Should we take God out of America?

[_Jersey Girl]

History of God on the money:

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

History of God in the Pledge:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

In both cases, I think it should be removed.

And no, I'm not an atheist.

[_SUAS]

Yes...I think you should all know my answer by now..And you do not need to participate in every single thread..but you if you want..

[_The Nehor]

I want "In God We Trust" removed from our money. It just seems wrong. When I drop a wad of Twenties to buy something I'm trusting in the power of the dollar not the power of God.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, since the only higher power I can think of *is* money, and is the only god I trust, it doesn't seem like that big a deal.

[_dartagnan]

I can see why atheists would want it removed, but they do not have a case by saying it is "a violation of the principle of separation of church and state." It isn't illegal. Those who maintain such things, simply don't understand the history behind or the reason for the clause. References to God are embedded throughout the history of American government.

It is true the motto "In God We Trust" was added to currency in the 1860's, but it would be wrong to think its addition marked a dramatic change in government attitude towards religion. And it is wrong to say it was illegal, because if it were, it probably would have never been passed. Some atheists seem to think modern secularists understand the consitution better than those who were responsible for it. I only ask that they be honest and tell us the real reason why they want it removed. I doubt it has anything to do with their respect for the constitution. I suspect it has everything to do with the their own feelings of exclusion.

Well, that's the nature of democracy. I've heard people complain that an atheistic candidate would never get elected, and that's not fair. Well, that's because most Americans are religious. That's life in a democracy. You can't complain because most people don't think like you do. Howling at the moon and getting the ACLU to tear down church symbols throughout rural America, might gratify some disgruntled atheists, but ultimately it just throws more fuel on the fire.

Removing the motto doesn't take God "out of our culture," but if there exists a slippery slope that could, this would be a step in that direction. And where would it end? Should we also rewrite the Declaration of Independence, because it mentions a "creator" who has bestowed upon us "unalienable rights"? Maybe we should tear down the walls of the U.S. Supreme court, because they display Moses holding the Ten Commandments? I guess we'd have to burn the two huge oak doors leading into the court, since they have the TC engraved into them. God is mentioned in all of our patriotic songs, etc.

If all of the references were removed, I think an atheist would have a hard time arguing that none of this damages American "culture."

[_EAllusion]

And it is wrong to say it was illegal, because if it were, it probably would have never been passed.

This is quite possibly the single dumbest argument I've heard you make Kevin, and that's saying something. But you're right. If the public passes a law, it's wrong to say it is illegal, because the public probably won't pass unconstitutional laws. I'm not sure why judicial review exists at all.

Those who maintain such things, simply don't understand the history behind or the reason for the clause.

I understand the history just fine. And, as it happens, the explicitly stated reasons for the clause when it was adopted would be found unconstitutional by standard establishment clause jurisprudence. It's accepted for reasons that have nothing to do with the reason it was initially put in.

[_SUAS]

I would elect a non-believer into officer..we don't need to be nitwits about this..do we now..I trust myself to do the right thing with whatever..especially money....

[_EAllusion]

Happily, Kevin's brilliant defense here could've been used to protect the black codes and later Jim Crow. For simplicity's sake, let's just use a law that denied blacks the right to sit on juries and the complaint that it is unconstitutional and an unethical law to boot.

I can see why blacks would want it removed, but they do not have a case by saying it is "a violation of the equal protection clause" It isn't illegal. Those who maintain such things, simply don't understand the history behind or the reason for the clause. Unequal treatment of the races and unequal access to juries is embedded throughout the history of American government.

It is true the black codes were developed after the end of slavery in the South, but it would be wrong to think passing their passing marked a dramatic change in government attitude towards races. And it is wrong to say it was illegal, because if it were, it probably would have never been passed.

Well, that's the nature of democracy. I've heard people complain that's not fair. Well, that's because most Americans are racists. That's life in a democracy. You can't complain because most people don't think like you do.

[Guest]

Why don't you learn to read for once, and stop spewing venom every time someone speaks less than favorably for the atheistic cause.

This is quite possibly the single dumbest argument I've heard you make Kevin, and that's saying something. But you're right.

Maybe you should pay closer attention. I am referring to the Acts of Congress that passed in 1864 and 1865, which resulted in the inscription on our currency. I am saying that if these Acts were illegal (i.e. unconstituational), they probably would not have passed.

Do you know what probably means?

Let me give you a hint. It doesn't mean certainly.

I'm saying that most Acts of congress are done with just cause. They aren't likely to be rebelling against the constitution just because a renegade atheist in San Francisco says so.

Speaking of which, how did that case turn out?

“In this situation, the reasonable observer must be deemed aware of the patriotic uses, both historical and present, of the phrase ‘In God We Trust,”’ the appeals panel ruled in upholding the inscription’s display. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103424/

Do you agree with this ruling? If not, then why not? Do you you know the constitution better than our current Supreme Court Justices?

If the public passes a law, it's wrong to say it is illegal, because the public probably won't pass unconstitutional laws. I'm not sure why judicial review exists at all.

I didn't say it was wrong to call it illegal because the public never passes unconstitutional laws. I'm saying it isn't illegal because it isn't. And I have quite a few Supreme Court Justices who agree with me.

Now you're using your lack of comprehension to further a race-bait red herring. It is funny watching you get all riled up.

[_dartagnan]

I understand the history just fine.

Wonderful. Then you agree that the author of this clause would never support the atheist's case.

And, as it happens, the explicitly stated reasons for the clause when it was adopted would be found unconstitutional by standard establishment clause jurisprudence.

So then the clause would never have passed today, and atheists wouldn't have anything to appeal to. What's your point?

It's accepted for reasons that have nothing to do with the reason it was initially put in.

And what do you think those reasons are?