State your reasoning why if you like.

Yes, I do. I think that the government should be entirely secular, because I think that the recipe of religion combined with government leads to tyranny.

There is an ample amount of opportunity in this country for people to worship as they see fit. Keeping the government out of religion enhances religious freedom for everyone.

No I do not,

Mostly because of the ever debateable standard of morality.
Where does a government get its standard of morality that shaped it into what it is? the american government was originally created and crafted by people who's morality was based on the assumption of a higher power. so just as a historical remembrance of what this country came from is enough to leave the four words in place.
now constitutionally: it all depends on what area of the government is in control of the mint. if it is congressional, than there might be some room for argument on why it should be removed.
(does anyone know who controls the treasury department? i don't think it is congressional)
But having a simple saying of recognizing a higher power cannot easily be taken to place one religion over another, and it isn't being implemented by congress.

i will continue this debate and add to it as the days go on (considering i know one of you will attack me on it )
- Quane

According to the U.S. Treasury, congress does have to approve the motto on our currency.

History of "in god we trust" on currency

I stand corrected on the congressional issue

(thanks for the research on that Cyan)

I think that this will turn into a seperation of church and state "clause" argument rather quickly, essentially it is going to be very simular to the 10 commandments issue in alabama.
It will come down to.. do we have a set moral system that all humans have to adhere to, in other words, is there a higher power. and i am sure many of you will say no, and a couple of us would contest it, and it would regress into a atheist vs diest/christian argument, and that one is nothing but a carbon copy replay every time i hear it.
and to keep myself from isulting those that i wish to, i will end my post here. i hope to continue this soon (when i am more awake and thinking better).

Quane

Which is exactly why the government should not be involved in religion at all. There is no way for the government to adequately represent every faith. Neutrality is logical.

I voted no. What I would like to see removed is the pyramid with the eye on it on the dollar bill. Why should a Freemasonry symbol be on my money?

Why mess with things that don't need to be fixed? The amount of money that it would take to tinker yet again with the currency could be used for things that are a much higher priority for the people.

Interesting. Why should "In God we trust?" be on my money?

You're okay with "In God we trust," because you're a Christian, but you're not a Freemason, so you want that to be removed. Do you see the double standard there?



Paladin, this is not something that I would normally throw a big fit about, but since Sleeper asked the question, I'm answering honestly. I don't think it's an appropriate motto.

I voted yes in agreement with what Cyan has already said about the matter. The government should be neutral in all matters of faith, limiting itself to the rights and needs of the people. To borrow from Cyan: "Keeping the government out of religion enhances religious freedom for everyone."

I voted no. The government of this country was established by people who had faith in God, and though "In God we trust" was not placed on the money until many years later, to take it off would be like destroying a fundamental part of our history. Going back to what Paladin Elspeth said, why don't we remove the pyramid too, since it's a symbol of Freemasonry. And while we're at it, why don't we take "under God" out of the Pledge of Alligance, get rid of Georgia's flag (oh, wait, we already did that...), and not allow the Declaration of Independence to be studied in schools because it has the word "God" in it, and mentions a "Creator." We can't get rid of everything just because some people may find things offensive or disagree with them. These things are a part of history, even though they may not be agreeable to everyone, and to remove them would be like erasing a part of the past that helped to shape who we are today.

Arguing to keep an alteration (and a bad one at that) to the original on the basis of tradition? If you want tradition, the words "under God" should be dropped from the pledge.
I'm with Cyan, it's not a big deal but it is unfortunately used as a "foot in the door" by those who intend to make this country a theocracy. I don't know about anyone else, but my God doesn't need government recognition. My God is everywhere, even on US currency and it has absolutely nothing to do with the words printed on it.

I see your point, and I would be opposed to it if it wasn't there and the gov't put it on recently, but it's not really worth making a fuss over in my opinion.

What Cyan (and others) have said. The government sould be entirely secular. So what if the Founding Fathers had a belief in god?That is hardly relevant. If our leaders are religious, does that give them the right to force their beliefs on those who dont believe? Of course not. And how else to interpret the words "In God We Trust"?

I also think the Freemason symbol should be taken off of the bill. But why is it OK to have one and not the other? Why continuously put things on that excludes citizens?

