"In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God"

[TheLastMohican]

Are these phrases on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance defensible?

[Lateralus]

I don't see why this is an issue. Do these phrases hurt you somehow? Are these phrases going to cause Christians to rise up and create a theocracy? I doubt it.

[Jack Flak]

They were products of the times. I feel patriotic when I say Under God.

[Geoff]

Are these phrases on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance defensible?

Our currency?

Mine says "ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR" or if your latin is rusty, "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith"

Now, it doesn't much bother me much as I dont have a great deal of faith to defend :D

[cafe]

They were products of the times. I feel patriotic when I say Under God.
That's about my take on it as well, otherwise, I'm indifferent.

[sassafrassquatch]

Neither. If you want God in your government go to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I don't see why this is an issue. Do these phrases hurt you somehow? Are these phrases going to cause Christians to rise up and create a theocracy? I doubt it.

If they're not a problem then we can take them off. Why not put "We love tacos" on the money and in the pledge? Not everyone loves tacos but it's not like pizza and hamburgers are going to be taken off the menu.

[pure_mercury]

"One nation under God" was added to the Pledge after the fact; I find it unnecessary and kind of silly. "In God We Trust" for the money is fine by me. You shouldn't trust the government when it comes to fiat money.

[Lateralus]

If they're not a problem then we can take them off. Why not put "We love tacos" on the money and in the pledge? Not everyone loves tacos but it's not like pizza and hamburgers are going to be taken off the menu.
If "We love tacos" was currently on the currency, I wouldn't have a problem with leaving it on, either. That phrase doesn't hurt me. Though, I suppose it might hurt the taco haters.

[Jack Flak]

Why not put "We love tacos" on the money and in the pledge? Not everyone loves tacos but it's not like pizza and hamburgers are going to be taken off the menu.
But if everyone loved tacos when the nation was founded, wouldn't it make you feel good to reminisce? "Those were the days!"

[TheLastMohican]

Our currency?


Okay, U.S. currency to be precise. It sounds like yours has a similar problem, though.

[sassafrassquatch]

But if everyone loved tacos when the nation was founded, wouldn't it make you feel good to reminisce? "Those were the days!"

Not an imaginary evil magic taco.

[Lateralus]

Okay, U.S. currency to be precise. It sounds like yours has a similar problem, though.
Why is it a 'problem'? In order for it to be a problem, doesn't there have to be some sort of identifiable negative effect on society? I see no negative effect other than a bunch of whiny pansies getting their panties all bunched up over a phrase. And to me, that's not a problem. There are whiny pansies everywhere, bitching about every little thing you can imagine.

[Peguy]

Neither. If you want God in your government go to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

What kind of bullshit argument is this? Our system of government and the legal philosophy upon which its based has religious underpinnings at its origins, dating to Anglo-Saxon common law. Our system of government was modelled after the form of the Presybertarian churches.

So the terms "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" are perfectly acceptable and 100% American.

[Didums]

Neither, I don't think they're necessary.

[sassafrassquatch]

What kind of bullshit argument is this? Our system of government and the legal philosophy upon which its based has religious underpinnings at its origins, dating to Anglo-Saxon common law. Our system of government was modelled after the form of the Presybertarian churches.

So the terms "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" are perfectly acceptable and 100% American.

I don't care. I don't want the state to make deference to anyone's imaginary friend in any way.

[Peguy]

I don't care. I don't want the state to make deference to anyone's imaginary friend in any way.

Then go to North Korea or Cuba, where the state is officially atheist.

[sassafrassquatch]

Then go to North Korea or Cuba, where the state is officially atheist.

Pfft. There's plenty of divinity crap in Lil' Kim's personality cult and communism is about as retarded as religion. I'd prefer a secular democracy.

[Peguy]

I'd prefer a secular democracy.

That's an oxymoron. Besides even "secular" democracy relies heavily upon what is commonly referred to as "civil religion".

And if you eliminate God and religion, then by default the state is the determinator of ultimate truth - which leads to shit like "Enlightened absolutism" of the 18th century or 20th century totalitarianism.

So dance around it as much as you like it, religious-like sentiments and beliefs underplay in any legal system.

[Didums]

That's an oxymoron. Besides even "secular" democracy relies heavily upon 2what is commonly referred to as "civil religion".

And if you eliminate God and religion, then by default the state is the determinator of ultimate truth - which leads to shit like "Enlightened absolutism" of the 18th century or 20th century totalitarianism.

:17425:

[pure_mercury]

Pfft. There's plenty of divinity crap in Lil' Kim's personality cult and communism is about as retarded as religion. I'd prefer a secular democracy.

You can't really have a true "secular democracy" in a majority-religious nation that has a Free Exercise clause in its Constitution.

[Didums]

You can't really have a true "secular democracy" in a majority-religious nation that has a Free Exercise clause in its Constitution.

Yep :( Which is why I need to move to Sweden! :run:

[sassafrassquatch]

That's an oxymoron. Besides even "secular" democracy relies heavily upon what is commonly referred to as "civil religion".

And if you eliminate God and religion, then by default the state is the determinator of ultimate truth - which leads to shit like "Enlightened absolutism" of the 18th century or 20th century totalitarianism.

So dance around it as much as you like it, religious-like sentiments and beliefs underplay in any legal system.

When you let religion make the rules you get shit like the Spanish Inquisition, witch trials, suppression of learning and knowledge, oppression of women and many other things that hold back society.

[Peguy]

You can't really have a true "secular democracy" in a majority-religious nation that has a Free Exercise clause in its Constitution.

sassafrassquatch mistakes secularity with secularism. Ironically secularity(ie the seperation of church and state) is religious in origins, stemming from Christ's teachings of render unto Caesar what's Caesar's and rending unto God what's God's.

Which means one should obey earthly authority but recognize it's not the ultimate authority.

This notion was further formulated during the Medieval period, in order to keep the state from interferring with the affairs of the Church. Yet today, we have that backwards - somehow the state needs to be protected against the evil church.

