit extreme like saying if the guy wins then will have to change the names of certain cities like Los Angeles which means The Angels. I'll be damned if they change the name of my city. Again im not religious or anything but why do people cry on anything that has to do with Christianity. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]In that I would agree with you. In all honesty, the chances of him actually winning are slim to none. For the simple reason part of what he?s trying to do is erase historical references as to what our ancestors did. In the names, the way the coins were designed, etc.

I don?t think it?s so much a matter of Christianity, but rather of one of stupidity in insisting the whole nation or world shouldn?t have beliefs or display them in any way because it just might offend someone one.

It?s a case of the pot calling the kettle black as his claim that religions words offend him, is just as valid as the Christian who could also say that by having no religious reference he is in turn offending and oppressing their right to express their beliefs. [QUOTE=only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]
I myself dont care about the words "In God We Trust" because God can be used for anything religion. Although yes this country was founded by Christians who ran away from Europe. They still welcomed anyone of any religion in their country.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]In this respect the guy has missed the point of the words altogether. It?s isn?t oppression but rather an expression of what those who founded the country felt. They got together and designed things to have those words and by continuing to use them it?s really more of an expression on our part to honor what they did. Not to claim that our country is based on religion. But to honor all the hard work and dedication our ancestors went through to turn America into a place where people could worship or not worship in peace. [quote name='only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia] I'm not a smart person and im pretty sure im probably gonna get picked on by people who are smarter.(dead im looking at you) but i just want to see what you guys think about this.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]Oh and by the way, don?t let dead fool you because?[spoiler]He?s actually a pretty nice guy.[/spoiler] :p[/COLOR]

[Ol' Fighter]

Man people need to chill these days because everyone is just to up-tight and crap man...I couldn't live with a stick stuck in ma' *** man so this Atheist dude needs to lay back and take a chill pill or drink somethin'.

And you ask me, his case is a hopeless one...but seriously people are too sensitive these days.

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=maroon]I think it's an understandable gripe, just like how theists would make a huge uproar if it said, "there is no God for this one nation to be under" or something equally direct but antithetical. If you pledge that a nation is under God, you are acknowledging God's existence. If you pledge that there's no God for a nation to be under, you are acknowledging the nonexistence of God.

Frankly, I don't think it's a big deal, but this is coming from a believer of God. If you look at the other side of the coin, it's not a big deal either, but it is mildly irritating. So yeah, gripe, but don't gripe until people's ears fall off.[/COLOR]

SIDENOTE: Yeah, atheism is a religion. It may not be an organized religion, but it's a religion all the same (Sorry to anyone who was atheist to be different).

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]People get bored... they like to start fights to spice it up. Honestly, no one can leave anything alone.

I don't believe in God, or any form of a god, but I couldn't care less about these things. Yet, the majority of people living in America believe in God, so, it makes most sense to go by the majority.
[/color][/size]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][QUOTE=Bláse][size=1][color=slategray]People get bored... they like to start fights to spice it up. Honestly, no one can leave anything alone.

I don't believe in God, or any form of a god, but I couldn't care less about these things. Yet, the majority of people living in America believe in God, so, it makes most sense to go by the majority.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]So true on so many levels. And what makes it really ironic is many of those who consider themselves Christians don?t make a habit of attempting to force those of us who do not believe, into a life of where we have to believe.

So to turn around and try to claim he?s offended because he?s an atheist. It?s just too funny, because he?s being offended by something he claims he doesn?t even believe in. So why get so upset of this one? How about leading a crusade over all the fantasy and science fiction stuff as well? After all those aren?t real either. At least to someone who doesn?t believe in God that is. ^_~

So I guess it really boils down to him attempting to do what he claims the religious people do, force his views on everyone else. He's doing exactly what he is whining about being done to him. Too funny! [/COLOR]

[Nomad]

[SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana]I'm Atheist. Just to start this post off with telling you that. I haven't said the Pledge of Allegiance in over 7 years because of the phrase "One Nation Under god". And I highly dislike the phrase "In god We Trust" on our money. I[I] would[/I] like to see it removed, but if it doesn't, I'm not too worried about it, because I know where I stand, religiously.