Let's put it this way, Cyan. To some people, God is
I suppose that makes it a true enough statement.

I don't think having in God we trust on the money hurts anybody. I guess my viewpoint is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd much rather see my government spend money toward health care, or education, or the environment.

I guess I prefer to choose my battles. Everybody offends somebody sometime--It's the deliberate offenses that bother me.

Edited to say: It's like going into someone's messy house to clean it. About the only thing you see that is in order are the pictures on the walls, and they offend your personal tastes. The problem is, there is so much garbage on the floor that you can't get around without tripping. So what are you going to work on first, the garbage that stops you from moving, or are you going to go to the pictures on the wall to take them down first so they don't offend you? It's a matter of priorities.
And it's also a metaphor for this country and the mess it's in.

I'll agree that it should be removed, but also agree that it is not worth the trouble it would take to do this. (Besides, let's be realistic; the chances of this happening are exactly zero.)

A trivial issue? Perhaps. But sometimes symbols carry a great deal of weight. Yes, I continue to use American currency, and I don't bother to cross out the motto on my bills; but sometimes those four little words make me feel like a stranger in a strange land.

I keep seeing people talk about the cost it would take to remove it. How much would it cost? From what I've found:Facts about U.S. money

According to the United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
As long as the Federal Reserve and BEP are going to continue updating our currency, and introducing new currency designs with extra safety features, it doesn't seem as though it would be at all difficult to remove "In God We Trust". Considering it is the ink that costs money, it seems likely that any possible omission of the phrase would actually result in financial savings.

At first look it is a trivial matter. But it does potentially set a precedent for other arguments from what is commonly known as the religious right. Why shouldn't we allow more expressions of Christianity in our government? It's on our money, in our pledge and in our oaths. It is unnecessary in each situation and only leaves loopholes just waiting to be exploited by those who might prefer a theocracy.

Some of us are justifiably uncomfortable knowing this risk remains. It doesn't appear as though it would cost much at all (if anything) to begin changes in U.S. currency. It certainly wouldn't cost anything in regards to the pledge or oaths taken. The pledge has already been addressed, though it was quickly suppressed by public outcry. I doubt seriously if an oath is required to address God for those of religious or non-religious affiliation who don't recognize a deity. I think the option is there for people to take a civil oath devoid of any religious reference, which I imagine could easily be used for all circumstances.

The currency is already undergoing changes, and the life of our currency is not that long. With a few changes -- the removal of both the phrase and the Freemasonry icon -- we could have a currency within years devoid of any religious symbolism. No cost would have to be undertaken for changes to currency, as they are already scheduled by the Federal Reserve/BEP, and the removal of printed material would, again, likely result in financial savings.

Thank you for doing that research, Abs.

With this new information, I would like to know if the people who voted that they would not change the motto because of the expense now have a different viewpoint on the issue. If not, what are your reasons for wanting to maintain the motto?

I voted yes, with reservations. It is not a burning issue, there are more important things to fight about as P.E. said. Just not worth fighting over. Unless Christians do get too much more powerful in our country and we are alot more in danger of becoming a theocracy, with Fallwell, Buchanan and Bob Jones leading the Oligarchy!

I voted yes, the motto should be removed. The reason for this is that you can't serve God and money at the same time. Therefore, this is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, not taking the name of God in vein. That is, not invoking the name for trivial pursuits like the pursuit of money.

I suppose at some point this will be moot when money becomes obsolete. Most exchanges are now electronic. Bits don't have mottos.

Having merely seconded Cyan's position on the subject and tackled the possible costs of change, I thought I would take a moment to elaborate my stance. Hopefully all of the links will provide useful information for future posters to consider before voting or commenting.

Lest anyone think it is only the concern of those of separate faiths or those with no faith at all, I found this statement from the site of The Interfaith Alliance: People of good faith and good will restoring healthy democracy.

Elsewhere on their site they quote the late President Theodore Roosevelt about the dangers special interests pose for our democracy, summarily saying: "...Our government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests.

Reviewing the link provided by Cyan, it seems to me Victoria's occasional feelings of being a stranger in a strange land are not at all unwarranted. Before finally settling on our current motto, "In God We Trust," there was also consideration given to "Our God and Our Country."

