"IN GOD WE TRUST" Must go!

[NonMetro]

As I was watching the Pope standing at the podium in congress, my eyes were drawn to these words, emblazoned in granite in bold lettering directly above his head: IN GOD WE TRUST. I realized then exactly how intimidating and coercive these words would be for anyone sitting there who didn't believe in God. It's a violation of our doctrine of separation of church and state, just as putting the words "UNDER GOD" in the pledge is.

Both of these things were done back in the 1950's, during the McCarthy era, and both were passed by congress and signed into law by the president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. They are both unconstitutional because they are both laws passed by congress respecting an establishment of religion. Now, the Supreme Court and every other judge in this country can say they are constitutional all day, every day. But that does not change the truth: they are unconstitutional.

The country is a lot different today than it was 60 years ago. The number of atheists and agnostics, who are completely underrepresented in our congress, is approaching 25% of the population. And there is what? One atheist in congress? I'm suggesting here that a government that favors believers will be primarily comprised of believers, and this has resulted in a substantial part if our population being extremely underrepresented for decades.

The national motto needs to be changed back to e pluribus unum, and the words "under God" must be taken out and the original wording of the pledge restored. It's time!

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. I'm sorry but that's not the hill I choose to wage my battle on today.

There are MANY more important issues... issues that actually impact people on a material level each and every day.

This doesn't rise to that level.

[NonMetro]

3. Does It Not?

I understand what you are saying, but how is leaving 25% of Americans virtually unrepresented in government a positive for us? And I know no one today is going to challenge the Republican "God and Country" types who currently dominate our government, and no one is going to try to take God back out of government right now, but sooner or later, something needs to be done.

And that's why I question your conclusion. "God and Country" people have consistently opposed, not merely increases in the minimum wage, and unions, but have also otherwise acted to cut social safety net programs. Do these activities not materially affect people?

I get the politics of it, too. Trying to challenge The motto, or "under God" in the pledge would be just as difficult these days, if not more so, than it was for politicians in the 1950's. Nobody can afford to be painted as "against God", which is another reason our motto is so coercive!

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. The only markings on currency that matter to me are its denomination.

I don't think waging a huge battle to have it changed is as important as, say, mental health care availability, health care affordability in general, Veterans health care, and a whole host of other things.

I won't stand in your way, but I'll be marching in a different direction.

[840high]

89. I'll march with you.

[branford]

10. Exactly.

Choosing to expend the time and political capital on such an unpopular battle, one that would likely result in a loss (it's come up a number of times before in the courts) would only result in the diminishment of other progressive priorities.

[Hortensis]

17. Agree not now, but hopefully before too many years pass. It's all wrong.

While we're at it, out with the Pledge of Allegiance. I've never felt comfortable and usually refuse.

Speaking of, anyone noticed that retail stores are starting to call their cards "loyalty cards?" Three times in the past two weeks I've turned down signing up for a loyalty card and told the clerks I wouldn't be taking any loyalty oaths either (to blank stares, of course).

That was BEFORE I saw this:




I live in the deep south/Bible Belt, which has a very ingrained authoritarian tradition, though. Maybe it's not a northeast and west coast thing?

[yeoman6987]

37. You certainly don't have to take the loyalty card

But you'll just pay more for goods that others won't. That's really the bottom line. You can save quite a bit of money using them. But if you don't have to watch your money then no big deal.

[Hortensis]

48. Sorry, Charlie. I may live in the South, but an authoritarian "loyalty card" come-on

is repellent.

[yeoman6987]

58. No biggie to me. I could care less how you shop.

[Hortensis]

60. It's not about shopping. It's about mass manipulation, where people can be lead,

and how.

I may not be an authoritarian follower, but many are, especially here in the Bible Belt, where lifetime habits of obedience to an ultimate authority seems to be training for obedience to secular "authorities" right here on earth. Authoritarianism is really big down here, and seeing this "loyalty" crap sell, even in as silly a venue as a supermarket, grabbed my attention immediately.

[yeoman6987]

62. Ok. I shop at publix. The last place I know of that doesn't have

cards at all. However, I buy wine at Winn Dixie which does but that 2 for one sale is too good to pass up so I did get the card.

[Hortensis]

66. Sure. My best guess is the new card name won't last long anyway.

[SwankyXomb]

77. Those cards aren't about loyalty, or authoritarianism

or even saving money. They're all about data aggregation.

[Hortensis]

78. Swank, they're being CALLED "loyalty cards." Seems the marketing people

feel more people will be willing to use them with that name, or maybe even shop there more often out of loyalty, or whatever.

[Logical]

53. Lol, so one issue at a time for you only??? Multitask a little pal. Nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Who said anything about a single issue?

I simply stated my belief that this isn't the most important issue of the day.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

67. Those words being associated with our government legislature is EXTREMELY intimidating and...

...disturbing to a large number of people. To dismiss it is like asking us to dismiss racism or human rights. That you feel it's not important is something you should think about yourself a little bit. How is shoving God into the faces of non-believers or agnostics not an important issue for discussion?

[edgineered]

2. Agreed. It was not possible to build today's system

without first laying the foundation. Those who cannot see that we didn't get this far along in one gigantic leap hasn't learned to walk.

[NonMetro]

79. Exactly!

And it also explains why we can barely run the government. Many believers won't compromise - it's their way or the highway! Ah! Just like the Republican Party!

[colsohlibgal]

4. Agree As Well

The founders intended a secular nation, not one based on religion.

[yeoman6987]

38. Then they should have put it in the constitution

Instead of some writings in a journal.

[jeff47]

40. Don't spend much time reading the Constitution, do you?

Or are you going to go with the insanity that the establishment clause means everyone has to follow a religion?

[yeoman6987]

45. It says everyone is free to practice religion

And government need not endorse an official religion. Does not mean complete devoid of religion. I think the saying on money, a plaque and saying merry Christmas should be allowed everywhere. Just me though.

[jeff47]

46. And how is that not endorsing a religion?

Aside from us atheists that ruin everything, not all religions have "God" in whom you can trust.

So aside from the inherent "screw you, atheists!" you want the government to perform on your behalf, you're also putting your religion above those others.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. I'm with you..."God" has no place in our government...it's in BERNIE we trust!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

68. Plastering "In God We Trust" on our government buildings and our currency, etc...

...is ABSOLUTELY an establishment of religion. Surely you're not saying otherwise?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. No reasonable person can argue otherwise.

[NonMetro]

80. Right!

And now, we have these religious nut cases virtually dominating our government!

[starroute]

6. The justices knew it was unconstitutional but didn't dare say so

In 1963, my high school AP social studies classes went to Washington and got to meet a bunch of highly placed people. When we met with Justice Hugo Black, one of my classmates asked him whether "In God We Trust" wasn't unconstitutional. He replied that of course it was, but he'd never get away with saying so.

I'm sure he wasn't the only member of the court who felt that way, but the level of hypocrisy in this country was and still is astonishing.

[NonMetro]

26. Interesting That Justice Black Knew It Was Unconstitutional!

It also shows how coercive religion was at that time. Nobody could say anything because they would be immediately pounced on as "against God!" Same today, eh?

[erronis]

33. But the SC had to pick its battles back then, same as today.

I also don't care that much about some wording on currency that will be floating around far past the actual existence of the USofA. I also BELIEVE that most people DON'T BELIEVE in that Judeo-Christian crap but it's just expedient to "go along". I'm not so sure about the newer Abrahamic religion (Islam). Sometimes it takes a few millennia for the hysteria to get past the murdering of anybody that looks cross-eyed at you.

[merrily]

56. The whole point of having federal judges serve for life is that they are free to make unpopular

decisions without worrying they will be voted out of office or removed from office without an impeachment process.

If any Justice felt it was unconstitutional and failed to vote that way, that is inexcusable.

[RKP5637]

52. Yep, it causes a considerable conflict IMO. We say we have separation of church/state,

but then plaster in god we trust on many things, and politicians love to use god phrases. It's ridiculous. We need religion OUT of government.

[CharlotteVale]

7. I totally agree.

[MindPilot]

8. Absolutely agree. If more people knew what it really represented, it would be less popular.

One Nation Under God is a phrase born of an anti-union, anti-worker, pro-corporate, propaganda campaign. Check out "Under God" by Historian Kevin Kruse.

We’re often told that the United States is, was, and always has been a Christian nation. But in One Nation Under God, historian Kevin M. Kruse reveals that the idea of “Christian America” is an invention—and a relatively recent one at that.

As Kruse argues, the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation originated in the 1930s when businessmen enlisted religious activists in their fight against FDR’s New Deal. Corporations from General Motors to Hilton Hotels bankrolled conservative clergymen, encouraging them to attack the New Deal as a program of “pagan statism” that perverted the central principle of Christianity: the sanctity and salvation of the individual. Their campaign for “freedom under God” culminated in the election of their close ally Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

But this apparent triumph had an ironic twist. In Eisenhower’s hands, a religious movement born in opposition to the government was transformed into one that fused faith and the federal government as never before. During the 1950s, Eisenhower revolutionized the role of religion in American political culture, inventing new traditions from inaugural prayers to the National Prayer Breakfast. Meanwhile, Congress added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and made “In God We Trust” the country’s first official motto. With private groups joining in, church membership soared to an all-time high of 69%. For the first time, Americans began to think of their country as an officially Christian nation.

During this moment, virtually all Americans—across the religious and political spectrum—believed that their country was “one nation under God.” But as Americans moved from broad generalities to the details of issues such as school prayer, cracks began to appear. Religious leaders rejected this “lowest common denomination” public religion, leaving conservative political activists to champion it alone. In Richard Nixon’s hands, a politics that conflated piety and patriotism became sole property of the right.

http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/0465049494

[NonMetro]

12. Great Analysis!

You're right on!

The tragedy of all of this is that a lot of people these days don't know anything about it. Many think "under God" is in the constitution! Well, Eisenhower did a number on us, and this whole rise empowerment of the religious right stems from that, as well as the early business opposition in the 30's to FDR.

[Arugula Latte]

9. I agree. I was always angry when I had to say the pledge as a kid,

and I was angry when my kids were supposed to say it, too. I told them they should stand but they didn't have to say the words if they didn't want to.

Forced religion sucks.

[NonMetro]

81. That's Exactly what it is:

Forced religion. Unconstitutional as hell!

[BlueJazz]

11. I agree. As to those that say "there's more impotant stuff", I say: Some of us are capable of..

...doing several causes at the same time.

I'll march with you anytime!

[LostOne4Ever]

14. +infinity

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]There is always something more important to those who aren't having privilege shoved up their nose.

It is a great tactic to oppose something while pretending to be sympathetic when you really aren't.[/font]

[NonMetro]

18. I agree!

Part of politics is always to identify a problem, and then try to do something about it. I think this whole rise of the religious right, anti-union, anti-food stamps, anti relief of any sort, pro business, pro corporate dominance, against gays, against women's reproductive rights, all stems from the special status that has been conferred on them by their government which blesses those who believe in God. They believe they are special citizens with a right to dominate everyone else, that no one else is even important, and this shows in Republican politics who regularly shut down those who disagree with them - on anything! Political minorities in this country don't even have a voice in government when Republicans rule, and it's all because of their arrogant belief that "God" is on their side!

[MineralMan]

13. I support that, but I also support getting Latin phrases

off our money, too. The only place Latin is spoken is at the Vatican. Beyond that, it's a dead, academic language that is not understood by most Americans.

Latin is no longer universal, as it once was. The meaning of Latin phrases is unknown to most people.

[branford]

21. Be careful. Although I know it's not your intent,

such suggestions are exactly the type of rationale that lends support to English as our official language advocacy.

[MineralMan]

24. No, that is not my intent.

English is the most widely spoken language in the United States, however. That makes it a good candidate for the language to be used on widely circulated items. However, multilingual documents should always be available for all official functions of government and for all forms and other documents that are required to be used by people here.

There's not room on our currency, however, so the most widely used language would be the best choice. That language is most certainly not Latin. We need to rid our official documents and other items like courtroom language from Latin. It is useless, and serves only to hide meaning from citizens.

That's how it is, ipso facto.

[branford]

25. As an attorney, I must admit I like my occasional Latin phrase.

It often helps impress some family, friends and neighbors over the holidays.

[MineralMan]

27. I'm not an attorney, but understand all legal Latin phrases.

However, I find their use to be detrimental to understanding for the vast majority of people. For that reason, I would like to see Latin eliminated from all legal documents and writings. Obfuscation through use of a dead language is about the worst thing I can imagine that anyone can do to hide the meaning of important things.

It's just one way to separate lawyers and judges from the people they represent and judge. I've never liked it, even though I've studied Latin personally.

Latin is no longer a useful language in this country. We should eliminate its use in documents all need to understand. Period.

I can tell you that it doesn't impress me when I hear it used. Instead, it demonstrates something about our society that I dislike very much, despite my own knowledge of the language.

[branford]

28. In fairness, there's very little obscure Latin in legal practice today,

and most of what does exist, most laymen would readily recognize and understand. Legal televisions dramas probably throw in more Latin terms to appear smart than are actually used my most attorneys.

When it occasionally crops up, it's usually to denote important and often complex legal axioms where extended explanations would likely prove more confusing to the reader or listener.

[appalachiablue]

34. Cui bono. Some Latin phrases I like for their meaning and history. When working with a

formal, well regarded lawyer when young I brought my diploma with other materials. When he saw it the lawyer exclaimed 'it's in Latin'? His reaction was so intense I didn't know what to make of it, but figured it was favorable. Two years later I learned he sent his daughter to the same college.

