I'd say that this goes even further - a capitalist "God" used as a proper noun is uniquely Judeo-Christian. Indeed, it's rather more Christian than Jewish. Christians don't ever call God "Yahweh", do they? It's only really Reform Jews in Anglophone countries that talk about "God" in their relgious lives, though they may use the word in conversations outside the synagogue. (I wonder if any Jewish members can clarify or correct me - UltimateJoe?)

Islam refers to "Allah" (which is not the literal Arabic translation for "God" as far as I know).

Other monotheistic religions are pretty much insignificant in global terms (Zoroastrianism, from which some historians think Judaism sprang, is very much a minority faith these days).

And polythesitic faiths only capitalise the names of their gods - the word 'god' itself is merely a classifying descriptor.

So, from my cosy haven (living in a monarchy with an established church, where such discussions are relevant), the idea that "In God We Trust" printed on the currency being somehow a religiously neutral statement of generic deism is, frankly, hogwash.

Similarly, the clear Masonic symobolism of US currency design isn't jsut a pretty picture that's hard to counterfeit - it has direct meaning for the designers of the currency. Yet I don't see anyone complaining in Congress about the all-seeing eye (Maybe rebel congressmen are more afraid of Masons than of Christians, or maybe they just regard them as an irrelevance and their influence on currency design as an historical curiosity - which is my own take on "In God We Trust", as it goes.)

However, those designers were NOT the Founders, and had no more of a clear and direct understanding of how the Founders would have wanted their paper currency to be designed than you or I do.

How the Founders chose to word the Constitution has only tangential, or perhaps more accurately parallel, relevance to the decision to put "In God We Trust" onto paper currency, which (if memory serves?) was not introduced until the mid 19th century, at least a decade after the last of the Founders died.

You didn't answer what the difference was between the two statements. That is, why they included the word "establishment", when not using that word would have gotten across the same point you say they were trying to get across. The only answer could be that they were in fact saying something different from what you say they were trying to get across.


A statement from the government that it hates God would probably not violate the clause. It might violate a few other things, but not that clause. It also would never happen, so there's no need to worry about that.

A law prohibiting printing the word God is a completely different ballgame. That's an actual restriction of behavior, and as such would be a prima facie violation of the people's right of free expression. Printing "In God We Trust" on a coin does not restrict anybody's freedom.


They didn't have to use that phrase at all. They could have simply said, "the Year One thousand seven hundred eighty-seven" and left it at that. After all, if they were the enlightened secularists that they're reputed to have been, they would have considered it a moral imperative for the purpose of making sure that there was no religious significance to any of their official acts.

Like I said, a Christian wouldn't have used those words in vain, and I'd hardly expect a non-Christian to use them at all.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this. Even just stating the year without the accustomed prefix could be classified as some sort of support for Christianity - since the year 1787 itself is only considered the year it is because of the church defining that era as having started with the birth of Christ.

Even today, when the term "Common Era," as in 2005 C.E., is widely used, we are still bound to this artificial dating system imposed by the Christians. Of course it may seem silly and arbitrary to use the birth of a mythological figure as the marker for "year one" in the system of dating we use, but what's a good atheist to do? To avoid religion entirely, I suppose the authors of the Constitution could have said it was written in the year one of the "American Era." But then, we would be in the year 218 AE, while Europe would be in the year 2005. That would get confusing. Even the Jews and the Chinese, who use different calendars, and for whom it is currently not "2005," use the dominant dating method when engaging in any sort of international commerce or politicking. When we arrange a meeting with Israel for summer 2006, they will understand we mean the year 5767. If a Jew says 2006, they aren't suddenly becoming Christian - they're just following the dominant standard.

In more formal times, the phrase "Anno Domini," or "Year of Our Lord," was the dominant standard, to be used when defining dates - particularly in a legal document. Using the founders' inclusion of such a phrase is akin to hearing an atheist say "Oh my god!" and then returning them with "Aha! See, you really are a Christian, otherwise you wouldn't have said that!"



You are correct to bring up the "Lemon test" here. However, your own interpretation of it is somewhat shaky.

The first part says "It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose." Your response is, "Of course, a National Motto has very little purpose, let alone a religious one." But that doesn't really answer the question. The question is, does it lack a secular purpose. You answered this by saying it has little purpose at all, even a religious one. But does it lack a secular purpose? I think you would have to agree the answer is yes. It absolutely lacks a secular purpose. The depth or strength of its religious purpose is irrelevant. The phrase "In God we Trust," certainly has more religious purpose (however vaguely) than it does secular purpose (which would have to be labeled numerically as ZERO secular purpose).