[Jack Flak]

Can't we just agree that government sucks?

[sassafrassquatch]

You can't really have a true "secular democracy" in a majority-religious nation that has a Free Exercise clause in its Constitution.

By secular I mean people believe whatever they want but keep it out of the government as the governments job is to govern not fool around with prayers and platitudes.

[pure_mercury]

Can't we just agree that government sucks?

I've been trying to forge that consensus since I was about 13 years old. ;) Whenever someone complains that not enough people vote, I always counter with "It's a wonder more people don't stay home! Most people I talk to don't care for the government much; I don't see why they don't vote Libertarian or some other third party or just stay home and write angry letters." They still go out and vote, though. I voted drunk in 2004, and I may do it again this year.

[pure_mercury]

By secular I mean people believe whatever they want but keep it out of the government as the governments job is to govern not fool around with prayers and platitudes.

Keep it out of the government HOW, though? That is the crucial questions. You can't keep politicians from voting their consciences, nor can you keep them from displaying their beliefs publicly. Those behaviors are absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment. I think it would be more effective to take as much power away from the government as we can, and leave it to do things that have nothing to do with personal morality.

[sassafrassquatch]

Can't we just agree that government sucks?

Humans suck. Freakin' monkeys... :dry:

[Jack Flak]

I voted drunk in 2004, and I may do it again this year.
I know you did. I would have voted for Harry Brown(e) in 2000 if I voted. I voted for Bush in 2004 because *loud and proud* I hate all democrats. I would have voted for Paul this time, but he's out. Any vote for another Libertarian this time is one less for McCain. That's just the way of the world. *shrug*

[Peguy]

When you let religion make the rules you get shit like the Spanish Inquisition

What the first insitution in history to gurantee a defendent the right to a lawyer? Among other things.

witch trials

I already dealt with this in my debate with Kiddo. Numerous times the Church condemned witch trials and whatnot.

suppression of learning and knowledge

Actually monks contributed greatly to the preservation of knowledge during the Dark Ages, which later blossomed into the Renaisance of the 13 century - culminated in the philosophical works of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Should I also mentioned that it was monks who invented the mechanical clock, so as to be better schedule prayer sessions on a regular basis? Or even better yet, that the calender we use by devised upon the orders of Pope Gregory XIII so as to better calculate when certain holy days occured. Hence why it's still referred to as the Gregorian calendar.

oppression of women

Actually did much to raise the status of women in society.


and many other things that hold back society.

Religion was actually done much to advance society. The rejection of religion has brought us the bloodiest wars and tyrannies the world has ever seen.

[Didums]

I voted for Bush in 2004 because he's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with

Hmmmm.

[Peguy]

Those behaviors are absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.

Another random fact, the philosophical underpinnings of the First Ammendment are Medieval in origins, outlined by St. Thomas Aquinas.

[pure_mercury]

Another random fact, the philosophical underpinnings of the First Ammendment are Medieval in origins, outlined by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I had 13 years of Catholic schooling. I am familiar with Thomas Aquinas. ;) It wasn't until I got to private Catholic all-boys prep school that I was taught any serious theology, though.

[Peguy]

Humans suck. Freakin' monkeys... :dry:

Here's the difference between you and me: you're a misanthrope, Im not. I despise the masses, but instead of cynically declaring my superiority over them, I actually seek to save them from the masses.

Another joy religion brought into the world, the respect for human life and persons.

[Jack Flak]

Hmmmm.
Did I say that some other time? If you're going to misquote someone either say "Fixed" or use brackets [].

If I did, it was technically a joke, though I always enjoy a beer with an SP.

[sassafrassquatch]

Keep it out of the government HOW, though? That is the crucial questions. You can't keep politicians from voting their consciences, nor can you keep them from displaying their beliefs publicly. Those behaviors are absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment. I think it would be more effective to take as much power away from the government as we can, and leave it to do things that have nothing to do with personal morality.

Exactly. If it weren't in the state's power to enact laws prohibiting certain substances, curtailing reproductive rights, censoring certain speech all because it offends their religious morals I wouldn't care. Politicians could go on and on about god all they want and I wouldn't care because they wouldn't be able to do anything. But as it is in their power to do those things I have a problem with allowing religion near the government.

[Didums]

Another joy genetic altruism brought into the world, the respect for human life and persons.

Yep :)

[Peguy]

Yep :)

Alturism of course stemming from religious concepts of self-sacrifice. So nice try on that one.

[Didums]

Did I say that some other time? If you're going to misquote someone either say "Fixed" or use brackets [].

If I did, it was technically a joke, though I always enjoy a beer with an SP.

hehe, i was messing :) Next time I'll do that to it lol

[sassafrassquatch]

Here's the difference between you and me: you're a misanthrope, Im not. I despise the masses, but instead of cynically declaring my superiority over them, I actually seek to save them from the masses.

Where did I say I was superior? I am not different, I am not special, we are all made of the same decomposing organic matter.

Another joy religion brought into the world, the respect for human life and persons.

That's hilarious.

[Peguy]

That's hilarious.

Yes, I believe because it's bullshit.

[Didums]

Alturism of course stemming from religious concepts of self-sacrifice. So nice try on that one.

Nope, Altruism is present in many other mammalian species and has been linked to genetics.

[Peguy]

Nope, Altruism is present in many other mammalian species and has been linked to genetics.
Which if anything supports the concept of natural law. Thank you very for playing. Next contestant.

[sassafrassquatch]

Which if anything supports the concept of natural law. Thank you very for playing. Next contestant.

Damn but you're an arrogant SOB.

[Peguy]

Perhaps I could introduce de Tocqueville's observations of the importance of religion in the preservation of not only American democracy, but democracy in general.

[Peguy]

Damn but you're an arrogant SOB.

Now now, Im not the one degrading our country's legal traditions with suggestions of slogans of "We love tacos" am I?

[Lateralus]

Nope, Altruism is present in many other mammalian species and has been linked to genetics.
Altruism doesn't exist.

[sassafrassquatch]

Now now, Im not the one degrading our country's legal traditions with suggestions of slogans of "We love tacos" am I?

I'm not the one beating everyone over the head with his religion. You've been spamming the board with your "blah blah blah traces back to christianity blah blah blah" crap for days.

[Peguy]

I'm not the one beating everyone over the head with his religion.
So expressing my religious beliefs is now beating everyone over the head? In case you forgot, this is a thread about religion. I've discussed plenty of other topics here.


You've been spamming the board with your "blah blah blah traces back to christianity blah blah blah" crap for days.

Then put me on ignore, and stop whinning like a little girl on her first period.

[sassafrassquatch]

stop whinning like a little girl on her first period.

Go suck a cock.

[pure_mercury]

Perhaps I could introduce de Tocqueville's observations of the importance of religion in the preservation of not only American democracy, but democracy in general.

Bastiat was the better 19th-Century French political writer, in my book.

[Peguy]

Bastiat was the better 19th-Century French political writer, in my book.

I haven't read much of him yet. There's shitloads of 19th century French political writers I wish to become more acquainted with.

[Didums]

Which if anything supports the concept of natural law. Thank you very for playing. Next contestant.

Not really, Altruism does not apply to all species, or even all humans, it was originally a beneficial trait passed on by genetics, what religion did is try to coin the idea for itself. W/e, my efforts to argue with Ni+Fe are futile.

[Peguy]

Go suck a cock.

Sorry I prefer pussies.

[Lateralus]

I'm not the one beating everyone over the head with his religion. You've been spamming the board with your "blah blah blah traces back to christianity blah blah blah" crap for days.
I don't see it as beating people over the head with religion. My impression is that you have an active dislike of religion, which leads to you misinterpreting Peguy's posts.

Whiny atheists are just as annoying as religious zealots.

[Didums]

I don't see it as beating people over the head with religion. My impression is that you have an active dislike of religion, which leads to you misinterpreting Peguy's posts.

I agree that it isn't bible thumping, its more like bragging about the size of your religion's cock.

[Peguy]

its more like bragging about the size of your religion's cock.

Catholicism - the greatest Penis Mightier ever to exist!

Don't fall for cheap imitators like Protestantism or Islam, there's only one of its kind that actually work.

Millions around the world have had their lives changed dramatically thanks to the Catholic Penis Mightier.

Don't enter eternity without it! Our phones are open right now, order yours today!

To order your Catholic Penis Mightier, just dial 1-800-POPE-MOBILE.

[Lateralus]

I agree that it isn't bible thumping, its more like bragging about the size of your religion's cock.
Not really. It's more like he's defending religion against attacks. And to ignore the positive contributions of religion is to be biased beyond all credibility.

[Didums]

Catholicism - the greatest Penis Mightier ever to exist!

Don't fall for cheap imitators like Protestantism or Islam, there's only one of its kind that actually work.

Millions around the world have had their lives changed dramatically thanks to the Catholic Penis Mightier.

Don't enter eternity without it! Are phones are open right now, order yours today!

To order your Catholic Penis Mightier, just dial 1-800-POPE-MOBILE.

Wait wait wait! You forgot to say that if you don't call now then you'll spend an eternity in hellfire! :)

Not really. It's more like he's defending religion against attacks. And to ignore the positive contributions of religion is to be biased beyond all credibility.

I don't ignore them, I'm just not exactly sure whether they balance out the negatives :P

[Snail]

The way most people feel about money, it should say "In this god we trust."

[Peguy]

Wait wait wait! You forgot to say that if you don't call now then you'll spend an eternity in hellfire! :)

Ahhhh damnit.....CUT CUT CUT! Let's start it over from the top people!

[Didums]

The way most people feel about money, it should say "In this god we trust."

*drum-drum Snare* :)

[TheLastMohican]

Seven pages already...what have I started? :doh:

[Didums]

Seven pages already...what have I started? :doh:

The Domino Effect, all countries will fall to communism because of you, great job Duke..

[Peguy]

Seven pages already...what have I started? :doh:

It appears to be my fault, my apologies. :(

[millerm277]

Hmm....are they defensible? Probably not. However, I'm an atheist (with a fair amount of dislike for religon as well), and I don't really see it as something that matters much. Not worth a battle (and pissing off lots of people) to have a couple words removed.

[cafe]

The way most people feel about money, it should say "In this god we trust."
I have mixed thoughts/feelings on the subject and the above is one of them. :D Honestly, is money not the god of America?

I don't really mind the God references in the Pledge or on currency, but I don't take them particularly seriously. I mean, it would be a mild inconvenience to leave out the 'under God' in the pledge, but otherwise? Meh.

I would prefer that historic buildings/monuments, etc not be defaced by removing all religious references, but I don't favor putting up new public monuments, etc that contain religious references. I don't think religious freedom should stop at the door of a government institution, but neither should religious expression be state sponsored.

[EJCC]

As of now, we have more important things to worry about, like world poverty and AIDS. Eventually, though, it would be a good thing to discuss and make a decision about. For the moment, though, why not just leave out the "under god" part of the Pledge whenever you must say it?

I kind of disagree with it, because we aren't a theocracy (and hopefully we never will be), but for right now, the debate isn't really high on our nation's list of priorities.

[EJCC]

I have mixed thoughts/feelings on the subject and the above is one of them. :D Honestly, is money not the god of America?

That's really funny. :D Proud to be a capitalist!

I would prefer that historic buildings/monuments, etc not be defaced by removing all religious references, but I don't favor putting up new public monuments, etc that contain religious references. I don't think religious freedom should stop at the door of a government institution, but neither should religious expression be state sponsored.

I absolutely agree with that. That's why we need to have civilized discussion about these things! They aren't issues of right and wrong! Political problems are multidimensional, whether the pundits admit it or not.

[Lateralus]

I hate the word pundit.

[EJCC]

What would you prefer? I didn't know "pundit" had synonyms. How about "talking head"?

[Jack Flak]

If I'm Not Mistaken, Lateralus is just going for the dipshit angle with that comment.

[Lateralus]

What would you prefer? I didn't know "pundit" had synonyms. How about "talking head"?
My hatred is based on phonetics.

You can use whatever word you want. I was just making a random comment.

[EJCC]

My hatred is based on phonetics.

You can use whatever word you want. I was just making a random comment.

Oh, OK. I personally hate the word "lukewarm".

[Brendan]

They were products of the times. I feel patriotic when I say Under God.
The "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950's.

[EJCC]

The "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950's.

Are you serious? Jeez, I feel so much stronger about the issue now! Take the freaking thing OUT!

p.s. I'm christian, so don't think I'm a godless liberal or anything. I'm a christian liberal.

[Jack Flak]

The "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950's.
DO NOT HOLD WRONG END OF CHAINSAW

Yeah, products of the fifties.

[Brendan]

My feeling is that I support neither. But for me it's sort of like worrying about the fact that the handle is loose on a door that's been blown off its hinges. I don't support much about the U.S. government anyway.

My reason for not supporting "one nation under God" or "in God we trust" are for one I'm not Christian, so why would I support such a thing. Also, I think that putting the name of God on money is kind of cheap and tacky, and insults Christians and their God. And though I'm not a Christian, the idea of "God" in a non Judeo-Christian sense still has significance for me. Hell, God in a Judeo-Christian context has significance to me as well. I grew up surrounded by Christians, and if not for the Christians, how would I ever have developed my cynical nature? So, I'd like not to have the God who I have no faith in, but owe my lack of faith to, cheapened.

The "one nation under God" phrase I'm opposed to for similar reasons, but my solution to that is just to not say it whenever I'm reciting the pledge of allegiance.

[Peguy]

"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."
--James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and future Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, 1791


Such attitudes are found throughout much of the writings of the founding fathers.

[Jeffster]

I support both references to God, and would also support the "We love tacos" addition. :nice:

[sassafrassquatch]

I support both references to God, and would also support the "We love tacos" addition. :nice:

Behold the one true God!

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z9/rabidhominid/704_img_13.jpg

[Brendan]

"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."
--James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and future Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, 1791


Such attitudes are found throughout much of the writings of the founding fathers.
Right, no one is refuting that.

We just happen to disagree with the sentiment.

[Peguy]

We just happen to disagree with the sentiment.
Ok what's the sentiment?

[Didums]

Behold the one true God!

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z9/rabidhominid/704_img_13.jpg

I need some strawberry ice-cream poop please :yes:

[Peguy]

Well I guess Didums and sasquatch have forever exploded the notion of INTPs being about pure logic.

[Brendan]

Ok what's the sentiment?
I'm not playing a game of comparing interpretations of what was said hundreds of years ago; the quote was pretty self-explanatory. I don't think that God has any rightful place in the forces that govern me.

[Peguy]

I don't think that God has any rightful place in the forces that govern me.

I disagree. A just government and set of laws has to have a firm foundation built upon eternal values - which of course derive from the divine. Only by upholding a value higher than the state can you effectively keep the state in check. Otherwise, the state becomes the ultimate authority on everything.

[Brendan]

I disagree. A just government and set of laws has to have a firm foundation built upon eternal values - which of course derive from the divine. Only by upholding a value higher than the state can you effectively keep the state in check. Otherwise, the state becomes the ultimate authority on everything.
A just government should work to realize the best interests of those it serves. If I, as a citizen of the United States, am not Christian, how does governing me by Christian values serve my best interest?

[Peguy]

A just government should work to realize the best interests of those it serves.

That's an assumption based upon the concept of soverignty. But it's too late for me to into details about that.


If I, as a citizen of the United States, am not Christian, how does governing me by Christian values serve my best interest?

First, Christian social theory has the concept of the common good at its basis. St. Thomas Aquinas particularly dealt with this to great lengths, even stating that the state's primary task is to provide for the common good. By the precepts of natural law(which comes from God), the state is obligated to operate in the best interests of its people.

Second, from the Christian perspective faith is a matter of the will. So therefore it's not the state's job to force people to accept the Christian faith, for that violates their free will before God. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas outlined the basic principles of religious freedom back in the 13th century.

And his legacy was carried forth in the 20th century by Jacques Maritain, who gave great outlines for Christian political theory.

As I said, it's a little too late for me to get into details here, but if you wish I can elaborate further.

[Brendan]

So therefore it's not the state's job to force people to accept the Christian faith, for that violates their free will before God.
Yeah. So why is God's name on the currency I use, and why am I expected to say "under God" when I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States?

[Peguy]

Yeah. So why is God's name on the currency I use, and why am I expected to say "under God" when I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States?

Because the United States is a Christian country and was founded upon Christian precepts. Does that mean you yourself have to be Christian? No, but you still have to accept the larger picture.

Is there some law against being Christian? No. So really where's the religious persecution?

[Didums]

Well I guess Didums and sasquatch have forever exploded the notion of INTPs being about pure logic.

We're all about pure logic!!! What's illogical about wanting some strawberry ice-cream from an Alien Taco-man that poops it out for free?

[Peguy]

What's illogical about wanting some strawberry ice-cream from an Alien Taco-man that poops it out for free?

Because it comes out of the Taco's ass.

[Brendan]

Because the United States is a Christian country and was founded upon Christian precepts. Does that mean you yourself have to be Christian? No, but you still have to accept the larger picture.

Is there some law against being Christian? No. So really where's the religious persecution?
There is no persecution, but I feel that there shouldn't have to be something so drastic for me to desire change.

[Peguy]

There is no persecution, but I feel that there shouldn't have to be something so drastic for me to desire change.

What's so drastic about having "In God we trust" printed on money?

[Brendan]

What's so drastic about having "In God we trust" printed on money?
What's so drastic about not having "In God We Trust" printed on money?

[Peguy]

What's so drastic about not having "In God We Trust" printed on money?

I asked first.

[Brendan]

I asked first.
And I already answered for both of us: nothing.

[Aerithria]

Because the United States is a Christian country and was founded upon Christian precepts. Does that mean you yourself have to be Christian? No, but you still have to accept the larger picture.

Well, considering that the first amendment is all about separation of church and state, I have to doubt that its founders had a Christian agenda in mind when coming up with how they wanted their country ran.

Anyways, I'm Canadian, so while I did vote 'neither', I technically have no say in what's printed on the ugly green bills. However, it does annoy me that "in all our son's commands" and "God keep our land" is in the Canadian national anthem, considering that they were only added in the English version. The original French version of the anthem contains neither of those two phrases. But whatever, I don't hear it nearly as frequently as I spend money, so I guess it's not worth complaining about.

[Peguy]

You can only answer for yourself Brendan.

[Peguy]

Well, considering that the first amendment is all about separation of church and state, I have to doubt that its founders had a Christian agenda in mind when coming up with how they wanted their country ran.

Ok then why was the Constitution and system of government modelled off that of the Presbyterian church? Among other things.

[Didums]

What's so drastic about having "In God we trust" printed on money?

Maybe because not All Americans trust in God? Yes I'm not thinking every day "man, this is so annoying having to look at this dollar and it saying 'in god we trust' on it", but its the idea that matters. They can keep it on the crappy ol' green dollar all they want (it doesn't matter that much), but if we ever have a drastic change in currency I actually doubt that it'll be on there.

[Peguy]

Maybe because not All Americans trust in God?

Yet 90+% of them do.

[Brendan]

Ok then why was the Constitution and system of government modelled off that of the Presbyterian church? Among other things.
Does that even matter? I mean you say it like it proves something. Okay, so the government was modeled after the Presbyterian Church. Does that negate the anti-involvement stance towards religion?

[Didums]

Yet 90+% of them do.

Yea but would you really be losing something, do you all really care about it being on there? Every once in a while do you take a look at the dollar and receive some sort of joy from seeing "god" on it? Imo its just unnecessary, but i wouldn't go to lengths of action to get rid of it, its just simply not that important.

[Peguy]

Does that even matter?

Yes it does, it's a mere piece in the larger puzzle.


Does that negate the anti-involvement stance towards religion?

That was largely meant that there was to be no official state-sanctioned religion. And the historical context for that was the religious conflicts that took place in Europe. It did, nor did it ever, mean that religion was absolutely forbidden in the public sphere. So it's really more about the government's involvement with religion than vice versa, which is what the concept of seperation originally was devised to address.

The importance of religion in not only the founding but the preservation of American democracy has been more than well documented. Anybody who doesn't recognise this doesn't understand shit about the Ameican political tradition.

[Not_Me]

First, Christian social theory has the concept of the common good at its basis.


What is your definition of "good"? Good to you might be bad to someone else. Other than simple asserting it, what proof do you have that you alone is correct?

[Brendan]

Yes it does, it's a mere piece in the larger puzzle.



That was largely meant that there was to be no official state-sanctioned religion. And the historical context for that was the religious conflicts that took place in Europe. It did, nor did it ever, mean that religion was absolutely forbidden in the public sphere.
I'm sorry, but are you kidding?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

[whatever]

*waits for the day when church bulletins have "in money we trust" printed in them*

[Peguy]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That's basically what I just said. Congress cannot establish an official religion. That doesn't mean religion is irrelevant to our political understandings.

In fact Alexis de Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America that seperation of church and state actually made religion MORE important to American society and government.

[Didums]

*waits for the day when church bulletins have "in money we trust" printed in them*

I c wut u did ther! :D

[Aerithria]

That was largely meant that there was to be no official state-sanctioned religion. And the historical context for that was the religious conflicts that took place in Europe. It did, nor did it ever, mean that religion was absolutely forbidden in the public sphere. So it's really more about the government's involvement with religion than vice versa, which is what the concept of seperation originally was devised to address.

The importance of religion in not only the founding but the preservation of American democracy has been more than well documented. Anybody who doesn't recognise this doesn't understand shit about the Ameican political tradition.

No one said anything about religion being banned, they just wanted to keep it out of governmental procedures. Oh, and you said about 90% of the American population is Christian, right? So we're just supposed to ignore the other thirty million people that constitutes the 10%? Like Didums said, for the Christain population, it really doesn't mean much for it not to be there, but for other religions, it asserts a message that says their religion (or lack thereof) is lesser than Christianity. I bet the Pagan population put "In Goddess we trust" on the money, there'd be a revolt.

Oh, and just to be fair, I admit that I don't know a lot about the American political tradition, being Canadian and all. But really, why does tradition even matter? Just because it was done one way in the past doesn't mean that it shouldn't be improved upon. That's like saying "Well, our ancestors were religious supremists, so in an interest to uphold what our ancestors thought, we're going to continue being religious supremists, even though we generally agree that supremism is wrong."

EDIT: Oh, and according to statistics taken in 2000, the percentage of Americans who were Christian is closer to 77%. I'm working on getting more recent statistics, but I bet it's less than 90%.

EDIT 2: 2007 statistics say it's 78.4% that are Christian. I can't find any 2008 ones.

[Not_Me]

The importance of religion in not only the founding but the preservation of American democracy has been more than well documented. Anybody who doesn't recognise this doesn't understand shit about the Ameican political tradition.

Since you simply made an baseless assertion, I can simply refute it by saying "FALSE. Move to the back of the class!"

[Brendan]

That's basically what I just said. Congress cannot establish an official religion. That doesn't mean religion is irrelevant to our political understandings.

In fact Alexis de Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America that seperation of church and state actually made religion MORE important to American society and government.
Okay. But... I don't care. I don't care that the country was founded upon Christian values. I don't care that most people in the country are Christian. Shall I start quoting James Madison, president of the United States, Christian who talked about tyranny of the majority?

I. Do. Not. Care. I don't think that God belongs on our currency or in the pledge of allegiange. Why not? Because these things represent me. And they're doing it falsely. I understand that most people in the country are Christian. The government and its domains are not.

[whatever]

I c wut u did ther! :D

I's brilliant! :tongue:



Though I think that line has been crossed :doh: (I'd know if I bothered to go to church I suppose!)

[Didums]

I's brilliant! :tongue:



Though I think that line has been crossed :doh: (I'd know if I bothered to go to church I suppose!)

Nonono, you didn't cross the line, we're NT, there is no line :)

[whatever]

Nonono, you didn't cross the line, we're NT, there is no line :)

:D the line for the church- they're SJs and CARE about things like invisible lines and such! (like, did Emily Post say it was rude to ask for money or not?... moral dilemma)

[Didums]

:D the line for the church- they're SJs and CARE about things like invisible lines and such! (like, did Emily Post say it was rude to ask for money or not?... moral dilemma)

hehe, I take the South Park stance: "Either Everything is okay to poke fun at, or Nothing is."

[Peguy]

No one said anything about religion being banned, they just wanted to keep it out of governmental procedures.

And my argument is that's impossible to achieve. Even if you bann "sacral" religion from government, government still has to rely upon "civil" religion to maintain connections between the people and the government. As history shows, the more God is banned from government, the more the government starts to assume the role of God.

When God is banned, then the state is accountable only to itself. Its actions cannot be held to a higher standard.


Oh, and you said about 90% of the American population is Christian, right? So we're just supposed to ignore the other thirty million people that constitutes the 10%?

They have religious freedom under the 1st Ammendment. And yes they should be treated with considerable respect. But why should the beliefs and customs of 90+% of the people be denied such to make sure the 10% isn't "offended" or whatnot? That's not democracy.


Like Didums said, for the Christain population, it really doesn't mean much for it not to be there, but for other religions, it asserts a message that says their religion (or lack thereof) is lesser than Christianity.

Well they're in a majority Christian country, so they should respect the traditions of the majority. I fail to see how this would offend other religions though, since the "God" that's referenced isn't even specified.

Just like I have to respect the religious traditions of the people in Islamic majority countries. Even as a Catholic, I have to respect the fact that America is largely a Protestant nation.

So once you stop to realise the world doesn't revolve around you, it's not that hard a concept to accept.


I bet the Pagan population put "In Goddess we trust" on the money, there'd be a revolt.

That would be illegal.


But really, why does tradition even matter? Just because it was done one way in the past doesn't mean that it shouldn't be improved upon.

Tradition isn't about being against change, but rather maintaining continuity through change. Pope John Paul II once remarked that true fidelity to tradition is creative, not imitative.


That's like saying "Well, our ancestors were religious supremists, so in an interest to uphold what our ancestors thought, we're going to continue being religious supremists, even though we generally agree that supremism is wrong."

Read what I wrote above.

[whatever]

hehe, I take the South Park stance: "Either everything is okay to poke fun at, or Nothing is."

might as well go with everything- it prevents you from offing yourself I suppose! :)

nothing worth beleiving in says no to laughing.... or the keeping of a poker face in the few minutes before laughing.... :tongue10:

[disTant_eCHo]

I appreciate both of them and would be disappointed if they were removed. There were dozens of contradictions, though, when the constitution was written. Take George Washington owning slaves, for example, and believing that all men were created equal.

[Lateralus]

Well, considering that the first amendment is all about separation of church and state, I have to doubt that its founders had a Christian agenda in mind when coming up with how they wanted their country ran.
I'll go easy on you since you're Canadian. The first amendment doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state. That doctrine is not actually part of the law. It's a philosophy proposed by Thomas Jefferson based on his interpretation of the first amendment (which didn't become popular until well after the Civil war).

When the US was formed, many of the states had their own state religions. Massachusetts was Puritan, Pennsylvania was Quaker, and so on. The purpose for the first amendment was to keep the federal government from forcing Massachusetts to become Quaker if the Quakers were able to seize federal power, and vica versa. The individual states also had lots of religious laws on the books, and they were constitutional (otherwise those states wouldn't have ratified the constitution).

So when you consider the purpose of the founding fathers, keep this in mind.

[Peguy]

Okay. But... I don't care.

And I don't care that you don't care. Perhaps that's your problem, you can't think outside of yourself and your own preferences - to the point you don't even care about the very foundations of your own country.


Shall I start quoting James Madison, president of the United States, Christian who talked about tyranny of the majority?
No need, Tocqueville addresses much on this issue as well.

I understand that most people in the country are Christian. The government and its domains are not.

So in other words, the government shouldn't represent the American people in your view. Then again, you just admitted to not giving a rats' ass about the foundations for this country.

[Peguy]

I'll go easy on you since you're Canadian. The first amendment doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state. That doctrine is not actually part of the law. It's a philosophy proposed by Thomas Jefferson based on his interpretation of the first amendment.

When the US was formed, many of the states had their own religions. Massachusetts was Puritan, Pennsylvania was Quaker, and so on. The purpose for the first amendment was to keep the federal government from forcing Massachusetts to become Quaker if the Quakers were able to seize federal power, and vica versa. The individual states also had lots of religious laws on the books, and they were constitutional (otherwise those states wouldn't have ratified the constitution).

So when you consider the purpose of the founding fathers, keep this in mind.


Thank you. Have some rep.

[whatever]

So in other words, the government shouldn't represent the American people in your view.

I don't think that "Christmas/Easter Christian" really counts :rolli:

[Brendan]

And I don't care that you don't care. Perhaps that's your problem, you can't think outside of yourself and your own preferences - to the point you don't even care about the very foundations of your own country.
Or perhaps I just am able to draw a distinction between a comprehensive history of American culture and money.
So in other words, the government shouldn't represent the American people in your view.
See above.

[Peguy]

Or perhaps I just am able to draw a distinction between a comprehensive history of American culture and money.

You're the one making a big fucking deal about the dollar bill, not me. Im more interested in the faulty logic behind arguments against it being on the bill.

Some of you people are talking as if the words "In God We trust" somehow establishes a theocracy where non-Christians have their eyes poked out with hot iron rods, and stupid bullshit like that.

You claim it's really nothing. Ok then why bitch so much about it? Well why can't they just change it? Perhaps because it would cost too much money than what it's really worth. Do you want extra tax dollars thrown in to change the dollar bill, just to satisfy some self-centered inclination on your part?

[Didums]

You're the one making a big fucking deal about the dollar bill, not me. Im more interested in the faulty logic behind arguments against it being on the bill.

You're confusing the burden of proof. Money and Religion themselves are completely different subjects, why then put "in god we trust" on our Money? I don't care that it is but I'm just curious. I think that psychologically it goes something along the lines of "god is responsible for our prosperity".

[Brendan]

You're the one making a big fucking deal about the dollar bill, not me. Im more interested in the faulty logic behind arguments against it being on the bill.
I'm not making a big deal. I said twice that there's nothing drastic about "In God We Trust" being on the dollar bill, I would just prefer that it not be there. I don't need a lecture on U.S. history or the fact that the United States is mostly Christian, as if I hadn't noticed. I disagree with you that that is sufficient reason to have it on the dollar bill. There's not much else to be said.

[whatever]

*gasps with horror*

is it sacrelige whenever a dollar bill is stuffed in a hooker's g-string?!?!? :holy:

[Aerithria]

And my argument is that's impossible to achieve. Even if you bann "sacral" religion from government, government still has to rely upon "civil" religion to maintain connections between the people and the government. As history shows, the more God is banned from government, the more the government starts to assume the role of God.
I'm not saying that the government would be perfect even without religious motives. The government would be incompitent no matter what, as it's a bunch of people telling other people how they should live their lives. No matter what, it's a flawed system. But governments assume the role of God regardless of whether or not they base their system on God's beliefs. I just happen to think that government should be more about what a country needs than about what an debateable entity might want.

They have religious freedom under the 1st Ammendment. And yes they should be treated with considerable respect. But why should the beliefs and customs of 90+% of the people be denied such to make sure the 10% isn't "offended" or whatnot? That's not democracy.
I'm not saying that people are "offended", it's just uninclusive. And it's not the customs of the population to have "In God we trust" on money. It wouldn't affect a religious person's lifestyle if their ten dollar bill just had a number 10 written on it. Besides, Christian sayings aren't even inclusive to all Christians. Each Christian worships in their own way, and it's not for the government to decide that part of that worship should be declared on their currency. If I were Christian, I'd be a little pissed that the government felt it necessary to tie in my religious beleifs with capitalism, which is one interpretation that I've heard complaints over.

Well they're in a majority Christian country, so they should respect the traditions of the majority. I fail to see how this would offend other religions though, since the "God" that's referenced isn't even specified.

Just like I have to respect the religious traditions of the people in Islamic majority countries. Even as a Catholic, I have to respect the fact that America is largely a Protestant nation.

So once you stop to realise the world doesn't revolve around you, it's not that hard a concept to accept.
Heh, it's not about me. I see religion in government as a flawed system, and as such I refuse to accept it. I say the same about governments that have nothing to do with religion. I see that your opinion here will be different, but I believe that acceptance of a flawed system, no matter how diplomatic it might be to do so, is what leads to crappy political situations.

That would be illegal.
First, I apologize that I forgot the word "if" in that sentence. Second, yes, that would be illegal as it is now. It's never going to happen, because that's an example. But you see the difference: putting "Goddess" instead of "God" is accepting to the entire Pagan denomination, which actually includes a lot of religions, but while the Pagans might be happy, the Christians wouldn't be. And even if the word "God" can be taken as all-inclusive, I'm fairly certain that most people recognize it's connection with Christianity, and therefore probably don't consider it as a part of their spirituality. But that's speculation.

Tradition isn't about being against change, but rather maintaining continuity through change. Pope John Paul II once remarked that true fidelity to tradition is creative, not imitative.
In theory, yes, but in practice it never seems to go that way. But again, I'll state that I know next to nothing about American tradition. It's obviously important to some people, and obviously unimportant to others, but I think that if tradition weren't incorporated into some decisions, good change would happen faster. I don't mind tradition itself, just when it hinders a needed change.

[Aerithria]

I'll go easy on you since you're Canadian. The first amendment doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state. That doctrine is not actually part of the law. It's a philosophy proposed by Thomas Jefferson based on his interpretation of the first amendment (which didn't become popular until well after the Civil war).

When the US was formed, many of the states had their own state religions. Massachusetts was Puritan, Pennsylvania was Quaker, and so on. The purpose for the first amendment was to keep the federal government from forcing Massachusetts to become Quaker if the Quakers were able to seize federal power, and vica versa. The individual states also had lots of religious laws on the books, and they were constitutional (otherwise those states wouldn't have ratified the constitution).

So when you consider the purpose of the founding fathers, keep this in mind.

Oh, really? Huh. That actually makes a lot more sense than what I'd gathered by outside reading. Okay, well whatever arguments I made using the first amendment, I revoke due to an apparent misunderstanding. I'll have to reread some of those old laws before getting myself into another debate that I'm less-than-familiar with. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Jack Flak]

*gasps with horror*

is it sacrelige whenever a dollar bill is stuffed in a hooker's g-string?!?!? :holy:
I believe that would be called worshipping Evolution, though it's a bit sketchy regardless. Strippers, though, do need the money.

[Brendan]

is it sacrelige whenever a dollar bill is stuffed in a hooker's g-string?!?!? :holy:
Jesus Christ! I didn't even think about that! Can I change my vote?