[MineralMan]

44. 'Who benefits?' is equally powerful, but is instantly

understood by all English speakers. Why obscure the meaning?

[awoke_in_2003]

49. I am the same way with my fraction skills

Screw the metric system.

[NonMetro]

82. E Pluribus Unum: Out Of Many, One?

Why not just use the English?

[LostOne4Ever]

15. Return the national motto back to E Pluribus Unum!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]One was a motto that promoted inclusiveness and unity!

The one we have now is divisive and a slap in the face of all non-monotheists.

Besides, despite what the above poster said, Latin is cool!!![/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"][center]Elapasm Semel Occasionem Non Ipse Potest Iuppiter Reprehendere[/center]

[Nye Bevan]

16. Do atheists really see "In God We Trust" as "intimidating and coercive"?

Or merely as silly nonsense?

[LostOne4Ever]

19. I see it as conflating Patriotism with Religion

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I have heard of non-believing children being told they aren't real citizens because this is "ONE NATION UNDER GOD."

Perhaps the single greatest example of this was the following:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"][center]George Herbert Walker Bush[/center][div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

[NightWatcher]

22. I see it as a declaration that you believe in imaginary beings and fairy tales

In the same way that I would view a church built on the corner that worshipped Santa Clause and believed him to be real...I'd roll up the windows and speed by as to not piss off the nuts or be too close when they eventually snapped.

[NonMetro]

23. I think so!

It's like the cross in front of city hall thing. It's saying: if you don't believe, you're not one of "us." The mere fact, then, that they could put the words "In God We trust" directly above the speakers podium in congress tells me how coercive it is. Nobody could object for fear of being shouted down as "against God!" That's coercive. And when we review the history of religion, it's pretty obvious that intimidation and coercion go hand in hand with religion.

[Major Nikon]

41. Organized religion can't survive without it

Without the promise of eternal reward and/or the threat of eternal torture(both conveniently unverifiable), organized religion would dry up and blow away. That's why so much effort is spent reinforcing the idea.

[Major Nikon]

39. Both actually

The whole idea behind it was to be intimidating and coercive. It was passed during a time when people where afraid of godless communist boogeymen. So that, along with forcing children to recite purity oaths to god was intended to drive out the atheistic reds. So sure, it's utterly ridiculous nonsense that every freethinking American should be ashamed about, but it's also still used to this day to be "intimidating and coercive" to people who don't subscribe to "Christian nation" revisionist history. The reality is this nation was founded upon the Age of Enlightenment when man decided to throw off the yoke of religious dogma as tools of governance.

[NonMetro]

83. Very True!

When I first heard this "Christian Nation" nonsense, I actually laughed. How can people be so totally ignorant?

[Major Nikon]

84. It's not hard to figure out

Religious fundamentalists believe that people like Huckabee are a mouthpiece of god, so anything they say is infallible with no higher authority in which one can appeal. That's how religion is used to control people, and the founding fathers knew this all too well which is why they worked tirelessly to create a wall of separation between church and government.

[NonMetro]

90. Agree!

This whole Kim Davis thing was really a tipping point for me. These people don't "know" what "God" wants. "God" has never talked to any human being, and all people like her and Huckabee are doing is using the word "God" to try to justify their own bigotry by saying they are "following" a "higher authority". They full of crap - all of them!

[Major Nikon]

91. They simultaneously claim god's will in unknowable and claim to know god's will

That way god can never be blamed when bad shit happens, but they still get to speak on behalf of his authority. Very convenient that.

[jeff47]

42. The only reason we aren't getting shot is it's easy for us to pass.

So yes, yet another instance of religious privilege is problematic.

[awoke_in_2003]

50. Yep, easy to fly under the radar

At least until the day they make us start wearing an A on our chests.

[Orrex]

55. It's a perpetual reminder that I don't belong

Perpetual, as in, every time I handle currency or see that religious invocation emblazoned on official state material.

Every cash transaction reminds me that I'm outside the nation's favored group.


Obviously it's nowhere near the level of discrimination suffered by women or ethnic minorities, but it's real and constant nonetheless.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

74. I absolutely find it "intimidating and coercive". And TERRIFYING! Scares me more than the idea...

...of Hell does.

[Throd]

85. This atheist doesn't give a shit.

[dumbcat]

20. I agree

Do it.

[joanbarnes]

29. AGREED!

[joanbarnes]

30. Or should I say Amen?

[Oldtimeralso]

31. I'm so old that...

when I learned the Pledge the words " under god " were not part of it.