-The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

Well it doesn't inhibit religion. Does it promote religion? How can it not? I mean seriously, how can the phrase "In God we Trust" not promote religion? Amlord, you say you don't see how. I'm afraid I don't find that a very convincing argument. If you are going to bring in this 'test,' the least you can do is try and offer a little more support for your view. Isn't acknowledging a specific religion in a sense promoting it? The phrase uses the capitalized word "God." To say this is a generic term is a recent spin some Christians are trying to use to defend the word's presence in the public sphere. But in English, the capitalized word "God" refers to the Christian god. It certainly doesn't stand for any deity anywhere. If you truly believe the word "God" is completely generic, then you are being a very egalitarian religious relativist. If I said "God created the universe," are you going to tell me this has the exact same meaning as saying "Brahma created the universe," or "Zeus created the universe," or "Allah created the universe," or "my god Swizzleflicken created the universe?" The only Christian church that comes close to this level of relativism is the Unitarian Universalist Church. Yet this church is not the one making the absurd claim that "God" is meant as a completely generic term. It's obvious that the Christians who are currently using this line of defense haven't really thought it through. Because if "God" means any deity, that sort of renders the Bible, and Christianity itself, as merely one religion among many equals - something most Christians don't believe to be true.

-Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion.

The term "excessively" is vague and open to interpretation. If we equate it, at least nominally, with the term "ubiquity," this certainly is true, since the phrase is on every piece of money. There's simply no way to avoid the fact that the motto "In God we Trust" does involve the government with a religion. Is it excessive? I don't think it necessarily is, but on the other hand, we have already failed the first two parts of the test. Must it comply with all three in a clear way? Personally, I'd give this a "two-and-a-half" rating.

I don't have a problem with anyone trusting in God. However, I think it shouldn't be on our money, of all places. I would think that Christians would not want any correlation between money and God. We may certainly trust in God, but the love of money is also the root of all evil! It's even easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to go to Heaven!

I love the phrase "E pluribus unum" - out of many, one. That should be on our money.

Many conservatives tend to see themselves as wanting to be "constructionist" when it comes to the Constitution. Yet in cases like this, the first Amendment suddenly becomes this malleable thing, which we must interpret in a way that fits our views. If they can't convince us that it is Constitutional to keep this phrase, then they will try and dismiss it as unimportant, that any who oppose it are nitpicking atheists who hate Christianity and are doing this out of spite.

But again, it's a matter of not thinking it through. If "God" is really, completely generic, then why not have teachers lead the kids in school prayers? After all, when they say, "dear God," they are not indicating Christianity at all, right?

I realize that you are making a rhetorical point here, but there is a good bit of historical evidence that Jesus was not a mythological character. Believe or not that he was the son of God, but he was a dude who existed. I don't think we should debate it here, but since the mythological school
of thought that Jesus didn't exist until the 19th Century, and Christianity started, well, at the time of Christ, it seems to lend more credence to the latter. Especially since first century accounts of his life have been deemed authentic by historians...


Absolutely. Good thing it's still on some of the money, but we should use this more.

Don't get me wrong - I didn't use the term "mythological" to mean I don't believe he existed. He very probably did. I even consider myself a "Christian" in the sense that I try and use Jesus as an example for how we ought to live our lives - lives of peace, justice, forgiveness, and sacrifice. I was using the term rhetorically - even if he existed, the story of his life and works is one of the defining mythologies of our era.

And it is on our money. From the Penny to the Dollar.




Even a better reason to have the words 'In God We Trust" on money. If money is the root of all evil let's have some notion of good on it.

I wonder if somebody will challenge the Eagle next because the Eagle represent our freedom and there are those out there who don't agree with all of our freedoms.

It's on the coinage, but not on the dollar bill.



Come now, this is a ridiculous argument that makes no sense. Let's start with your first assertion:


Whether it is good or not is irrelevant. My point was rhetorical and beside the point - whether it is good or bad is not the issue here.

Your second bit is the worst sort of argumentation, designed to dismiss this as silly, rather than actually arguing a point:


Yes, by all means, and why have George Washington on the dollar, since some people don't agree with his views!

Can't you bring something more substantive to this issue? Dismissing this issue as silly and puerile is just a way of avoiding having a debate of any substance.

You've given us an entire post that merely tries to make a mockery of the subject, without addressing a single pertinent point.

Or do you sincerely believe there is a slippery slope connecting a motto about God to the eagle? If so, perhaps you could show us the relevant Constitutional text that applies to the eagle? Is there somewhere in the Constitution where it mentions, however vaguely, that the government cannot endorse freedom? Perhaps some amendment the rest of us are unaware of?

This is kinda trivial, but it's in the Eagle seal thingie on the back of a dollar bill. Got one right here. I had thought it was on all the money, but it's not on my $20.

You're right, my fault. I had to look darn close, though! It's certainly not given nearly the prominence of "In God we Trust!"

How come I can't make an argument like that but yet you don't admonish whishouldi for an argument like this:


Just curious?

God told George Bush to make the "G - O - D" letters on the white house 20 cubits high, which would be more like 30 feet. God always speaks in ancient Roman terms, for she has not gone metric.

OK, that's like 4 one-liners in a row, let's get back to debating before the nastygram appears here.

Who cares what the mob wants? I'm a bit perplexed by this... Aren't the folks in the mob the ones who vote our lawmakers into office? I'd be more worried about what a select elitist minority wants to impose on the mob.