But what if it said, "In Alla We Trust" or "In Buddha We Trust"? Then what would be the Christian's point of view? They'd want that gone too. No matter what deity you label this phrase as, it will have someone disliking it and wanting it removed. That's just how it is.

I'm not saying that everyone should go with this and remove it from our lives, if it never gets removed, I'm fine with that. If it does, then I'm even happier. I'm not basing months of my life after it. I do, however, wholly support the separation of church and state, but the government hasn't done everything it can to separate it. As a prime example, "One Nation Under god" and "In god We Trust".

What I'm saying is, as atheists, we aren't trying to be so just to be different (however there are those kids who think it's "cool" to be "different"), we are doing so because we genuinely believe in something, as do the Christians, Muslims, etc, etc. Most of us, I said most of us are civilized people and are doing what any other "religion" would do, remove a sign of the others' beliefs. We don't need those phrases to be rid of, but it'd help to recognize us as an equal to the religious group of people in the country. That's what America is about. Treating people equally and fairly. To truly understand why an Atheist does something about a religious matter, take a look from our side. Seriously. Doubt your faith for even 2 minutes, and look at a situation in which we're fighting against. If you flip the roles around, and tweak the circumstances, you too would be fighting or trying to change something that goes against your beliefs.

I'm done with that. Sorry for the long post. I don't think this guy will get anything done the way he's going about it. Then again, I don't think anyone will get anything done about those phrases because, unfortunately, they are a part of America's history, and therefore is preserved as they should be. "In god We Trust" will never be removed is what I believe.

Oh and one more thing.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[quote name='only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]Although yes this country was founded by Christians who ran away from Europe. They still welcomed anyone of any religion in their country.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana]Does "welcomed anyone of any religion in [B]their[/B] country" refer to after they slaughtered countless American Indians?

Sorry, my father is American Indian, as is his entire side of the family, and I haven't seen one historical record of the European Christians coming here and welcoming the America Indians with open arms, so to speak. Sorry.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[Sara]

[color=#b0000b][size=1]Just for the record, the phrase is "in [i]whom[/i] we trust." An easy way to remember this is that the word "whom" works just like the word "him."

[b]You would say "In him we trust" (or "we trust in him"), not "we trust in [i]he[/i]."[/b] So the same way you would use "him," use "whom."

As for where he's going with this?my home state just amended its constitution to ban gay marriages and civil unions, and reinstituted the death penalty. I feel like striking "in God we trust" from the currency wouldn't go over here.[/size][/color]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid][quote name='Sara][color=#b0000b][size=1]As for where he's going with this?my home state just amended its constitution to ban gay marriages and civil unions, and reinstituted the death penalty. I feel like striking "in God we trust" from the currency wouldn't go over here.[/size][/color][/QUOTE]They did the exact same thing last year here in Utah. Modify the law to not only ban gay marriage, but to pretty much not recognize any form of marriage that was not done by either the state or church. But I won?t get into that as it?s another topic. But it is relevant in that attempting to remove the ?in God we trust? would be bitterly fought over by the people here. [QUOTE=Nomad][SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana] Then again, I don't think anyone will get anything done about those phrases because, unfortunately, they are a part of America's history, and therefore is preserved as they should be. "In god We Trust" will never be removed is what I believe.[/FONT'][/SIZE][/quote]I?m not really an atheist nor am I really religious, I?m kind of in the phase of figuring out what I believe it, but regardless of that I doubt it will be changed and I don?t think it should be changed because it is as you put it, it's part of America?s history.

If we start allowing things like this to be modified because it is offensive to someone due to religious or lack of religious beliefs, well I will just open up a can of worms in that our country will start to bicker and fight over what should be on the money or what towns should be re-named to. And in the long run, I think something like that is a complete waste of money and people?s time.

I?m not even going to get into my view on how I think any form of religious expression is wrong for a nation because I don?t think God favors or protects one group of people more than say another group. And that?s really a whole different discussion. One that would take far to much time for me to explain.