As far as "In god we trust" I think that is OK only if you add "all others must pay cash" after it.

[Adrahil]

32. I don;t disagree, but...

That's not a fight I want to expend political capital on at the moment. LOTS more important stuff.

[Jim Lane]

35. This is always what I think of when the religious types go into their martyr act.

Mike Huckabee says that people like us are turning the US into a "secular theocracy". My reaction is that a secular theocracy is a country where every bill and coin says on it, "In God we DON'T trust."

As it is, those of us who aren't religious have to hand out Huckabee's advertising every time we pay cash for something.

[MindPilot]

63. Yes, because we really don't "trust god" for anythiing.

If we--as a country--truly trusted god, we wouldn't have a military, we wouldn't need a health care infrastructure, or a food distribution network, cars with 5-star crash ratings or fire departments. God would take care of everything for us...because we TRUSTED Him. Obviously that idea just like religious belief itself, is ignorant.

[LukeFL]

36. Not it doesn't. Because you say so?

Move on. Leave it alone

[LostOne4Ever]

43. Because it is a violation of the church and state

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And gives fundies ammo to claim to this is a christian nation so that they can legislate their religion and deny all pagans/polytheists/non-believers as being citizens with rights.[/font]

[MindPilot]

47. Would you feel the same knowing it represents anti-union corporatism?

Billy Graham used to pepper his sermons with phrases like "submit to your employer as you submit to Christ" and that unionizing was "against God" The nation's motto makes perfect sense if you replace "God" with "Corporations". IGWT is the product of a cynical campaign to roll back the New Deal. It represents a perversion of the real teachings of Jesus.

[awoke_in_2003]

51. Touch a nerve?

Are you afraid your almighty god's delicate ego will be damaged by this?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

73. You don't get to tell anyone to fucking move on! Who the hell do you think you are? nt

[RKP5637]

54. It's an uphill battle, many citizens are robots IMO programmed to believe. There are higher

priorities IMO, but I see this as important too. So many people carry so much baggage around, as tried and true, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, but it needs to begin. We do live in a far different world today and people can see the universe without hocus pocus and magical beliefs. There are also big $$$$$'s in Religion, Inc. Those on the take will not let go easily.

[melm00se]

57. Aronow v. United States

"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. ...It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted 'In God We Trust' or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet Congress has directed such uses. While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has 'spiritual and psychological value' and 'inspirational quality.'"

[MindPilot]

59. If there is no religious significance, then it is meaniingless, and should be removed.

If it is meaningless, then the only logical opposition to its removal might be the cost incurred by the mints to produce new currency. However the fact is that like crosses on government land and the Decalogue on public buildings, the opposition to their removal always comes from the the religious sector.

They either have religious significance or they don't; it can't be both ways. In either case, the motto needs to go.

[melm00se]

64. but there is a significance

it is the national motto.

[MindPilot]

65. that part is not in question.

The question is regarding the religiosity of the phrase.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

72. Anyone who argues that "God" is not a religious reference is just being obtuse. nt

[ChisolmTrailDem]

71. It is not my fucking motto nor does it represent me. I want a different motto. nt

[melm00se]

75. and if you pick a motto

and it upsets Christians (or Jews or native Americans or some other group) do they get to complain about it and try to force it to change (whether you like it or not)?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

76. WTF? Do you think it would be changed to something like "In The Devil We Trust"? What the fuck?

Would you be upset at something like "In Equality We Trust" or "In Justice We Trust" or "In Traffic We Trust" or "In Science We Trust"???

[Major Nikon]

86. Circular logic

"In God we Trust" is the national motto because it's significant.

"In God We Trust" is significant because it's the national motto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

[Throd]

87. I'm an atheist, but it really doesn't bother me much.

I have about 11,463 more pressing concerns.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. "...all others, pay cash."

Sorry, Atheist here, don't really care about that one.

Much more interested in taking "Under God" -which was only added during McCarthy, anyway- out of the pledge of allegiance that public school children are allegedly not coerced into reciting.

[onenote]

92. If you're certain it is unconstitutional, then bring the case

You're more likely to achieve your desired outcome through the courts than through the popularly elected legislature.

And if the courts don't give you the result you want 9which I suspect will be the case), don't whine about it, lest you want to sound like those on the other side that believe that they can pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions actually are the "law of the land."

As others have mentioned, I'm less concerned about what appears on currency than coercing people to say the pledge of allegiance (with or without a reference to a deity) or other actively compelled forms of speech.