That being said, I'm agnostic, but I think this is a complete waste of resources.

I hate to correct you ( ) but the love of money is never portrayed to be the root of all evil in the bible, but yet one of many equally divisive mechanisms of sin. In addition, Rich people can go to Heaven, as there are numerous mentions of good people in biblical history whom held virture.



I hate to tell you sir, but having "in God we trust" doesn't establish religion, prohibit the free exercise thereof, or abridge the rights of anyone. It's simply a reference to the history of the United States, to include contemporary times. At worst, it acknowledges an aspect of the United States that the rest of the world openly understands. I apologize for my crassness, QH, but you live in a predominantly Christian society. In the event that this doesn't suit you, I imagine that the United States isn't necessarily the best place for you. It's not really open to interpretation, in that the phrase itself doesn't infringe on anyone that's not bitter to the overwhelming presence of Christianity in their society. The phrase doesn't stop anyone from being Buddhist, doesn't infringe on its spending power for Muslims, nor does it inhibit the use by atheists.

I think we all know how the phrase ended up on coinage? Simply at the behest of the American public.
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets...-we-trust.shtml

I suppose that the Red Cross should change their name to the Mauve Band Aid?? It's easy to understand why the idea of the cross was chosen, and it's historical significance. This would completely confiscate the Red Cross's identity.

To remove "in God we trust" from our money is to turn a blind eye to the past 398 years worth of Christian majority, leadership, and history in the United States.

In my eyes... I'd love to see it come to a national vote. I'm confident that we know the outcome...

Unless you're seriously suggesting that there's no extra religious component to saying "in the year of our Lord", that you wouldn't see anything incongruous whatsoever about an atheist uttering those words, then you're making a completely frivolous argument.

Simply saying "the year 2005" says absolutely nothing whatsoever about your beliefs regarding what happened 2005 years ago (give or take). All you're acknowledging is that something of significance to somebody happened at that time. Saying "the year of our Lord 2005" adds a completely different dimension to it. Surely you can see this, can't you?

1 Timothy, Chapter 6, verse 10:

...never?

Mark Chapter 10, verse 25:


I never said rich people can't go to heaven. You said " there are numerous mentions of good people in biblical history whom held virture." But I'm not even sure what you mean. Being good and being virtuous have nothing to do with wealth, so your reply about this doesn't even make sense.



Gosh, I don't think you hate telling me this stuff at all!

I have looked at the "Lemon test," and I have attempted to argue it point by point. Your reply is, "you're wrong." That's fine, we disagree. But you offer nothing to support it. Saying it's a reference to history and nothing more doesn't serve as support for anything. It doesn't matter if it recognizes history. Obviously it does, I have not heard anyone argue otherwise. What matters is if it passes Constitutional muster. Having looked at it, I conclude that it does not pass. It doesn't offend me, I couldn't care less about what it said. But that doesn't matter either.



Come on, I feel like this is some kind of grade school fight here. Perhaps you didn't read my posts thoroughly - or read it with some preconceived notions about what my position on this issue says about my character. Allow me to quote myself from a post here in this thread:

In any case, sir, you will not solve problems or win debates using the "love it or leave it" argument. Mainly because it is highly illogical. One could say the same of any system under the sun.



OK. The first sentence doesn't make sense, would you mind clarifying it? Particularly this: "It's not really open to interpretation," really? So you are simply right, though your support for that seems to only be 'because you say it is right,' rather than anything substantive? Hmmm, that's an interesting standard. In your mind it only infringes on bitter Christian-haters. But infringing on peoples' feelings isn't part of this. I've never claimed it was. It's not about who's offended; it's about whether it's Constitutional. So your argument, that it is Constitutional because it doesn't offend anyone, is really quite irrelevant. Please, look to the Lemon test again, because that's the kind of legal precedent a court will use. Not these earnest but polemic appeals to emotion.


Here you're engaging in the same silliness as Sleeper was earlier. "Your idea is so ridiculous, I will throw out some really silly idea for it to be on par with." Bad form. No one is debating the Red Cross here.




Dangerous ground, not really thought through. There are plenty of things, which if they came before the people for a vote, would appall you. Or me. Some things might go against beliefs you hold dear; some against mine. People might vote that handguns should be illegal. They might vote that Social Security should be increased dramatically. They might vote to have no taxes at all. Your saying that people might vote about this a certain way has nothing to do with anything. We are discussing Constitutionality, not popularity.



You're making the mistake of imposing contemporary ideas onto the minds of people who lived 200 years ago. Look at the dating system which was used on legal documents of the time. The use of "Anno Domini" or "Year of Our Lord" was standard. So yes, I am seriously suggesting that there is no "extra" religious component to using it. Not in the 18th century, certainly. It may seem quaint or religious today; back then it was just the way you put a date on a legal document.

Can you imagine an atheist using the term 2005 A.D.? It's the same thing. It means "year of our Lord." It's presence in the Constitution being touted as some sort of nod to Christianity is patently absurd. The flimsiest of straws one could possibly grasp! As I said, it's the same as hearing someone say "oh my God!" and then insisting they simply must be Christian.

