Remove "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" (brainwash, state)

[k.smith904]

But it still establishes religion.


What is so hard to understand about this? A good chunk of this nation is godless and everytime they use their own hard earned money theyre reminded that they are, by definition, not part of the nation.

We are not a nation under god, we are a nation of many, together. You know, the original motto (out of many, one), the melting pot and all that good stuff.

Putting god on money explicitly discriminates against the godless and you have no solid argument that proves otherwise.

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by k.smith904

But it still establishes religion.


What is so hard to understand about this? A good chunk of this nation is godless and everytime they use their own hard earned money theyre reminded that they are, by definition, not part of the nation.

We are not a nation under god, we are a nation of many, together. You know, the original motto (out of many, one), the melting pot and all that good stuff.

Putting god on money explicitly discriminates against the godless and you have no solid argument that proves otherwise.

I'm sort of godless and I dont really care or notice what's written on my money and I do certainly feel part of this nation.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

You seem to lack an understanding of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the Constitution that you are referring to.

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


Printing "One Nation Under God" on currency does not violate either of the above clauses of the Constitution. The word Gos as used on currency does reference a specific God, and therefor does not represent the preference of Congress of one religion over another.

It violates the very premise established in the First Amendment, of keeping Government and Religion separate. Now, if you want to argue "God" and religion are not necessarily tied together...

[k.smith904]

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

I'm sort of godless and I dont really care or notice what's written on my money and I do certainly feel part of this nation.

Your apathy is irrelevant to the question at hand.


Two plus two still equals four whether you care or not.

[k.smith904]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

It violates the very premise established in the First Amendment, of keeping Government and Religion separate. Now, if you want to argue "God" and religion are not necessarily tied together...

Seems so straight forward.

Funny how the right wing (mostly Christian) seem eager to bring in extenuating circumstances, semantics, and the like in regards to the first (and most important) amendment, yet throw tantrums when the simplicity of the second is not immediately acceptable.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by ropes1981

"One nation under god" was added in 1954 to the pledge and copied words stated by Lincoln at the Gettysburg address. "In god we trust" was added in 1956. Is this not an endorsement of religion by our government? What about tax-paying citizens who are not believers? Those Christians who say "too bad", I would like to pose a hypothetical to.

If we replaced "one nation under no god" and "in many gods we trust" would you be offended? I think the issue I take and a growing number of people take issue with is whenever public policy is debated we have a group of Christian conservatives say "this is what god would like" and then try to solidify the myth that this is theocracy with stating we have god on our money, motto and pledge.

Looking back at the Constitution Convention laws were passed to restrict Jews and Catholics by some of the original colonies from holding office. It was Jefferson and some of the other founding fathers that stopped this and put all beliefs under equal treatment by the government. Btw Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine all believed in a religion that would run counter to what many fundamental Christians today believe (Deism). So with this said and in the spirit of freedom and theological liberty, why do some wish to force their beliefs on others?

I'm asking the same question of the atheist. It is not by force but by choice we come to God. However, it will be by force that we are removed from God. Also...think about it, without that choice...atheist would be hard pressed to be allowed to be.

God gives us a choice the same choice that is also granted by the Constitution, without that choice, then the atheist would be forced to be a child of God, much like that we find in the culture of the Middle East.

Be careful what you wish for, for one day it may be granted, choices in our everyday lives may be removed. That is where this is all headed right? To be governed by the strong arm of the government and individual freedoms condemned by man? Shoot, we already give them our paychecks. May as well be working the fields for them as well. It's the same as...lock-in-step.

When we have to check and say, we're still free, right? That is the time to know, it is but a word and life as we know it has indeed changed.

Keep working it. In 50 years my spirit will be free; life as an American, not so much. So when the chains that bind begin to hurt, remember how it was you got there.

[Negotiator75]

Originally Posted by actonbell

God gives us a choice the same choice that is also granted by the Constitution

Dont be so quick to assume. With God, we can say whatever we want and do what we want. The constitution, well, it needs to be overhauled and reworked completely. This whole freedom of speech illusion is a crock. Also, there is no 5th ammendment... if there is, then it must not apply at Guantanamo.

[lenniel]

Are there really that many aetheists to even offend with this wording? Who cares....majority rules.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Negotiator75

Dont be so quick to assume. With God, we can say whatever we want and do what we want. The constitution, well, it needs to be overhauled and reworked completely. This whole freedom of speech illusion is a crock. Also, there is no 5th ammendment... if there is, then it must not apply at Guantanamo.

Over time the Constitution has changed. It has been amended to time over and time again. The base, the original intent of our Founding Fathers has been but replaced by "Confusion"; Confusion goes by many names...he needs no introduction as he has been with man from the beginning of time itself.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

It violates the very premise established in the First Amendment, of keeping Government and Religion separate. Now, if you want to argue "God" and religion are not necessarily tied together...

Did you even read the post? Based on the widely accepted legal interpretation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses contained in the First Amendment, how does this violate anything contained in either? It does not represent the formal establish of a national religion by Congress, nor favor one religion over another.