Who is our God? In what God do we trust?

The American community that does not believe in a god may be small, but it does it exist. To deny them their voice is to deny democracy. Even Jesus appears to have understood this often ignored principle of democracy: Matthew 25:40

I have been unable to find adequate sources covering specifically the cases which have been put forth to challenge the phrase, but from what I have gathered they began as early as 1970, less than two decades after officially declared the national motto by the United States Congress. The cases I know of so far:
Aronow v. United States (1970)
Madalyn Murray O'Hair v. W. Michael Blumenthal (1978)
Gaylor v. United States (1996)

As in the case of Aronow v. United States, these cases are routinely put down under the reasoning that the motto is a patriotic and ceremonial character with "no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." In the dismissal of Gaylor v. United States the court reasoned:
The establishment of "In God We Trust" as the national motto, according to my sources, read simply: “The national motto of the United States is declared to be `In God We Trust"

Thus the courts have been able to brush aside legal arguments centered around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Were the courts to follow along the same reasoning as they did recently in Alabama though, more or less ascribing to the "endorsement test" of Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, the motto would easily be recognizable for the endorsement of religion. It becomes a matter of consistency, hence the continued attempts by individuals and organizations to have the motto returned to the secular E. Pluribus Unum.

For those not familiar with the old motto, it was the first Great Seal of the United States, proposed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It's latin for "One from many," meant to represent the determination to form a unified nation from a collection of states and from a population of diverse backgrounds. It is a sharp but welcome contrast to the religious favoritism demonstrated by our current motto, which excludes polytheists, Buddhists, Taoists, naturalists, and atheists among others. Scrolling down the religioustolerance.org link about the motto discusses this aspect of our current one.

While the phrase is benign in itself, as a national motto it opposes the very foundation of our government. Instead of representing all of its citizens, the natoinal motto of our government recognizes only the privileged who put their faith in a masculine deity. It ignores the voices of the few to acknowledge special interests, and only serves to encourage further actions in government by these interests. It's a foothold for those who would turn our country into a theocracy, placing their values and beliefs above those of their fellow citizens.

*W. Michael Blumenthal was Secretary of the Treasury
*Gaylor v. United States also included the additional plaintiffs: ANNIE LAURIE GAYLOR, DANIEL E. BARKER, GLENN V. SMITH, JEFF BAYSINGER, LORA ATTWOOD, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., AND THE COLORADO CHAPTER OF THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC.

There was a movement to redesign the back of the dollar bill to include the "Bill of Rights," the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It was opposed by the manufacturers of change making machines, but it always seemed to me a way to tell the world what we're about. It would seem to be a very effective propaganda tool as reporters who visit Cuba routinely report that all prices are posted in Cuban Pesos and U.S. Dollars, and the millions found hidden in walls in Iraq were U.S. dollars, not Iraqi currency.

If we try to remove the phrase "In God We Trust," we may end up with people hoarding the cash that still has the phrase, refusing to honor money that lacks the phrase, etc. Look at the Brouhaha over the ten commandments in a courthouse. Now imagine that everywhere that you're trying to spend your cash. Does our government believe in God? I've known ministers who didn't know if they believed in God. I am certain that the general populace does not think they all believe in the same God. Occasionally, I know I'm in a small business when the sign behind the register reads, "In God we Trust. All others pay cash." What would we pay with, if that merchant quit believing in our cash.

Not really, since I'm not going to do anything about either one of them. My concern is having enough of the folding green to keep the bills paid and maybe do things we want to do from time to time. My interest lies more in the mundane.

I would assert that "In God We Trust" is more representative of the citizens of our country than the Freemasonry pyramid with the eye symbol is, especially since the "God" in whom we trust is not specified. And yet I don't know of anyone rallying to do away with the pyramid.

Further, nileriver is right. It is a part of our history. Deletion of any references relating to God in the forming of our government or the making of our laws could almost be construed as revisionist history.

Is our currency supposed to be a history lesson?

I do not think this to be the case. It is suppose to be legal tender. It is the most common printed material I can think of representing our country. It represents us as we are today. As the United States is not a theist state, religion should not be on our currency.

I see it the other way, Paladin E. In this case at least it is the addition of God that is revisionism.