Hope this doesn't count as off-topic

But... If I say 2005 AD (which I would in any official document if I need to clarify between BC and AD), then that does not mean I am a Christian or a supporter of Christain ideology. It's because it's the popular nonmenclature of my time, and I think more people know what it means than CE(at least where I was raised). Saying 2005 AD is idenitical to saying 2005 Anno Domi or In the Year of Our Lord 2005. One is an abbreviation, one is in Latin, and one is in English.




Really? Not open to interpertation? I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the Supreme Court decisions since the inception of the court, but exactly what does and does not constitute establishment is most certainly up for debate! (Just look at this excellent thread!)

Here's a bit on the debate from a very level-headed Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...ates_of_America

The Supreme Court has ruled that the "establishment" phrase was intended to include the endorsement of one religion over others. In fact, most people aruging for these words staying on our currency in this thread were initially arguing that it does not establish one religion over another. I think, hopefully that's been put to bed. It clearly does not apply to two very popular American religions, Buddhism and Hinduism.

From where I believe you're arguing, you would be fine with Congress legislated putting a Crucifix on our currency. Would you be? If so, you are at extreme odds with the 200 year court precedent of the Seperation of Church and State, and in my interpertation, at odds with what the establishment clause lays out.

From the same article:


However, you are in agreement with many "originalists" who in this particular case (in my opinion) are on the more "activist" side than the left-leaning judges (changing precedent that has been around for 200 years.)

All this said, I think that if the Court were to uphold Newdow's protest, it could be disasterous for the Left of this country, with little or no practical progress. Unless of course, by some miracle Thomas and Scalia went with court precedent on this, then we'd get a free pass. It's bad PR, and I honestly can't blame the Dems for distancing themselves from this one. I do give much credit to the ACLU and Newdow for fighting this cause entirely on principle, it is an issue that needs to be decided at some point.

Edit: Looks like QH and I overlapped a bit here. I promise I didn't cheat and look at his paper!

Absolutely. Like I said, it's just two letters of the alphabet, and lots of words, phrases, and other articles of speech have etymological meanings that aren't immediately obvious to the person saying them or the person hearing them. It's easy to say them without even a passing thought as to their significance. It's next to impossible to say "the year of our Lord" without getting a strong hint of the significance.


Now who's imposing contemporary ideas on the minds of people who lived 200 years ago? I can say with a pretty large degree of certainty that very few, if any, of the founders would have said "Oh my God!" without actually meaning to invoke God. That sort of thing wasn't considered well-mannered, to say the least.

Smorpheus, this post answers your point as well.

OK, I've said that using "Year of Our Lord" was standard in those days. Here I will demonstrate.
here
Would you say its use here was intended to portray a religious quality?
warrant
Religious significance?
here

Here's a nice short synopsis:


Another:


I'll buy your argument if you concede that using the word "Wednesday" implies a belief in the Norse god Wodin, using the word "Thursday" implies a belief in Thor, and using the word "Saturday" implies one's belief in the Roman god Saturn.

The clause hits religion as an establishment, it uses the word religion, not A religion also. If the clause were to reference fast food, and stated no laws could be made in respects to the establishment of fast food, what would that mean? The law could be, in French fries we trust, it does not say burger king, or jack in the box, just French fries, which then means absolutely no connection what so ever in any form to fast food. This thread is on something a bit more specific, because its religion as an establishment in its whole, as in anything religious, that has brought you the wonderful word GOD and everything to do with it. So in summary, it is a law by the government that does establish or deals with the establishment of religion, either way works I would think, but am not sure really. The other option is the word god ultimately has nothing to do with religion, and the sentence is to mean nothing because of that point, it’s a reference to a person in some country, not a figure that rules the universe according to religious beliefs, no sir.

For anyone else that may take offense to it, well, you can always mass produce offspring and brainwash them in hopes of gaining a advantage in the population department for popularity, then your views and opinions might count in this country.

Again as so many have pointed out, the debate is in reference to the constitution and the statement, not how you may feel about it. I am rigid that in the most raw sense it breeches on the constitution in regards to separation of church and state, but I must still also admit as to why god or that word could have anything to do with religion.

Both Quarkhead and myself have clearly stated that "God" is a proper nounreferring directly to the Christian deity (specifically the "God the Father" identity of the Trinity).

It is not the lower case "god", so the argument that it is a generic expression of a higher power just doesn't wash.

BUT, on US currency the phrase "In God We Trust" appears in upper case (as "IN GOD WE TRUST") so nobody can tell, just by looking at the coins or bills, whether the intention is to be specific or generic.

For that, we need to look at how the phrase got onto the currency in the first place - the link to the Treasury's own website, 'History of "In God We Trust"' has been provided several times already in this thread, but it can't hurt to have it again

The US Treasury makes no secret of the fact that "In God We Trust" was added in 1864 to the two cent coin, after Congress passed an act enabling it to do so, motivated by a campaign organised to specifically demonstrate fidelity to the Christian deity.