Anyway, I seriously doubt anything will happen, and I think it?s kind of sad that he?s trying to change something that I perceive as trivial. I realize it?s important to people, but I just think they get too caught up in the semantics of things instead of appreciating the sentiment behind them.
[/COLOR]

[only1specialed]

[QUOTE=Nomad]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana]Does "welcomed anyone of any religion in [B]their[/B] country" refer to after they slaughtered countless American Indians?

Sorry, my father is American Indian, as is his entire side of the family, and I haven't seen one historical record of the European Christians coming here and welcoming the America Indians with open arms, so to speak. Sorry.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]hey lets not forget what thanksgiving is about. (j/k i know that was a terrible joke)

hey hey hey dont get me wrong i know they slaughtered indians and treated all the minorities like dirt. im a beaner myself and i know my people werent treated right (and who knows how many killed) by the founders of this country. I'm not trying to make it seem like the founders were freaking angels. but that is a part of history a dark part that obviously no one likes to talk about.

OH and dead i always fear you whenever i post something.....ive seen your post from other threads.

Anyway, i got a question for the atheist in here. i know some of you really dont care about "In God We Trust" and "Under God" but what about living in cities with references from christianity. Like say Los Angeles which means the the Angels. Do you care about that you would live in a city thats against your beliefs (cause if there is no God then there shouldnt be a devil or angels or other jibber jabber like that.)[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[quote name='Sara][color=#b0000b][size=1]As for where he's going with this?my home state just amended its constitution to ban gay marriages and civil unions, and reinstituted the death penalty. I feel like striking "in God we trust" from the currency wouldn't go over here.[/size'][/color][/quote]
[size=1]You should move, probably out of the country. State legislation going backwards is a bad sign.[/size]

[Ellerby]

[COLOR=DimGray][FONT=Tahoma]It could be worse. I remember a couple years ago this lady decided she wanted to try and get the Christ in Christmas removed and just make it Xmas. Obviously it didn't go over too well since she had no right doing that, it being a Christian holiday and all. :p

This all reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman goes to the future and it's ruled by Atheists. Instead of "God damn you!" they say "Science damn you!" and "Oh my science."

Just a little comic relief. lol[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Sora]

[color=Blue] I partially disagree and partially agree. I mean, as the pledge of allegiance is a national (state) motto, it probably shouldn't include anything religious, but to go so far as to say all that **** should be changed because it bares religious semblance is absurd. There're only two things they (the Supreme Court) need to look at, "separation of church and state", and "freedom of speech."
[/color]

[color=Blue] If they simply remove religious ideas from the government, and leave it at that, all problems are solved. Names of things or things people carve on statues are irrelevant, as that is clearly a form of free speech. I don't see how this can be so controversial... Someone just remind the Supreme Court of these two very simple and direct quotes written for the guiding of our country... Nobody cares if the founders of the country attempted to make "Prayer Day" or whatever. That goes against what they set forth as the absolute "rules" of government, and as such, shouldn?t happen. If a group of people wants to have a "Prayer Day", go for it. It's merely against the law to make it a national holiday, because, once again "National"="State" and must be kept separate from religion.[/color]

[Fasteriskhead]

Two things. First, this is an establishment clause question. There are a couple of good places to read up on this, but [URL=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx][u]here[/u][/URL] is as good a spot as any. Basically I would just note that unless the constitution is amended otherwise, the opinion of the majority pretty much amounts to jack and squat here. The phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is pretty darn airtight; whether it's okay or not to have the name of a certain deity on US currency depends wholly on the interpretation of constitutional law, and given the history of SCOTUS rulings since Everson in 1947 I think Mr. Atheist here could definitely make a case of it. As for the slippery slope (oh no! no more Sacramento!), I stress that WorldNetDaily isn't the most unbiased source in the world and that city names in Spanish probably aren't as up for question as having the G-word on your currency.

(There are, of course, other problems regarding the establishment clause that I won't go into - they're fairly technical and not relevant here).