It wasn't until November 13, 1861 that anybody even proposed the inclusion of God on our currency. The motto "In God We Trust" then made its debut on the two-cent coin in 1864. It wasn't present on all coins until about 1908 and didn't replace the national motto until Congress responded to the spectre of Communism.

The United States Constitution makes no mention of God, leaving the government in the hands of the people. For those who would seek to uphold the faulty notion of a Christian nation requiring the inclusion of God, I might point out a document written at the birth of our nation.
(If not various quotes by Founding Fathers disavowing the Christian faith)

Signed in November of 1796, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, was also ratified by the United States in 1797. Article 11 of the Treaty proclaims:Yale Avalon Project: The Barbary Treaties

Yet why has God been added to currency?Letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, 1861

It is true the Founders of the United States had a diverse religious background. There were Deists, Freemasons and various Christian denominations among them. Their particular faiths do not, however, represent the country they were attempting to establish. What those men of different backgrounds were establishing was a country in which the people could govern themselves, and that each person would be free to practice the religion of their favor.

Benjamin Franklin once observed:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

This is not unique to Christianity and is precisely why the government should remain neutral in the arena of faith. There should be no endorsements of any magnitude, least of which the national currency for use by all citizens.

The omission of any gods in our Constitution and our currency was not an oversight in need of correction. The national motto of E pluribus unum embodied precisely what our government was intended to be: "One from many."

It is not the deletion of references to God that is revisionist history but rather their addition. Not only should it be stopped and the government restrict itself to a position of neutrality, but those references which have been written in should be repealed. The United States was not intended to be a Christian nation. This revisionist history seeking to portray it as such has been one of the most prolific assaults ever launched against our democracy, and it should be turned back.

The merchant has no option if you are both operating within the US. You'll note all your American, paper currency states "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." If a merchant refused to accept your legal currency on the basis s/he didn't like it's appearance, you'd have reason to file a small claims complaint.

I couldn't vote in the poll because I just don't care one way or the other about it. It's always seemed somewhat blashphemous to have it on money if I were of Christian mind because of the way the Bible feels about the money changers and the rich. If they want to involve God on our money it makes no difference to me because it has no religious significance and doesn't change what I can use my money on...be it religously sinful merchandise or not.

I wouldn't care if the money had a picture of aliens, McDonalds, The Dixie Chicks, or Santa Clause..I still would need to earn it and spend it in order to live. None of us have a choice about what it looks like or what it says and it's really of no importance. I could understand if the religious groups might want to remove it but they really don't. They just like to use it as a foot in the door to push more and more religion in places of government that it really would be dangerous.

I vote for Aliens!

Hey, we just switched a bunch of our currency to the new, more secure stuff. Don't think yanking the motto would be much of a problem. Our coinage is all cheap copper, nickle, and mystery metal, so hoarding has no impact on the economy. It would if we were still on a gold/silver backed system.

I've got a Santa Clause dollar. Where can I get an Alien one?

And . . . once the In God We Trust motto appeared (1861), what happened? Civil War, that's what happened. So the Divine brought about war to get rid of slavery and create a stronger Union?

That follows logically: Keep the motto so we can have more war so we can become better people.

Why, just look at all the benefits reaped from the Civil War and all the subsequent wars! We got better surgery from the Civil War, a stronger military from WW I, the nuclear dominance from WW II, velcro and non-stick fry pans from the Cold War (put a man on the moon too), and, um, some darn thing from Vietnam (movies?), Kuwait oil from DS I, and our own little ME country from DS I Redux!

And all this simply by changing mottos! A miracle.

Considering the religious impact (ala Author/Musician's post) that it had when the motto "In God We Trust" was printed on money before the Civil War, we should all be Bible-packing missionaries by now, shouldn't we?

I think John Ashcroft is about the only scary Bible-packing cabinet member. Do any of you think that he was named to this position because "In God We Trust" was printed on the money? If so, by all means--remove that motto ASAP!

Let's be serious about this AM. If you have a link showing the 'In God We Trust' was a direct cause of the Civil War please show us. After that I will alert the presses to start printing new history books.

If our currency said - In Jesus We Trust - I would be for removing it, just as I was the Justice Moore monument because that was his true intent - to institute HIS brand of religion on the masses. Alas it doesn't. It says God.