Note 'God', 'His', etc. This capitalisation is a specifically Christian typographical convention, akin to putting 'p.b.u.h.' (abbreviated from 'peace be upon him') after every mention of Mohammed among Muslims.

So in the context of this thread, whether or not "the Year of Our Lord" on the Declaration of Independence signifies Christianity or not, while interesting, is essentially irrelevant to whether "In God We Trust" (or "IN GOD WE TRUST") is Constitutional. (Not least because the Declaration does not form part of the Constitution. _

The point is, the motto on the US Currency was and is specifically and intentionally added to endorse Christianity (and not generic deism) to America. There is no equivocation, no sense that historical context drove the decision rather than explicit proselytising, no way to read the decision to add the motto that does not conclude a definitively pro-Christian message coming from the government.

Any straightforward reading of the Establishment clause has to find the currency motto unconstitutional.

And before anyone mentions it, this is not the same thing as sending out a Christmas card with the presidential seal on it (not least because all representations of Christmas that do not show babies in mangers, angels appearing before shepherds, pregnant women riding donkeys, etc. are essentially rooted in the pagan Yule festival. Snow scenes, robins, plum puddings, fir trees, jolly fat men with beards in white-trimmed red suits*, reindeer and the rest have little or nothing directly to do with Christianity.)

* These are Coca Cola advertising.

I don't have time to argue your entire post, as it's nearing the end of the week, and I prefer to spend Fridays lolly-gagging...

However, your post shows your complete lack of understanding of the bible. The operative portion of this verse in Timothy is the love of money, which is very different than saying that money is the root of all evil.

What it's saying is that if you love money (or conversely material wealth in general), that basically your life will be filled with tough times (insert the word sorrow...).

Basically, the bible is often a metaphor, and hence the verse about the Camel. When wealthy people in the Bible were condemned, they were condemned for the means by which their riches were obtained, not for the riches. In Genesis 13:2, it showed that Abraham had great wealth. In Job 42:10 we see that God once again blessed Job with material possessions. In Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, wealth is seen as evidence of God's blessing (Deut. 8; 28; Prov. 22:2; Eccles. 5:19).

But even though wealth might be an evidence of God's blessing, believers are not to trust in it. Proverbs, Jeremiah, 1 Timothy, and James all teach that the believer should not trust in wealth but in God (Prov. 11:4; 11:28; Jer. 9:23; 1 Tim. 6:17; James 1:11; 5:2).

Not anyone who signs such a document, but anyone who freely uses that terminology when he doesn't have to. And the founders definitely did not have to use it. It's one thing when you're signing a particular document in accordance with the law. It's another thing altogether when you're making the law to begin with. The only question this comes down to is whether or not the founders meant it when they chose to say it.

And it's not enough of an answer to say that they were just following through on tradition. They were breaking with tradition with nearly everything they did, and were acutely aware of that fact. They would have had no compunction about making any break with the past in any area where they felt that it no longer served their political principles.


Right, and that'll be happening just as soon as you come through with your concession that anyone who says "Wednesday" is as consciously aware of the fact that he's saying "Woden's Day", as someone who says "the year of our Lord" is aware of the fact that he's saying "the year of our Lord".

Now you don't have to accept this if you don't want, but here's the deal: The vast majority of the words and phrases in our language have original meanings that are largely obscure to the modern speaker. The forms of words change over time as accents create new dialects, metaphorical meanings become the main meanings, etc. So if you have to look up in a dictionary what the original archaic meaning of a word was, then it's hardly fair to suggest that a person who speaks it in more recent times is using that original meaning. But when he's using a phrase that any 10-year-old can immediately see what the meaning is - such as, "in the year of our Lord" - you can't very well claim that the person speaking it wasn't aware of what he said. That's especially true when first of all, we're talking about the founders, who were very articulate men and didn't use words frivolously; and when secondly, they didn't have to use these words in order to get across the bare fact that they needed to get across, which in this case was the date.


I understand that it doesn't say "a" religion. What I'm asking is this: If the clause had said, "Congress shall make no law respecting religion" (not "a religion", just "religion"), how would that meaning be different from the meaning of the clause as it's currently written?

It's true that they were breaking with tradition in nearly every way. Indeed, our Constitution was the first such document in (modern) European history to be so bereft of any mentions of God. As you say, they chose their words carefully. There are any number of ways they could have included a "nod" to Christianity if they had wanted to do so.

But they didn't break with all tradition, and it's a mistake to make the argument you're making. For example, they certainly followed a traditional way of constructing the document. They followed tradition in their phrasing, their use of contemporary language, their ideas of natural rights, their specific enumeration of powers and rights.

Frankly, I find it rather incredible that this argument is even put forward. Using the phrase "the year of our Lord" was standard practice on official documents at the time. It was such an accepted practice that it had effectively become secular. I mean, putting it on a warrant, as I showed in one of my examples, doesn't mean that the warrant was somehow trying to "slip in some religion." I honestly think that the evidence points to the drafters not really thinking twice about something so tangential. Of course they didn't have to put it there. But that in itself isn't a convincing argument for them putting it there out of some desire to inject Christianity into the document!