Second, by no means did "In God We Trust" fall out of the sky the moment the Declaration of Independence was written. According to research the phrase didn't gain a foothold until the Civil War, as a way of drumming up patriotism. It was on coins for awhile, but didn't appear on US paper money until 1957 - shortly after it was adopted as the motto of the country in 1956, itself two years after "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War][u]what was going on[/u][/URL] during that time period. The phrase certainly has a history, and the SCOTUS [I]likes[/I] things that have been around for a few generations, but it's by no means an inviolate institution of the US.

[Nomad]

[quote name='only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Georgia]Anyway, i got a question for the atheist in here. i know some of you really dont care about "In God We Trust" and "Under God" but what about living in cities with references from christianity. Like say Los Angeles which means the the Angels. Do you care about that you would live in a city thats against your beliefs (cause if there is no God then there shouldnt be a devil or angels or other jibber jabber like that.)[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Verdana]I doesn't really bother me about the cities names either, then again, I live in Indiana, if you don't get the reference to myself then just think about it. Anyways, I wouldn't care if I lived in a city called Squigglyspooge, because it is just a city, I didn't invent the name, and just because I live in a city named something related to religion, doesn't necessarily mean they're enforcing a law saying that you must abide by that religion or whatever. Hell, the American Indians believe in deities, rather strongly, but even being of that heritage, I still denounce a deity. Just because a city is named after angels, doesn't mean that it's saying, "Boo! God's real, you're damned and you should believe in god, because if you don't, you're an idiot." It just shows where the minds of the founders were at whenever they created the names.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Fasteriskhead]Two things. First, this is an establishment clause question. There are a couple of good places to read up on this, but [URL=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx][u]here[/u][/URL'] is as good a spot as any. Basically I would just note that unless the constitution is amended otherwise, the opinion of the majority pretty much amounts to jack and squat here. The phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is pretty darn airtight; whether it's okay or not to have the name of a certain deity on US currency depends wholly on the interpretation of constitutional law, and given the history of SCOTUS rulings since Everson in 1947 I think Mr. Atheist here could definitely make a case of it. As for the slippery slope (oh no! no more Sacramento!), I stress that WorldNetDaily isn't the most unbiased source in the world and that city names in Spanish probably aren't as up for question as having the G-word on your currency.[/quote]The problem with his desire to remove the phrase In God we trust, is that the hard reality is that you are pledging your allegiance to the country, the government, not a particular religion that believes in God. The establishment clause is airtight, but the phrase In God we trust is not a true law in that sense. It is more of a reflection to appeal to those who are Christians not a statement that requires you to [I]actually become a Christian[/I]. So trying to argue that the use of those words is somehow a law that respects an establishment of religion is on some level irrelevant. It?s pure semantics and he knows it. Saying the words In God we trust or reading them in no way changes his views or requires him to be a Christian or belong to any form of faith. In fact no one is required to believe.

You could also argue that based on that we don?t need the words, but to be frank, he?s doing it because he wants life to reflect his atheist views, he wants a neutral saying because the idea that someone like God might exist is offensive to him. I don?t believe in God either, and yet I am puzzled as to why he would try to change something that hasn?t affected my life at all. The offense is all in his mind. No one is forcing him to believe, no one is making him belong to a religion. And if reading those words or saying them when you recite the pledge of allegiance somehow does, or offends him, then he?s not much of an Atheist to be so moved by simple semantics. [quote name='Fasteriskhead]Second, by no means did "In God We Trust" fall out of the sky the moment the Declaration of Independence was written. According to research the phrase didn't gain a foothold until the Civil War, as a way of drumming up patriotism. It was on coins for awhile, but didn't appear on US paper money until 1957 - shortly after it was adopted as the motto of the country in 1956, itself two years after "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War][u]what was going on[/u][/URL] during that time period. The phrase certainly has a history, and the SCOTUS [I]likes[/I'] things that have been around for a few generations, but it's by no means an inviolate institution of the US.[/quote]That?s my bad, I was getting my history confused, but then it?s not my favorite subject so that?s no surprise. Still my original argument of it being part of American history still stands, and the very fact that he has the freedom to be an Atheist is proof of that fact. So it?s kind of pathetic that he?s trying to do away with a symbol that is part of the very freedom he himself enjoys. A vast majority of the American population finds comfort in that simple phrase and just as he finds it offensive, his desire to erase it from the public is equally offensive to those who are religious.