How does "In God We Trust" on our currency establish religion?

Beladonna siad "How does "In God We Trust" on our currency establish religion?"

I don’t think many religious exist without the contract of a higher power, in that I don’t think many religious don’t have gods, goddesses or something along those lines.

You are right in that the statement itself does not look towards any one faith but just says god. I do think that you would find the people that put it there to be less then american about why they wanted it, or the fact they were most likely Mormons or something. I do find something like this as a bit of comic relief. I don’t really care if it stays or goes, I would like the under god sentence in our song to be removed as it applies the god to be some all-powerful thing in respects to human. Trust in god, under god. The second one should to or be replaced also with the words, trust in god.

I can see your point, but it still seems to me that any statement which assumes the existence of a single deity "establishes" the "religion" of monotheism over atheism and polytheism. "In God We Trust" is certainly a lesser violation of the separation of church and state than "In Jesus We Trust," but I believe that it is a violation none the less.

Isn't atheism a religion in itself? If so if the government removes all forms of god from public places,currency, and documents, then isn't it establishing the religion of atheism?

The government would have to come out and state it is doing a nation wide banning of religion, state that it is doing this for atheism, then I think you could make that case. More or less when it comes to religion, the religious side cant seem to separate the federal government for the public, then the public that is your local church or place of worship. Public schools are for the public, private school is for whomever, being many universities can be very openly religious in policy and whatever, but a public school cant or should not, a separation of the two should be defined in AD for its debaters.

Atheism is not a religion, so that wouldn't be an issue.

Some may disagree on that Abs. Although anecdotal, I have met people who claim their Atheism a religion. There are 1000's of religions in our world in which many don't have a central or main god.

A religion can be atheistic, but being an atheist doesn't necessarily denote religion.

It seems to me that we should have a more universal motto. Why not something like...In freedom we trust? I know that particular phrase sounds a bit stupid, but hopefully you get my drift.

Atheism is not a religion. It is merely a lack of belief in a diety. Not all atheists share the same spiritual beliefs...they all simply share the lack of belief in a deity.


Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I dare someone, anyone to find a word with more religious connotation than the word "god."
Quite simply, there isn't.
It needs to go. There is no justification for why it should be on money in the first place.
Btw, atheism is by no means a religion. And the atheists who claim it is are just wrong. I don't believe in god, and I don't go to a "place of non-worship" or have any "non-religious texts" to tell me how I should live my life. I just don't believe in a god. There's nothing religious about it.

The saying 'In God We Trust' has no more meaning on our dollar bill than the eye above the pyramid. We don't have to swear our allegiance to God when we hand over our money...we aren't limited to what we can buy with it because it includes the word God. It makes no statement regarding the individual using the money. It is absolutely meaningless. If I felt so strongly about it I would simply get a black Sharpie and block it off of all of my bills. TA DA! Problem solved.

This is a much different thing than adding the words to our pledge and then expecting every public school child to recite it...or any adult to recite it for that matter. It's leaving one with the choice of either pledging to something they feel is a lie or not participating in something they otherwise could have had the needlessly religious verbiage not been added. Again, it wasn't there before the 1950's and there is no reason to divide the country by keeping it there.

It's also much different than having the ten commandments in a courthouse where people of all faiths are expected to have their legal issues heard. It doesn't just belong to the people of one faith and there is no reason to add religion to our justice system except to further divide the people of this country.

The only people I've ever met that says atheism is a religion, are theists. I've never seen a definition of the word "religion" that describes atheists in any way.

We have no churches, no cathedrals, no place of worship of any kind. We have no spiritual leaders that we follow because we have no need for someone to tell us what to think, we found we can think on our own just fine. We have no single book, no symbol, nothing that we hold more sacred than ourselves and our loved ones. And our beliefs are reasoned throughout the course of our lifetime, not taught to us. Our beliefs are usually not as strong as many religious person's because to be honest, we don't "know". What "I" do know though is that there are more plausible(in my mind) explanations out there than what was taught to me as a child.

Back on topic:

I think these issues is where I'm different than most of the atheists I know, I couldn't care less if our money said those words. They're already there, many people find comfort in that, and it hasn't hurt a single person in it's existence. Leave it there.