Agreed. And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the use of "the year of our Lord" was commonplace, and had been for a very long time. Why would your theory not apply to that? Because it has the word "Lord" in it? But today, people say "oh my God," all the time, and even though the word "God" is there, do they really mean the phrase literally? At one time, saying this would have been taking the Lord's name in vain, something we are commanded not to do. But today, even with the word "God" in it, it is a minor and almost purely habitual phrase that lacks religious connotation.

It seems to me that your point about this is tangential in any case. Even if you were right (which I am certainly not going to concede), what bearing does it have on the first amendment, which amends any relative portions in the original document. Let's say you were right. The first amendment would trump it, just as the amendment making slavery unconstitutional trumps the 3/5 provision in the original document.

So we are left with the courts' precedent on first amendment decisions. I have yet to see a convincing case which would use the "Lemon test" to show that having the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" on all our government issued money is allowed by the first amendment.

Of course it seems like nitpicking, and Democrats would be unwise to show support for this cause. But whether this cause is popular or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it is constitutional or not.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying they were doing it out of a deliberate attempt to announce that Christianity was the official religion of the U.S. government. I'm saying that it showed that they had no compunction at all about "mixing" their religious views with their official acts. It didn't go against their political principles at all. That is exclusively a hangup of modern times.


And, their view of the source of natural rights and natural justice. Simply because that's not talked about as much nowadays, it doesn't follow that they didn't see it that way. They did.


Yes, saying it without meaning it would have been considered taking God's name in vain, "at one time". Specifically, around the time the Constitution was adopted. That's what I've been trying to explain. They meant what they wrote there. Count on it.


Big, tremendous difference between the two cases. The reason the first ten amendments were amendments, rather than part of the original document, was not because the founders didn't think the federal government should be constricted like that. It was because it was their view that it was never empowered to do any of these things in the first place, and they were afraid that coming up with such a list would imply that it could do whatever was not on the list. Everything contained in those amendments was part of their political principles from the beginning. The only question before them on that was whether it all should be stated explicitly. They initially decided no, but then the people insisted that it be in writing.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the reference to "our Lord" in the Constitution, or the numerous references to God in the Declaration of Independence, went against any of their principles. If it did, there would be something - some hint of any kind - from one of them suggesting in some possible way that wasn't a good thing for them to have done. There's nothing, not even from Thomas Jefferson, who among all of them was the most dogmatic in favor of the separation of church and state, and who himself wrote the Declaration of Independence.


Not directly, of course. But it probably should make you stop and think: If this view of the Constitution you're expounding wouldn't be popular nowadays, even among Democrats, how likely would it have been considered an acceptable thing in 1791? Therefore, it might not hurt to ask, is it at all possible that you may have misunderstood what they wrote in that amendment?

No, it does not.
An attorney twisting the intentions of our founding fathers. We should not stand for it as a nation.
Religious freedom is the foundation of our country like it or not. It was the faith of our forefathers that enticed them to a new land where they could worship freely to their God what ever they believed. I think the question is "Is atheism a religion?". I think not, there is not a supernatural being or a element of faith in atheism, so what gives them the right? Maybe it is time we further clarify our forefathers intentions. Did "In God we Trust" mean we will allow no atheist in this country? Something to think about.

and as they intended the matter itself will be settled in a court. Do you have a problem with that part?

Goldblum

The leading cause of the failure of democracy is the mob itself. Constantly taking more and more freedom away to satisfy their desire to force others to live and think as they do--as well as chipping away at Liberty itself to protect the over active imaginations of the chicken littles always afraid of the "enemy of the day".

1. Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

It is a religious phrase that serves no secular purpose. It's inclusion on money serves no secular purpose.

It does promote a religion -- this has been clearly stated as the intent for including the phrase on money.

It is excessive involvement -- to continue to do it is a choice to continue to promote religion on a grand scale (how much money is minted and printed each year?). Money is a huge part of our society... to use money to promote religion is excessive.

It fails the Lemon test. The phrase should be removed.

As for the "Year of Our Lord" debate...

Is it a religious phrase that serves no secular purpose? It does serve a secular purpose. It identifies a specific date on the Christian calendar which is the calendar predominantly used by all Americans in their secular lives. The fact that it does so in an antiquated fashion is insignificant.


Atlanta Native,



Religion is a system of faith or worship. Just because atheists do not believe in a God does not mean that they have no system of faith or worship.

If it's "excessive" within the meaning of the Lemon test (which was devised long after the First Amendment went into effect), then so much the worse for the Lemon test, not the phrase. Nothing in any of the writings of the founders suggested that official expressions of belief in God went against their principles. Certainly the numerous references to God in the Declaration of Independence didn't go against their political principles, despite their not having any discernably secular purpose. If they did, you'd think there would have been some hint of that somewhere in their writings.