There has to be a point where you accept that everything can?t be done to reflect your personal beliefs. And this goes both ways. He wants no reference to God and the Christians do. And since the phrase In God we trust, is not a true law and does not require him to actually believe in God, and is not infringing on his rights, well regardless of what he may think, I think it shouldn't be changed. And I would be greatly surprised if it was.[/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed']You could also argue that based on that we don?t need the words, but to be frank, he?s doing it because he wants life to reflect his atheist views, he wants a neutral saying because the idea that someone like God might exist is offensive to him. [/COLOR][/quote][SIZE=1]Well, you might be right. I don't really like these kinds of people, to be honest; most of them are just morons with too much time and money who've read Ayn Rand and Hume and think they've got all they need to know about religion. However, he could be Captain Jerk McAssholister and still have a leg to stand on legally. This is not about motives, it's a question of how to interpret constitutional law.[/SIZE]

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed][B](1)[/B] The problem with his desire to remove the phrase In God we trust, is that the hard reality is that you are pledging your allegiance to the country, the government, not a particular religion that believes in God. [B](2)[/B] The establishment clause is airtight, but the phrase In God we trust is not a true law in that sense. [B](3)[/B] It is more of a reflection to appeal to those who are Christians not a statement that requires you to [I]actually become a Christian[/I']. So trying to argue that the use of those words is somehow a law that respects an establishment of religion is on some level irrelevant.... Saying the words In God we trust or reading them in no way changes his views or requires him to be a Christian or belong to any form of faith. In fact no one is required to believe. [/COLOR][/quote][SIZE=1]I added numbers to your post so I could address each point (this is kind of crude, I'm sorry). To your first, I disagree based on the evidence. The phrase does not say "in the Union we trust," it doesn't even say "in liberty we trust." It uses the G-word [I]specifically[/I]. This does not promote any particular sect - obviously the word "God" is used in different ways - nor even one particular religion. But there are other religious positions that will endorse many gods or no god, and at [I]that[/I] point it becomes an establishment problem. This is not yet enough to say that the clause [I]is[/I] or [I]ought to be[/I] interpreted widely enough to nix the motto, but we're clearly in a place where it's fair to start asking legal questions. Anything more in-depth than that I leave to the people who've actually gone through law school...

I'm not sure if I understand your second point. I don't actually know the name of the law, but what I've read indicates that passing the motto and sticking it on currency was legislation like any other. If you just meant it in the sense that it's a law that doesn't end up being a problem under the EC, then I disagree for the reasons stated above.

I grant point three. Indeed, "no one is required to believe." But the question is whether the EC is narrow to the point where it only discourages [i]full-on government coercion[/i] in favor of a particular religion, or whether it also discourages mere [I]endorsement[/I]. "Reflections to appeal to those who are Christians" are definitely, I think, well in the neighborhood of that kind of endorsement. Again, it's a question of how widely the EC is to be read.[/SIZE]

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed][B](1)[/B] Still my original argument of it being part of American history still stands, and the very fact that he has the freedom to be an Atheist is proof of that fact. So it?s kind of pathetic that he?s trying to do away with a symbol that is part of the very freedom he himself enjoys. [B](2)[/B'] A vast majority of the American population finds comfort in that simple phrase and just as he finds it offensive, his desire to erase it from the public is equally offensive to those who are religious.[/COLOR][/quote][SIZE=1]Second point first. Again, it doesn't matter whether one person or everyone [I]except[/I] that one person gets anything out of this kind of motto. That will only become relevant at the moment when another amendment gets tacked onto the constitution. Even the "offensiveness" only matters insofar as it's what brought the whole issue up in the first place. The [I]only[/I] thing this is really about is how the highest law of the country is to be understood.

