• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In God We Trust Hypocrisy

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Would you have a problem with placing the sentence "In Baal We Trust" on money? How about "In Satan We Trust?" If yes, then you're being hypocritical. You object to the display of religions other than your own, but support the display of your own religion. I object to the broadcast of ALL religions on currency, including atheism and agnosticism. More specifically, I would oppose a message that supports agnosticism on currency even though I am agnostic, because I believe in separation of beliefs and state.
If the predominant religion was baal or satan worship, then it wouldn´t be surprising.

Too bad the Constitution doesn´t support your view of the separation of religion and the state.

BTW, the Judeo/Christian God has a name, YHWH, you might have a case if that were used.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
If the predominant religion was baal or satan worship, then it wouldn´t be surprising.

Too bad the Constitution doesn´t support your view of the separation of religion and the state.

BTW, the Judeo/Christian God has a name, YHWH, you might have a case if that were used.

The Constitution implicitly supports separation of religion and state, not explicitly. Just because the exact phrase "separation of religion and state" is not used does not mean it does not support it.

In any case, to cover all of our bases, why not change the slogan to "In Gods We Trust"? Would you object to that?

EDIT: I'm not actually advocating for this, I'm using it to illustrate a point.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The Constitution implicitly supports separation of religion and state, not explicitly. Just because the exact phrase "separation of religion and state" is not used does not mean it does not support it.

In any case, to cover all of our bases, why not change the slogan to "In Gods We Trust"? Would you object to that?

EDIT: I'm not actually advocating for this, I'm using it to illustrate a point.
If the predominate religion were Hinduism, it would be irrelevant what I supported.

The Constitution does not implicitly or explicitly support the separation of church and state, whatever that means.

It clearly says the establishment and support, of an authorized state controlled religion is prohibited.

This is clearly in response to the British system. Obviously, the original intent is very clear.

150 years of American History reflect the original intent.

´ Separation of church and state ¨ never became a legal principle till the 1960´s.

A motto on a coin harms no one, converts no one, persecutes no one.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Agree with what you are saying, as an atheist, I wouldn't like money or license plates to say "There is no God" or what would be similar to "In God we trust". I think I would feel just like you.
That's always been a good way to assess these things. Personally I wouldn't care either way. Any person somewhat versed in history will tell you that this was a political statement rather than a religious one.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
That's always been a good way to assess these things. Personally I wouldn't care either way. Any person somewhat versed in history will tell you that this was a political statement rather than a religious one.
I have no issue with it being on money if it happens to be part of history etc. But I would mind, if it suddenly, as I understood the OP, is going to be written on license plates and where else they can put it just to make a point, I wouldn't like that.

In Denmark for instance each New year our queen make a speech to the nation, and in the end she always said "Gud bevare Danmark", which means "God preserve Denmark" or "God save Denmark" or something like that. So its basically just a tradition and even though a majority of people are atheists or "weak" Christians, no one really bother making a huge deal out of it. But if suddenly God messages where thrown all over the place, people would get bothered by it. So its more like that when I say I wouldn't like it.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
In God We Trust doesn't change election results, so its a non-issue relative to others.
I agree this particular issue is at the top of the list of non-issues.
More work needs to be done on the back end. There are already too many top issues to tackle and too much division in the electorate to handle so many. In God We Trust doesn't change election results, so its a non-issue relative to others.


It would be a mistake to get involved voluntarily in any wars. We don't have the international reputation to make claims about Iran. We lost our rep. Maybe its not official yet, but it is real. It might be best to pass this off to less interested countries and countries that haven't been involved in wars in the region as arbiters. I'm not a diplomat though, so I'm just chewing hay.
I agree it is low on the list of priorities . But it is yet another acknowledgment of condoning the beliefs of one religious group over all others. We either need to acknowledge all beliefs and non-beliefs or acknowledge none in the public arena. I think the option that has the best chance at not having trivial issues take over the real stuff needing addressing is to acknowledged none. It should always be a private matter between folks and their God/s.. I have just been reelected for a position on our towns planning board. I can try to bring forth the importance of balancing nature with growth within our town. Grant it, it is not going to save the planet and humanity. I maybe able to support ideas that will benefit all though and not just the special interests in our town. I think it is a micro example that has some effect on the bigger picture. We have just won a town election putting the more moderate positions in power. I think that is important no matter how small the region. Poop flows uphill. It is important to try to be involved at the ground. And as you say, there are many, many issues needing addressing in our own country before we fall for the BS about how we need more wars in more places. If the people in the middle east do not like how they are living, it should be more up to themselves for changing it. We have zero business in their 5,000 year old battle. They'll either figure it out or destroy themselves. None of our business anymore. Or ever. We are surly very responsible for some of the mess. I'm not giving anymore of my money to support self-gratifying reasons for oligarchs to carry out murder and meyhem, death and destruction of other people's homelands.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I have no issue with it being on money if it happens to be part of history etc. But I would mind, if it suddenly, as I understood the OP, is going to be written on license plates and where else they can put it just to make a point, I wouldn't like that.

In Denmark for instance each New year our queen make a speech to the nation, and in the end she always said "Gud bevare Danmark", which means "God preserve Denmark" or "God save Denmark" or something like that. So its basically just a tradition and even though a majority of people are atheists or "weak" Christians, no one really bother making a huge deal out of it. But if suddenly God messages where thrown all over the place, people would get bothered by it. So its more like that when I say I wouldn't like it.
Iy already is on license plates.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
I agree this particular issue is at the top of the list of non-issues.

I agree it is low on the list of priorities . But it is yet another acknowledgment of condoning the beliefs of one religious group over all others. We either need to acknowledge all beliefs and non-beliefs or acknowledge none in the public arena. I think the option that has the best chance at not having trivial issues take over the real stuff needing addressing is to acknowledged none. It should always be a private matter between folks and their God/s.. I have just been reelected for a position on our towns planning board. I can try to bring forth the importance of balancing nature with growth within our town. Grant it, it is not going to save the planet and humanity. I maybe able to support ideas that will benefit all though and not just the special interests in our town. I think it is a micro example that has some effect on the bigger picture. We have just won a town election putting the more moderate positions in power. I think that is important no matter how small the region. Poop flows uphill. It is important to try to be involved at the ground. And as you say, there are many, many issues needing addressing in our own country before we fall for the BS about how we need more wars in more places. If the people in the middle east do not like how they are living, it should be more up to themselves for changing it. We have zero business in their 5,000 year old battle. They'll either figure it out or destroy themselves. None of our business anymore. Or ever. We are surly very responsible for some of the mess. I'm not giving anymore of my money to support self-gratifying reasons for oligarchs to carry out murder and meyhem, death and destruction of other people's homelands.
In God We Trust has nothing to do with any one religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims and more believe in God.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
In God We Trust has nothing to do with any one religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims and more believe in God.
But I don't "Trust" in any gods. So where does that leave me. And Muslims call their God by a different name and Hidus have many gods. So no, it is not a one size fits all motto. It's meant to honor the Christian God.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
No thanks. I'll just work on fixing this place from the errors of the past ways. People can help or go extinct.. Coddling fools is no longer an option.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
When the US president takes oath he says: "So help me God"...
Which sounds solemn but not really secular. Especially if it deals with an atheist
It may not sound secular, but there are reasons to keep it in place. The oath includes the term God which is a recognition that no one has the authority to change the duty. The only religious thing, really, is the term 'Swear'. Swear implies that if they break their word there will be punishment. There's no reason that in swearing "So help me God" that the swearer must believe in anyone's idea of God. They must affirm, however, that there is no higher authority than that which appoints them to do their duty. That is 'God' in the oath or affirmation. They must put beneath it all other authorities and voices: family, organizations, past promises, political parties, etc.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Constitution does not implicitly...support the separation of church and state, whatever that means.
This depends upon one's legal philosophy.
"Living Document" types will argue that the 1st Amendment means whatever we as a nation want it to mean.
"Struct Constructionists" will argue that we should examine only what it says.
But "Originalists" will consider writings of the founders when interpreting the 1st Amendment.
Ref...
History of the Separation of Church and State in America
Some Excerpted portions...
....in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson made clear that
the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a "wall of separation"
between Church and State in order to protect individuals' right of conscience:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

In addition to all of this, there was a reference to Christianity in Thomas
Jefferson's first draft
of the Declaration of Independence, however the
reference was not positive. In Jefferson's rough draft he wrote:

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium [disgrace] of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
But I don't "Trust" in any gods. So where does that leave me. And Muslims call their God by a different name and Hidus have many gods. So no, it is not a one size fits all motto. It's meant to honor the Christian God.
Actually it was meant to egg on the Godless commies back in the day.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
This depends upon one's legal philosophy.
"Living Document" types will argue that the 1st Amendment means whatever we as a nation want it to mean.
"Struct Constructionists" will argue that we should examine only what it says.
But "Originalists" will consider writings of the founders when interpreting the 1st Amendment.
Ref...
History of the Separation of Church and State in America
Some Excerpted portions...
....in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson made clear that
the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a "wall of separation"
between Church and State in order to protect individuals' right of conscience:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

In addition to all of this, there was a reference to Christianity in Thomas
Jefferson's first draft
of the Declaration of Independence, however the
reference was not positive. In Jefferson's rough draft he wrote:

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium [disgrace] of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
! am Quite familiar with Jeffersons views. However it isn´t the Danbury letter, or any writings of the founders that governs the matter, it is the Constitution.

What the majority of the people may want is irrelevant. That is democracy, mob rule.

A representative Constitutional Republic adheres to the Constitution, as written. Otherwise, why have a Constitution at all ?

For some who are uncertain about a particular part of the Constitution, the rule that should be applied is original intent. History is the mirror for this.

What was meant by the second amendment ? Did it only allude to a militia ? It says the right of the people........ Historically, what was the original intent ? Everyone owned firearms at the time of the founding of the Republic, many carried them regularly.

The intent of the first amendment is clear, it is to protect the people from an authorized, financially supported, state religion. In fact, what Britain weighed on the colonists. The original intent.

Itś intent was not to purge religion and religious references from government. In God we trust on coins is not de facto evidence of a state authorized and financially supported religion. Nor is a cross, or a star of David, or a Muslim moon in a government run cemetery.

History is clear on this. The Jeffersonian "wall¨ between church and state never became an applied standard till the 1960´s, as a result of reactionary progressive agitation.

The progressives have taken this to insane lengths in their quest to obliterate religion from the country.

A classic example of the terror they inspire is a teacher afraid for her job because she handed out candy canes in December.

The Supreme court has begun balancing the score.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
! am Quite familiar with Jeffersons views. However it isn´t the Danbury letter, or any writings of the founders that governs the matter, it is the Constitution.
And reading depends upon one's foundational legal philosophy.
I suspect you're a strict constructionist......do I gots it right?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
It may not sound secular, but there are reasons to keep it in place. The oath includes the term God which is a recognition that no one has the authority to change the duty. The only religious thing, really, is the term 'Swear'. Swear implies that if they break their word there will be punishment. There's no reason that in swearing "So help me God" that the swearer must believe in anyone's idea of God. They must affirm, however, that there is no higher authority than that which appoints them to do their duty. That is 'God' in the oath or affirmation. They must put beneath it all other authorities and voices: family, organizations, past promises, political parties, etc.


I see. Our Prime Minister just says "I swear to be faithful to the Republic, to observe the Constitution and the laws. And to fulfill my duties in the Nation's exlusive interest"

So help me God would really sound funny, especially said in Rome, with a theocratic intruder living across the Tiber...:p
 
Top