[whatever]

I believe that would be called worshipping Evolution, though it's a bit sketchy regardless. Strippers, though, do need the money.

*ponders sending this phrase to the Kansas State Legislature to see if it's possible for someone's head to explode in a state of confusion...*


:devil:

[Jack Flak]

*ponders sending this phrase to the Kansas State Legislature to see if it's possible for someone's head to explode in a state of confusion...*


:devil:
How did you know I live in Kansas? My knowledge of strippers?

[whatever]

How did you know I live in Kansas? My knowledge of strippers?

It's because I'm the REAL Miss Cleo... not the dude who got in legal trouble over that hotline ;)

[sassafrassquatch]

Peguy reminds me of the judge at the end of Braveheart where William Wallace is on trial. Wallace says, "Never did I swear allegiance to Long Shanks." The judge says, "It matters not, he is your king." Apparently it doesn't matter if you're not a christian, christianity is your king.

[TheLastMohican]

Apparently it doesn't matter if you're not a christian, christianity is your king.

Until you leave a predominately Christian country for a Muslim one. Then the Ayatollah will show you who's king.

[Jack Flak]

The world is so good now, for so many more people than it ever has been, that....Just be happy, for Christ's sake.

[TheLastMohican]

The world is so good now, for so many more people than it ever has been, that....Just be happy, for Christ's sake.

This is what I don't get. It seems many people here say that nothing should be made of the currency issue and the Pledge of Allegiance because they are not terribly destructive as they are. What about basic principle? Isn't that a reason in itself? Don't we care about our separation of church and state?

[Jack Flak]

This is what I don't get. It seems many people here say that nothing should be made of the currency issue and the Pledge of Allegiance because they are not terribly destructive as they are. What about basic principle? Isn't that a reason in itself? Don't we care about our separation of church and state?
I cared a lot more about that shite ten years ago. It's superfluous. Economics is what changes minds.

[Didums]

This is what I don't get. It seems many people here say that nothing should be made of the currency issue and the Pledge of Allegiance because they are not terribly destructive as they are. What about basic principle? Isn't that a reason in itself? Don't we care about our separation of church and state?

I'd rather not spend money on changing how money looks (funny eh), however if we ever change to like, that flimsy plasticy dollar that other countries have then we should just leave "in God we trust" out of it.

[Mort Belfry]

Our currency?

Mine says "ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR" or if your latin is rusty, "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith"


My currency says: From the country that brought you the film version of Lord of the Rings.

But we're simple people, we don't have much else.

[TheLastMohican]

My currency says: From the country that brought you the film version of Lord of the Rings.

But we're simple people, we don't have much else.

It seriously says that? What was on the currency before LOTR was made?

[Mort Belfry]

It seriously says that? What was on the currency before LOTR was made?

It used to say, "Remember Bill Hamilton? The guy who developed the modern jetboat? Salt of the earth true blue kiwi he was."

[IlyaK1986]

I'm finding it hard to believe. But in terms of which I support? Neither. Not that I actively dislike them, but I'm not a religious guy. So I don't care for them.

[Brendan]

So I've had a change of heart.

The Israeli flag crossed my thoughts and I sort of compared the Star of David on the Israeli flag to "In God We Trust" being on the dollar bill.

Israel is a free country, the practice is freedom of religion. The Star does represent how the country is for the time being, but is more a symbol of it's conception. Israel is inextricably linked to Judaism.

The same can be said of Christianity being a major influence on Western thought; before, during and after the formation of the United States. So "In God We Trust" is not meant to imply that one must agree with this sentiment on a personal level, but is a representation of where we came from as a nation.

It sort of seems as though this is something of a paradox though. The population of the United States refer to each other collectively as the American people (as European nations will refer to themselves and other nations as the British people or the German people or the French People), but Americans referring to each other as a whole seems to be less nationalistic than when Europeans talk about their country or their people. Culturally, they're much more tightly knit.

I still don't support "one nation under God", however.

[millerm277]

This is what I don't get. It seems many people here say that nothing should be made of the currency issue and the Pledge of Allegiance because they are not terribly destructive as they are. What about basic principle? Isn't that a reason in itself? Don't we care about our separation of church and state?

It's true, from a matter of principle, it's wrong. However, there are better uses my ammo than a couple meaningless words. It's on the list of things I'd like changed, but it's pretty far down the list. Also, fighting for that would be a very divisive issue as far as public opinion goes, which would most likely increase the backlash against fighting against more important libertarian/atheist type causes.

[Lateralus]

So I've had a change of heart.

The Israeli flag crossed my thoughts and I sort of compared the Star of David on the Israeli flag to "In God We Trust" being on the dollar bill.

Israel is a free country, the practice is freedom of religion. The Star does represent how the country is for the time being, but is more a symbol of it's conception. Israel is inextricably linked to Judaism.

The same can be said of Christianity being a major influence on Western thought; before, during and after the formation of the United States. So "In God We Trust" is not meant to imply that one must agree with this sentiment on a personal level, but is a representation of where we came from as a nation.

It sort of seems as though this is something of a paradox though. The population of the United States refer to each other collectively as the American people (as European nations will refer to themselves and other nations as the British people or the German people or the French People), but Americans referring to each other as a whole seems to be less nationalistic than when Europeans talk about their country or their people. Culturally, they're much more tightly knit.

I still don't support "one nation under God", however.
This is a bit off topic, but...

Referring to Americans as the "American people" is a relatively new concept. Even well after the Constitution was signed, people referred to themselves as the people of New York, the people of Virginia, or whatever state they were from. Original drafts of the Constitution had, instead of "We the people of the United States", "We the people of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina..." in the preamble, but it was changed because they weren't sure that all 13 states would ratify it. The civil war changed all of that.

[Peguy]

Well Im kinda worn out from all this. So if I didn't respond to certain arguments, my apologies. The problem is that too many concepts and issues are tied into this issue, and it would be utterly exhausting for me to begin addressing much of them - especially in one try.