Any discussion on what the Establishment Clause does and does not forbid needs to begin by answering the question of why the authors chose to include the word "establishment", instead of simply saying, "Congress shall make no law respecting religion...." The founders were not sloppy writers, so if they used a word, it's because they intended for it to influence the meaning of what they were writing. If the clause has a different meaning with that word than it would have had without it, then it can only be that it made the clause less restrictive than what it would have been without it. That being the case, it's pretty safe to conclude, from the historical evidence, that they did not intend to condemn what they themselves had been doing.

The use of a language can almost have a jazzy appeal giving certain times in history. The example of the calendar I cannot use against my own arguments as in what other calendar do you suppose should have been used, that Aztec?

The word establishment follows along nicely with the word religion. For word play, it would have had to established the letter A to go along with the established argument that the founders, regardless of the separation clause, wanted the federal government to pass laws that express dealings with religion in general, not A particular religion.

Even so, giving Americas current diversity in regards to the super natural, the one god or even just god word does express a religious tone that is shared by all religions. The statement would have to say in gods we trust in order to make the phrase secular or not being of a particular religious establishment or establishing religion anyways, or being an established law that pertains to religion by the federal government. Still I doubt for it to consume in any aspect religious diversity in America as it stands.

The rest of the clause as added up in my opinion still does not come off as anything more then no laws for or against, as is the current ruling on such.

As for anything more, I feel that perceptions on such are more grounded in feeling, then anything to do with legislating from the constitution. I feel more that the issue is incorrect in regards to staying honest with the constitution, but that any politician that would touch such would be persecuted, so I doubt for it to be abolished. Its not far fetched to think many Americans are religious, or that many of the founders were, but I do very much see the reason why the separation clause was put up, I think it goes along with the whole issue of state militias, gun bearing citizens, and all that liberty and happiness stuff.

The Declaration of Independence was not a law passed by Congress. And, therefore, the inclusion of the reference to God in that document does not violate the principles set down in the First Amendment of the Constitution.








But the First Amendment does not say: with regards to an establishment of a religion... but: with regards to an establishment of religion. As you say, the authors chose their words carefully. If they meant for it to mean that there would be no National Church, they would have put the letter "a" in there. They didn't.

This means that there was to be no law passed by Congress that would in any way promote the US as a religious state. This does not mean that the political leaders can't refer to their beliefs or talk about God or where they believe our human rights came from. It means that Congress can not make a law promoting the US as a Christian nation. That is an establishment of religion. This was clearly the intention of the law that allowed for the inclusion of "IN GOD WE TRUST" on money. This is why it violates the clause.

God was not born God just is. We as sovereigns must understand that we have been in endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights (Declaration of Indepenence 1776) If you have no creator then you have no Rights. But what I love about this country is that you have the Right "NOT TO" use the Right. So if you don't what to be free then you can voluntary put yourself into slavery. If you want to be a slave be a slave. As for me, i'll keep my freedom. Also Evolution is a fraud and a lie. So if you want to believe you came from a rock go right a head but I am and you are created by God and in Him will I trust. However as for being on our money........ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts (Article I Sec. 10) so really I think our money system is not Constitutional, and therefore fake money it is not based on anything....gold or silver. Do you remember the old dollars.....when looking at the face side of the dollar of Washington and under Washington is ONE DOLLAR under that IN SILVER PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND remember??? Real money. Yes, I think we should have something about the LORD on our money but its all fake anyways so it doesn't matter. May we should put TRUST IN GOD, BE LIKE JESUS and maybe our country would change for the better. PIPPIN

To me, there are two parts to this whole thing. The notion that christians are "attacked" belies the fact that there are two forms of religion in the public view, one that is o.k., another one that is not. The one that is o.k. is the "free exercise thereof" provision. To me, this is before or after school bible clubs, meetings in a community building, or proselytizing on the street corner. The "establishment of" clause is the inappropriate form of religious expression and many people on the right seem to not differentiate between it and rightful expression. This wrongful expression is a teacher leading kids in prayer(captive audience is a no-no in such things) or a religious display on a courthouse lawn. The former is undertaken by people, the latter is when the government or elected leaders act. Putting "under god" in the pledge was not what the person who wrote the pledge in the first place wanted. Putting the term "In God we trust" was not how money was originally coined. If we adopt a strict constructionist approach to this issue(only convenient to those on the right when it suits them) then we wouldn't be changing the face of money, the pledge, or making other attempts to fundamentalize the largelyh deistic and skeptical founders.

I don't believe christians are under attack, I just believe that a good number of thme don't understand the difference between "free exercise" of their rights and the "establishment" of those rights.

1. Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

I do not think that the phrase In God We Trust violates the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I think this is not a Constitutional issue but a local issue of tolerance and fair play. If one is allowed to be an atheist or a believer in something that does not clearly fall under a definition of "God" then is it fair to make that person pay taxes in a currency that says "In God We Trust"? I think not. That is my opinion.



I think the principle of a separation of church and state is a good one to apply fairly strictly to all aspects of our government. So that when religious expression is applied, it should be so in a manner that allows equal expression of all faiths or lack thereof. It is a subject that can offend, and the idea that this is a Christian nation or a nation of believers and non-believing or non-Christian citizens should hold their tongue when faced with and forced to participate is not very fair.