And back to the first point. I'm not going to argue too much here about the Christianity (or lack of Christianity) of the founding fathers, except to say that evidence suggests that Jefferson was an extreme deist, Madison was one of the strongest speakers against endorsement, and no one seems to know what the hell Washington was. Your stronger point (and I hope I'm understanding you correctly) is that in trying to do away with "in God we trust" he is effectively using his own freedom to violate the first amendment freedoms of others. This would be correct if, say, there was a private organization who used this motto and Mr. Atheist tried to shut them down. But this isn't what's happening: the phrase "in God we trust" is here being endorsed [i]by the government[/i]. The government, as an entity, has no first amendment rights. What it can decree is checked by a number of things, the most important being the constitution. And, as I've been droning on about for several paragraphs now, it's at least up for question whether this motto can be allowed by that document.[/SIZE]

[quote name='indifference][COLOR=DarkRed']And since the phrase In God we trust, is not a true law and does not require him to actually believe in God, and is not infringing on his rights, well regardless of what he may think, I think it shouldn't be changed. And I would be greatly surprised if it was.[/COLOR][/quote][SIZE=1]I've addressed most of this already. Anyways, I agree with you on the last sentence. If the motto had been legislated five years ago, I think there would be a much better chance of it going down to the SCOTUS as compared to the thing being on the books for 50 years. Remember that at his confirmation the term John Roberts kept using was "stare decisis," which is basically Latin for "if it's working fine then don't touch it." While I doubt Los Angeles would suddenly have to be renamed, a ruling against the motto would definitely open up a can of worms. Prevailing wisdom in jurisprudence now seems to be that unless there's a smoking gun - which may not quite be there in this case - one should steer close to past decisions. If one can't be sure about being right, one should at least be consistent. However, I think that's a different question from the one regarding whether the motto is at least up for [I]question[/I] on these grounds, which is what I've been pushing in this post.[/SIZE]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1] added numbers to your post so I could address each point (this is kind of crude, I'm sorry). To your first, I disagree based on the evidence. The phrase does not say "in the Union we trust," it doesn't even say "in liberty we trust." It uses the G-word [I]specifically[/I]. This does not promote any particular sect - obviously the word "God" is used in different ways - nor even one particular religion. But there are other religious positions that will endorse many gods or no god, and at [I]that[/I] point it becomes an establishment problem. This is not yet enough to say that the clause [I]is[/I] or [I]ought to be[/I'] interpreted widely enough to nix the motto, but we're clearly in a place where it's fair to start asking legal questions. Anything more in-depth than that I leave to the people who've actually gone through law school...[/SIZE][/quote]I wouldn?t say the numbers are crude. In fact they just make it easier to see what aspects of my post you are addressing. ;) Anyway?

I?m going to feel a little like I?m getting into semantics here, but my whole point is exactly what you are stating, it does not specifically endorse one religious group. And as you said the phrase was used in both the civil war and then later in the 1950?s. So even though the phrase was only adopted into the actual pledge fairly recently, and also put on US paper money, it?s still a reflection that can be seen as one that reflects America?s history instead of a phrase that supports say the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church or any other church in America. The phrase is grounded in efforts by the government, or who ever thought of it, to increase patriotism, not increase church membership or one?s believe in God. [quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1']I'm not sure if I understand your second point. I don't actually know the name of the law, but what I've read indicates that passing the motto and sticking it on currency was legislation like any other. If you just meant it in the sense that it's a law that doesn't end up being a problem under the EC, then I disagree for the reasons stated above.[/SIZE][/quote]I?ll try to be clearer on this one. I?m not referring to the actual process of deciding to put the phrase on money, in the pledge, etc. I?m referring to the fact that the actual phrase itself is not a law. The problem with saying it took a law to put it there, is it?s not the same as actually passing a law that requires people to believe in religion or God. I hope that makes more sense.

It?s a fairly standard process for the government, or city to pass laws that allow things that reflect some form of religion, like zoning an area to allow a church to be built, but yet do not really pass a law that respects a religion in the sense that others are required to respect them. They may build the church, but no one is required to actually attend.

If my explanation doesn?t make sense I?m sorry, but to me it?s clear. The phrase In God we trust, even though it can be argued does respect religion on some level, still does not require or force anyone to respect religion. Now I can agree with the argument to be more careful about allowing any new laws that allow the use of such phrases, but to try and remove one that has some historical significance, is in my opinion outright asinine on his part. [quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1] I grant point three. Indeed, "no one is required to believe." But the question is whether the EC is narrow to the point where it only discourages [i]full-on government coercion[/i] in favor of a particular religion, or whether it also discourages mere [I]endorsement[/I]. "Reflections to appeal to those who are Christians" are definitely, I think, well in the neighborhood of that kind of endorsement. Again, it's a question of how widely the EC is to be read.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]I think I just answered this one as the phrase has historical significance so in my mind it?s just fine. It may have been done to appeal to Christians in general, but it?s still grounded in the history of America. However, to insist that there be more care before trying to add more phrases is something that I can agree with, as one side shouldn?t be getting more of what they would like to see. So in that respect Atheists have every right to insist that we don?t go overboard with including phrases, even if they do have a historical significance. [QUOTE=Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]And back to the first point. I'm not going to argue too much here about the Christianity (or lack of Christianity) of the founding fathers, except to say that evidence suggests that Jefferson was an extreme deist, Madison was one of the strongest speakers against endorsement, and no one seems to know what the hell Washington was. Your stronger point (and I hope I'm understanding you correctly) is that in trying to do away with "in God we trust" he is effectively using his own freedom to violate the first amendment freedoms of others. This would be correct if, say, there was a private organization who used this motto and Mr. Atheist tried to shut them down. But this isn't what's happening: the phrase "in God we trust" is here being endorsed [i]by the government[/i']. The government, as an entity, has no first amendment rights. What it can decree is checked by a number of things, the most important being the constitution. And, as I've been droning on about for several paragraphs now, it's at least up for question whether this motto can be allowed by that document.[/SIZE][/quote]I?m not sure if that?s my stronger point, it?s more of a I?m surprised point as he?s insisting that his rights have been violated when in reality, they have not. Whether or not the founders were Christians is irrelevant in the long end. The fact that the statements do have historical roots, regardless of whether or not they are Christian in nature is relevant. I could understand as I already said, if he were trying to make sure this sort of thing wasn?t happening all the time, the use of phrases that appeal to Christians, then I would actually agree with him. It?s the how dare you even use it at all attitude he has that I find grating and downright annoying, even though I too do not believe in God.

On some level the government has to endorse the phrase since they are the ones in charge of and responsible for money being produced. And even then they aren?t endorsing a religion they are endorsing the phrase being used on coins, paper money, in the pledge of allegiance. And even though it does on some level respect religion, well you can?t deny that aspects of our history do include that. Which is part of what I was driving at, he had the freedom to believe or not believe and the phrase in the pledge and on money doesn?t take away that right. It?s an accurate reflection of aspects of our country?s history. Not some attempt to deliberately offend him.

And on some level we can?t change history or how people feel just to accommodate one person or group. If the phrase had no historical roots then I too would be arguing that such a phrase shouldn?t be allowed. [quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]I've addressed most of this already. Anyways, I agree with you on the last sentence. If the motto had been legislated five years ago, I think there would be a much better chance of it going down to the SCOTUS as compared to the thing being on the books for 50 years. Remember that at his confirmation the term John Roberts kept using was "stare decisis," which is basically Latin for "if it's working fine then don't touch it." While I doubt Los Angeles would suddenly have to be renamed, a ruling against the motto would definitely open up a can of worms. Prevailing wisdom in jurisprudence now seems to be that unless there's a smoking gun - which may not quite be there in this case - one should steer close to past decisions. If one can't be sure about being right, one should at least be consistent. However, I think that's a different question from the one regarding whether the motto is at least up for [I]question[/I'] on these grounds, which is what I've been pushing in this post.[/SIZE][/quote]I don?t have a problem with the motto being questioned. In fact I think that unless there is a historical significance to it, the phrases used for such things should be carefully considered. So in the end I really think he?s barking up the wrong tree so to speak. The issue as I see it, isn?t about removing the current phrase, but instead making sure it doesn?t become a trend. So that other phrases that respect a religious view on life are not used unless they have a strong historical presence. Because then it?s not offensive, but merely a representation of aspects of America and it?s history.

They really are going to have to be careful with this one. Because if they do rule in his favor, it?s going to open up bickering on all sorts of levels, and that?s going to be a problem because people will start jumping on the bandwagon to find things that they think are offensive and should be removed. [/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][quote name='Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1] But this isn't what's happening: the phrase "in God we trust" is here being endorsed [i]by the government[/i']. The government, as an entity, has no first amendment rights. What it can decree is checked by a number of things, the most important being the constitution. And, as I've been droning on about for several paragraphs now, it's at least up for question whether this motto can be allowed by that document.[/SIZE][/quote]Well that?s really kind of a yes it is being endorsed and a no it?s not. For one thing endorsements usually end up benefiting one party in some way. And in this case neither side is getting any profit or true benefit from having the words In God we trust put on coins, paper money, or in it being part of the pledge of allegiance. The government doesn?t get any real gain, nor do any of the various religions in the US.

So the government approved of it, but they certainly didn?t get anything out of it. Other than a lawsuit over whether or not someone is offended by it. And I wouldn?t necessarily consider that a benefit.

I?m with indifference on this one in that the phrase has a historical value and reflects an aspect of the American history. I could understand if the phrase was being used to gain more members or donations for religious groups, or somehow benefited the government. But that?s not the case here.

As much as I would like to agree with this guy since I don?t really believe in God either, it is a part of our history and trying to do away with it won?t change that. It really shows a lack of tolerance on his part to expect the people to pretend that they don?t have a religious slant on how they see America.

And it?s not like the government is re-writing things on a regular basis to reflect that. So what?s the harm in having a phrase that historically represents the American people? So long as no one is truly benefiting from it, I think his argument is a selfish one and fails to see the big picture. He may be an Atheist, but too bad. If he finds it offensive, that?s his problem. I know I don?t expect others to not use religiously based phrases just because I don?t believe in God. LOL!
[/COLOR]

[Hanabishi Recca]

This is kind of interesting.

This doesn't really effect me at all. I'm Christian, but if someone wants to change something that America was started with, then that's fine. Its just a couple of words to me. Everyone can be something they want to be.

There aren't any limits in this world and without a couple there is going to be a limit.. ?
That's ridiculous! If someone is getting offended over some words then they should actually DO something with their life that is actually useful!

Thanks for your time!

Dae

[pooperson]

Oh my.
Somebody always has to get upset about something, don't they? This is too insane.
I hate how "politically correct" we must be in America - I mean COME ON!!!!
I am totally against taking the word "God" out. A vast majority of Americans call themselves Christian [76%/78% including mormons], and another 2% still believe in God [Muslim & Jewish]. Why should we change what 80% believe to be good in order to please 20%?
These people could not say "God" if they really didn't want to.
But I would simply request that if they don't say "God" then, that they also don't say "Oh, my God", etc. :nope:
But still. Even if they did take out the words, I would still say them. Loudly. But at any rate, I think that political correctness is ridiculous. People need to accept things how they are --- you can't change everything.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

I really am utterly stupefied by this. Aside from the fact that this is completely moronic, and nothing to do with protecting people from "exposure to Christianity" I really have to wonder why these kinds of legal challenges are allowed to be made. I mean if he's successful, then the havoc unleashed by this Pandora's Box in going to be immense. Los Angeles will need a new name, as will anywhere in the U.S. that has anything to do with religion, I mean can you seriously see Los Angeles renamed [I]The Scientists[/I] or [I]The Nobel Prize Winners[/I] ?

Seriously, if this gets through, the next challenge will probably be to legalise arresting men who dress up as Santa at Christmas. Or should that be X-Mas ?[/SIZE]