The official motto of the United States is "In God We Trust", but is this unconstitutional under the first amendment, or at the least is it a violation of the separation of church and state? The first amendment in the U.S. Constitution states that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so is having "in god we trust" as the official motto unconstitutional? Under the first amendment I think that it is technically constitutional to have "in god we trust" as the official motto, but I think that this is a violation of the separation of church and state.
From what I understand about the issue of separation of church and state is that the government is not supposed to advocate and particular religious belief nor are any churches allowed to affect any government policy (directly in any case). So doesn't having the motto "in god we trust" advocate at least the Judeo-Christian religion, and to a larger extent any monotheistic religion?
I personally prefer the original motto of "E Pluribus Unum", which means "out of many, one" in Latin.
I feel that this motto is more "American", it is less conflicting, in any case, to the founding values, at least as I understand them.

I am interested to hear other people's views on this issue, and any replies will be appreciated.

i think if people are creative enough to this term,it may be projected to you as your god(christians may see it as jesus and hindu's may see it as one of their gods.)
again its quite a interesting topic since we have athiest in our country aswell.

GOD stands for "Good Old Days".

So the bills are actually celebrating our past. Don't sound unconstitutional to me.

At 9/27/11 08:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: GOD stands for "Good Old Days".

Where did you get that idea?

So the bills are actually celebrating our past. Don't sound unconstitutional to me.

Except for the part where I've clearly never heard that, and from what I'm finding in a quick search, that's looking like a total fabrication or misunderstanding on your part.

At 9/27/11 09:23 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Except for the part where I've clearly never heard that, and from what I'm finding in a quick search, that's looking like a total fabrication or misunderstanding on your part.

More of a reflection of the absurdity spending time on this subject, when there are much more serious religious issues to tackle.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, "god" has nothing inherently to do with a religion.

If it said, "In Jesus we trust:, then maybe you would be onto something....

So naturally, I have to ask: What religion is established with "In God We Trust"?

At 9/28/11 12:50 AM, Hybridization wrote: So naturally, I have to ask: What religion is established with "In God We Trust"?

The Big 3 of monotheism. But considering it's the US? I'd say it's aimed at asserting Christian supremacy.

The capitol "G" is the clincher.

Also, Cam, I'm getting just a wee bit tired of this very weak argument you keep making for keeping the status qou on stuff like this. Acting like it's somehow hard to deal with these issues, and there is so much better stuff to work on. Unfortunately for that argument it's actually remarkably easy to fix this, and near impossible to fix some of the larger abuses and injustices when it comes to religion and religious systems.

From many one was the original motto in latin on the back of the dollar bill but it was switched around in the 50s by the Knights of Colombus I believe

At 9/28/11 01:29 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also, Cam, I'm getting just a wee bit tired of this very weak argument you keep making for keeping the status qou on stuff like this. Acting like it's somehow hard to deal with these issues, and there is so much better stuff to work on. Unfortunately for that argument it's actually remarkably easy to fix this, and near impossible to fix some of the larger abuses and injustices when it comes to religion and religious systems.

Let's turn this on its face.

You say try to fix these things because it's easy. I. and the vast majority of Americans, see this "easy" target as nothing more than nitpicking. It becomes really hard to take an activist group seriously when all they do is fight over symbols here and there, but seem to let actual religious discrimination and hatred go unchecked. I see this as a sign of weakness. Instead of galvanizing to fight a real problem, the Atheist community sits back and pokes and prods at these little things.

Also, when it comes to Christians, the erasure of these little symbols becomes the "erasing of God" and thus turns them against Atheists, moreso than they already would be (from apathy the dislike to hatred). If the Atheists actually focused on the real religious injustices, such as work discrimination, community discrimination, prayers in school, creationism in school, and left the little things alone then the Atheists wouldn't have so many enemies.

The more I see these tired and futile attempts/calls to remove "God" from certian things, the more I begin to believe that the Atheist community is just creating a ruckus to get attention, and intentionaly provoking a reaction from religions. If the Atheists were joined by a large group of another religion on this matter, say Hindus, then maybe they would carry some credibility, but the fact that so many groups who are not Christian and do not fall under "God" are silent and accepting of the status quo, it makes me think Atheists are rocking the boat just to rock the boat. Now I don't mind rocking the boat, but I only tolerate it when there's a purpose.

Trust me, my family has experienced first hand harm because of the the things I just mentioned, yet has not felt any harm from the inclusion of the word "God" on the Dollar, or in the Pledge of Allegiance.

At 9/28/11 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I see this as a sign of weakness. Instead of galvanizing to fight a real problem, the Atheist community sits back and pokes and prods at these little things.

we shouldn't have helped Japan after the earthquake because we were still providing aid in Haiti.

... or, you know, we can do multiple things at once.

At 9/28/11 10:30 AM, SolInvictus wrote: we shouldn't have helped Japan after the earthquake because we were still providing aid in Haiti.

... or, you know, we can do multiple things at once.

A better example would be not helping Japan or Haiti at all, but doing everything we can to ensure that candles don't exist in homes.

I am not arguing that Atheists can't do more than one thing. I am arguing that ALL Atheists are doing is this di minimus crap that helps no one and actually creates more hurdles to stop the big problems.

At 9/27/11 08:02 PM, dude451 wrote: The official motto of the United States is "In God We Trust", but is this unconstitutional

;;;;
Seeing as the U.S. Presidents & all other Congressional & Senate members have perjured themselves ever since Federal Reserve Act, was invoked..which is illegal under the US constitution & then FDR, when people who realised that money was being created out of nothing & was worth nothing, started taking their 'fiat' money & converting it to gold. He declared personal ownership of gold illegal & made them turn it over to the bankers. Another action that was illegal under the US Constitution, the least of it being "confiscation by Government decree of personal property" !
& the Presidents showing favor to bankers goes back even further

So whenever you see a newly elected President or other officials stand up & swear to uphold the US Contstitution. Remember they are lying to you.

Because a central bank, a dollar not backed by gold & silver is against the US Constitution & if they are not actively working to changing that , by getting rid of the Federal Reserve, then they are going against their vow to uphold the Constittuion of the US.
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/reserve2.htm

In this next link, scroll down to Faith & Credit...then scroll down to punishment.
http://www.safehaven.com/article/5903/th e-constitution-of-the-united-states-hone st-money

This proves that President Obama & all those before him in the 19th Centruy have purjured themselves & are acting against the US constitution they swear to uphold

So being concerned about something as trivial as in God we trust...You got much bigger problems than that !
Way fucking bigger ! !

At 9/28/11 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Federal Reserve Act, was invoked..which is illegal under the US constitution

Alright. I'll bite. Tell me exactly how it is unconstitutional, and don't waste my time with biased links. Say it yourself.

At 9/28/11 10:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/28/11 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Federal Reserve Act, was invoked..which is illegal under the US constitution

Alright. I'll bite. Tell me exactly how it is unconstitutional, and don't waste my time with biased links. Say it yourself.

"Don't waste my time with biased links."

This statement suggests you are unwilling to learn and/or are too lazy to do so - both indicate your motivation is to simply argue and not educate yourself on something you clearly have no background in. I'm not throwing myself into this argument; but, this response was absolutely infuriating to me, and probably morefngdbs as well. I'm sure you are fully capable of reading web-articles for a few minutes (or, perhaps not).

Stop wasting other people's time and actually take into consideration the points they make (especially when given one or multiple sources).

At 9/28/11 12:49 PM, Hybridization wrote:

At 9/28/11 10:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/28/11 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Federal Reserve Act, was invoked..which is illegal under the US constitution

Alright. I'll bite. Tell me exactly how it is unconstitutional, and don't waste my time with biased links. Say it yourself.

"Don't waste my time with biased links."

This statement suggests you are unwilling to learn and/or are too lazy to do so

Hybridization.... he's just an asshole.
One who argues for the sake of argument & brings little or nothing to the table, when he does so.
Answering him is like pissing into a strong wind, yeah, your bladder is no longer uncomfortable but now you've got the problem of being uncomfortably covered in piss.
ignore him, its the best way to deal with morons.

At 9/28/11 12:49 PM, Hybridization wrote: This statement suggests you are unwilling to learn and/or are too lazy to do so -

I was actually asking him to not be lazy. He often will toss out links and then say HA! as if he won, but hadn't said anything. I am asking him to come straight out and say why it is unconstitutional. I want to hear it from dbs, not from some site whose sole goal is to rail on how bad the reserve is.

What is wrong with wanting someone to stand up for their own arguments in their own words?

At 9/28/11 03:09 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Answering him is like pissing into a strong wind, yeah, your bladder is no longer uncomfortable but now you've got the problem of being uncomfortably covered in piss.

Strange, you have just described the sense of arguing with you. I mean, this thread was about the includion of a religious statement on the Dollar bill and you somehow brought up the Reserve. If you're going to make a broad assertion of something's constitutionality, or lack thereof, back it up. Do it in your own words too.

When it comes to bringing something to the table, I am asking you to state the source of your argument so I can have something to bring.

Wait. How is the Pledge of Allegiance part of the Constitution? I mean yah it can be endorsed and in Public schools, but you're not forced by law to say it.

But yah the original text of the 1st amendment is more damning to the "The USA is a Christian nation" movement along with the actions of the Founding Fathers. It was added in to combat those who weren't Christian and to justify certain political policies like Manifest Destiny.

At 9/27/11 08:02 PM, dude451 wrote: From what I understand about the issue of separation of church and state is that the government is not supposed to advocate and particular religious belief nor are any churches allowed to affect any government policy (directly in any case). So doesn't having the motto "in god we trust" advocate at least the Judeo-Christian religion, and to a larger extent any monotheistic religion?

Well, that all depends... does having "In God We Trust" force you to believe or follow any particular monotheistic religion?

If it does, then yes, it would be a violation of church and state. But since it's an inanimate object incapable thinking or acting in it's own interests, much less capable of forcing you to actually do anything, I'm going to have to say "no." If it does, you're schizophrenic.

At 9/28/11 08:40 PM, Proteas wrote: Well, that all depends... does having "In God We Trust" force you to believe or follow any particular monotheistic religion?

Would promoting a religious belief be akin to establishing a religious belief? That is a better question to ask. The First Amendment deals with the establishment of religion, not the forced belief of a religion. Seems like you're placing the bar much higher than it really is.

Founding fathers=Theists
In God we trust=Theist, not actually religious
A belief in a creator isn't religious. Saying hey, a guy made all of us, doesn't make a religion.

At 9/28/11 09:25 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Founding fathers=Theists
In God we trust=Theist, not actually religious
A belief in a creator isn't religious. Saying hey, a guy made all of us, doesn't make a religion.

But that may promote monotheism over polytheism, atheism, and agnosticim (and any other isms that qualify)

At 9/28/11 09:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/28/11 09:25 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Founding fathers=Theists
In God we trust=Theist, not actually religious
A belief in a creator isn't religious. Saying hey, a guy made all of us, doesn't make a religion.

But that may promote monotheism over polytheism, atheism, and agnosticim (and any other isms that qualify)

Would you rather have it be- "In God, Gods, nothing, and indecision we trust?"
Personally I think that sounds strange. We could have the motto be "All for one and one for all" or "Beam me up Scotty" but those may lead to lawsuits. Or we could have "Parilitas est infinitio" which is "Equality is eternity" in Latin, I would actually support that. I don't think that any argument about it being unconstitutional should be made until a suitable replacement is found and agreed upon. Though I agree it might, but that's just splitting hairs.

At 9/28/11 09:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Would promoting a religious belief be akin to establishing a religious belief?

No more than a guy walking down the street wearing a "Got Jesus?" t-shirt does.

The First Amendment deals with the establishment of religion, not the forced belief of a religion. Seems like you're placing the bar much higher than it really is.

Correction; the first amendment deals with the establishment of a state sponsored religion, as in; to prevent the government from saying "we will now be a Methodist state, all U.S. Citizens will now attend and subscribe to the doctrines of the Methodist Church or face the consequences." Sorta like what it was back in England at the time.

The bar was set when the 1st Amendment was ratified, I had nothing to do with it.

At 9/28/11 09:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But that may promote monotheism over polytheism, atheism, and agnosticim (and any other isms that qualify)

In which case, you're promoting a philosophy and not a religion.

At 9/28/11 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You say try to fix these things because it's easy.

No, I say it IS easy to fix these things. That is not an argument as to why they should be fixed. Just that I'm saying the argument that you are putting out that seems to make it sound like it's hard and time consuming is in fact false.

I. and the vast majority of Americans, see this "easy" target as nothing more than nitpicking.

Well, since Argumentum Ad Populum is a fallacy and all...

It becomes really hard to take an activist group seriously when all they do is fight over symbols here and there, but seem to let actual religious discrimination and hatred go unchecked.

I'm sorry, would you like to actually give me some concrete examples of activist groups doing this? Because it seems to me what's happened here is you've read some articles about a bunch of groups who oppose "symbols" and because you don't hear their names popping up on more "serious" issues of discrimination you assume they're active in the former, but not the latter.

I see this as a sign of weakness.

Opinions are neat.

Instead of galvanizing to fight a real problem, the Atheist community sits back and pokes and prods at these little things.

Except when they poke at the Catholic Church and a lot of the other real problems. Because they certainly are doing that very publicly. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your hating on and generalizing Atheists. Especially since they aren't really a "community" since they don't really necessarily have anything in common other then their lack of theism.

Also, when it comes to Christians, the erasure of these little symbols becomes the "erasing of God" and thus turns them against Atheists, moreso than they already would be (from apathy the dislike to hatred).

So Atheists shouldn't voice concerns or raise their voices because it might piss off the Christians or hurt thier feelings? Seriously? By this logic then nobody should criticize or point out the flaws in anything because surely they're going to offend some group.

If the Atheists actually focused on the real religious injustices,

Which they do.

such as work discrimination,

Prove they don't.

community discrimination,

Prove they don't.

prayers in school,

They definitely have focused on that. Also the Pledge of Allegiance as currently constituted said in schools.

creationism in school,

Again they do.

and left the little things alone then the Atheists wouldn't have so many enemies.

Oh, so you should just pick acceptable battles because it's so terrible to have "enemies" and potentially have your opinions piss someone off. Honestly, go screw. The right to do that is what this country is built on. You see something you believe is an injustice, or wrong, you have a right to stand up and rail against it.

The more I see these tired and futile attempts/calls to remove "God" from certian things, the more I begin to believe that the Atheist community is just creating a ruckus to get attention, and intentionaly provoking a reaction from religions.

Or hey, maybe they're just not willing to accept passive and tacit approval of a certain religious idea into a system that is supposed to be religiously neutral. I don't identify as atheist but I'm certainly sympathetic to those ideals as someone who firmly believes freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion if one so chooses.

If the Atheists were joined by a large group of another religion on this matter, say Hindus, then maybe they would carry some credibility,

So...they need more numbers to seem credible for you? They need theists to seem credible? That doesn't strike you as even a little discriminatory?

but the fact that so many groups who are not Christian and do not fall under "God" are silent and accepting of the status quo, it makes me think Atheists are rocking the boat just to rock the boat.

So you've decided that because a cause isn't popular, it's bullshit? Really? The American Revolution was a very devisive issue...was that "just people rocking the boat" too? Ugh.

Now I don't mind rocking the boat, but I only tolerate it when there's a purpose.

And you get to decide when it serves a purpose right? Because you're such a great expert on the groups raising the objections and their motives?

Sounds more like you really don't like Atheists and that's really informing your view here. Just my opinion anyway.

Trust me, my family has experienced first hand harm because of the the things I just mentioned, yet has not felt any harm from the inclusion of the word "God" on the Dollar, or in the Pledge of Allegiance.

At 9/28/11 09:32 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Would you rather have it be- "In God, Gods, nothing, and indecision we trust?"

I'm still wondering just what was so wrong with "E Plurubus Unum". Perfect motto for a melting pot country like ours. The only conclusion I personally can draw (feel free to offer up some other alternatives, I really would like to hear them) is because it didn't promote the Judeo-Christian character that many groups seem to feel is such an inherent part of our national fabric.

At 9/28/11 12:50 AM, Hybridization wrote: So naturally, I have to ask: What religion is established with "In God We Trust"?

Unless you've been living under a soundproof rock since the 1970's, surely you are aware of the steady increase in size of staunchly conservative fundamental Christian groups who almost unanimously attempt to declare the US a Christian Country and interject religious rhetoric into almost any possible political and legal discussion in the national attention sphere.

Groups that make an extreme effort to make 'Christianity' and 'Patriotism' synonymous terms by attempting to discredit a person's political standings by calling into question their religious affiliation. You know, the people who chain themselves to lawn chairs in protest of courts removing the ten commandments from their buildings.

At 9/29/11 03:23 AM, Famas wrote:

At 9/28/11 12:50 AM, Hybridization wrote: So naturally, I have to ask: What religion is established with "In God We Trust"?

Unless you've been living under a soundproof rock since the 1970's, surely you are aware of the steady increase in size of staunchly conservative fundamental Christian groups who almost unanimously attempt to declare the US a Christian Country and interject religious rhetoric into almost any possible political and legal discussion in the national attention sphere.

Groups that make an extreme effort to make 'Christianity' and 'Patriotism' synonymous terms by attempting to discredit a person's political standings by calling into question their religious affiliation. You know, the people who chain themselves to lawn chairs in protest of courts removing the ten commandments from their buildings.

First off, I was being satirical.

But to respond, "In God We Trust" in and of itself doesn't have to be interpreted as Christian oriented - monotheistic I suppose, but monotheism isn't a "religion". It doesn't necessarily designate a specific religion even though it was instituted by Christians. Of course, that was our founders' intentions - though I see no point in arguing about this. Aside from the point, I believe that because Christianity is a defining characteristic of American society (certainly its roots). So, 'Christianity' and 'Patriotism' were synonymous from the start. It's up to we the people to purge religious slogans/sayings if we wish; but, for now at least, separation of church and state in this sense is a paradox.

I can hardly wait for your misinterpretation of this post.

At 9/30/11 12:39 AM, Hybridization wrote:

But to respond, "In God We Trust" in and of itself doesn't have to be interpreted as Christian oriented - monotheistic I suppose, but monotheism isn't a "religion". It doesn't necessarily designate a specific religion even though it was instituted by Christians. Of course, that was our founders' intentions - though I see no point in arguing about this. Aside from the point, I believe that because Christianity is a defining characteristic of American society (certainly its roots). So, 'Christianity' and 'Patriotism' were synonymous from the start. It's up to we the people to purge religious slogans/sayings if we wish; but, for now at least, separation of church and state in this sense is a paradox.

"In God We Trust" is an extremely recent addition to US culture, and was put into print in 1956. You're saying the founding fathers intended for something extremely insignificant and pointless to happen 180 years later? That seems really convoluted. If that's the case why wouldn't they have just enacted it then and there?

And no, 'patriotism' and 'christian' have never been synonymous. Jews, Deists and Atheists died fighting int he revolutionary war, and they were the original patriots. As in, the people the term was coined after. You could call them the original gangsters of sorts. The declaration of independence was signed under the mutual understanding among the country's founders that personal religious freedom is one of the most important, unshakeable rights of every citizen. Especially considering that almost no two founding fathers saw eye to eye in manners of religious philosophy. So my point still stands, it is a far right Christian movement, and has nothing to do with the founding fathers.

Separation of Church and State is not a paradox (you're using that word incorrectly), and is in fact extremely easy to abide by, but somehow it's socially acceptable for politicians to insist that Christians are the only people with enough morale fiber and conviction to govern anything. Ben Affleck puts it very well in this clip, and says pretty much what I'm getting at.

The United State's is not a 'christian nation' in the same way that English is not its official language. The United States is a country of free religion, is the more apt way to put it. Phrasing it to exemplify Christianity is exclusive to everyone else, and is not at all reflective of the nature of our first amendment rights.

I can hardly wait for your misinterpretation of this post.

You're consistently flame baiting me even though all of my posts directed towards you have stayed on topic and have been rather patient with you considering your very frustrating method of debate and discussion.