We dealt with this issue at our private school, and I was impressed that many concerned non-Christians we happy when a public prayer was changed from "In Jesus name we pray" to In Jesus name I pray. This made the act a moment that did not imply full participation in the practice of religion.

I also think that a strict constructionist approach would allow for more control over the content of religion in our public life than we now practice. I think strict constructionist views would make the pledge and the motto on coins to be Constitutional.

IMHO George Washington played a leading role in having the Constitution have life breathed into it and his precedents have largely been followed. And since it is Thanksgiving and I saw this the other day, here is a sample of how George Washington mixed public life as a politician and Christianity. It is not a "largely deistic and skeptical" approach.

Proclamation of National Thanksgiving


Granted I believe that Jefferson discontinued this holiday because he was not a fan. I also believe it was revived by Lincoln. However, I think this shows a strong attention paid to the Christian faith by our first founding father. So when looking to the framers in a much less secular world, I think their nod would generally go in favor of more overtly Christian messages in the day to day expressions of our government.

I also believe that to continue in this mode is no longer in the best interests of the nation. The government should be careful to not appear to dissuade people from religion, but it should not force participation in religion unto others.

There is a huge difference between expressions of faith by the government and passing laws whose sole purpose is to promote religion. Did Congress pass a law making Thanksgiving a national religious holiday? It is interesting to note that laws passed regarding national observance of religious holidays have been considered by the courts to be constitutional because they serve a secular purpose... shopping.

In response to pippin.

Hey, slow down. Its not my personal opinion here. Religion is a homo sapien made institution, its makes up words like god and so on. There has been more religions then I know about. Christianity and related by far are not the worlds oldest religions. Religion deals with what is called animism basically. Evolution does not just apply to the organic, like how the English language came from Latin and so on, I mean its really common available knowledge really. Open up some history books on the subject, you can find really why Christmas has its date and what it was about.

About being a slave if you have no organized faith, well, I have never heard that argument before, so maybe you should speak more about it. About evolution being a lie, well I guess that means all the data to support such is really just a façade created by scientists for all this time because they want to keep there jobs or something. I am sorry if what science learns does not support religious beliefs, but I like to follow truth, its why I choose agnostic, because no truth on that question currently exists.

The separation clause as it was written seems pretty clear to me, and I guess the clarity of that issue is why it has the ruling of no laws for or against being the generalized version that is carried when dealing with such issues. If you want to place your trust in god, in private life you can do that, you can build a monument to it on your property if you deem such worthy. The government on the other hand was to stay separated from religious matters, thus the separation clause, and its neat reason for existence. Which I am sure was brought on by the corrupt state of affairs religion turned into in Europe, tower of London as an example.

Plus next time you post if you do, do slow down. It was hard making sense of that. It looked like writings of some crazed person in the midst of an episode. Really, I had to read that thing like four to five times just to make head or tails of direction. Things really are not that uptight here, but I guess it could have just been emotion, I know it can be overpowering at times.

TO: whyshouldi

Sorry but i never been here or done this kind of thing before. And as you may find out, I am a horrible write. So please just cut me some slack. but on to the real subjects.

yes it is an opinion. you can't make a relationship with God. It began with Adam

I'm not sure what your point is on animism. Yes by definition i'm animism. But let not get carried away with labels.

Yes I understand that Dec. 25 is not Jesus Christ birth day but he did live and he did die and on the third day he arosed. So if everyone celebrates Jesus' birth day on dec. 25 good!!! What was once pagan now has been turn for good.

separation clause:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it doesn't say that church should stay out of the government. I don't know where you hears that but it's not in the Constitution. You might be think about a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. Not sure.

NO i didnt say that you were a slave if you didnt have an organized faith. Just that we as sovereigns have certain unalienable rights, and those rights were endowed to us by Our Creator. If you don't believe in the Ceator then He can endow you with your unalienable Rights. I didnt say you had to be a christian or any religion ONLY that there is a Creator and through Him we have certain Right.

O.k., but where does it say church should be in government? In particular when religious oath proposals were tossed out the window and a provision to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the personal savior of the nation was also rejected-does that not indicate that church and state should be separate? Does "free exercise thereof" and "establishment of" provisions in the first amendment not clearly delineate that there is a right and wrong form of religious expression? The founders didn't want an official religion of the nation, they didn't want people to be compelled to worship, and they didn't want government telling people to show up every sunday. To worship in your own way as you please is your right. To plaster your theistic views on government property and on government items is not one of those rights. When you go to city hall, you should be on neutral territory, at home, you can choose any sect or partisan belief you want. The term: "in god we trust" is an establishment of religion as the money is what represents the government in matters of economy-hence, it shows the government's preferential standard towards god, and not to citizens who are atheist, agnostic, or who otherwise do not believe that Caesar should be praising God on his coins so to speak.


Unlike today, many religious people in the past viewed the constitution as what it is-a secular document. The National Reform Association had this to say on the matter: