What's wrong with "In God We Trust"?

Turns out another worrisome atheist challenged the phrase - acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-nation-under-god.html. Seems he feels it violates his daughter's constitutional rights.

Fortunately, the Courts said "no dice".

[quote="NCSue, post:1, topic:193735"]
What's wrong with "In God We Trust"?

[/quote]

Essentially, the "we." Not everyone in America trusts in a god -- your god or any other god, for that matter.

The phrase only started appearing on all money in 1865, during the Civil War, when religious sentiment was increasing. It wasn't until 1956 that Eisenhower made this phrase the official motto of the country (to emphasize the differences between this country and "godless communism," presumably).

It was "E Pluribus Unum" ("One from Many") that was adopted by Congress in 1782 as the phrase to appear on the Great Seal. Personally, I think that's a far better phrase, one that accurately sums up what the ideals of the country actually are.

Now, all that being said, is this the most vital issue in the world? Very far from it. It ranks pretty low in my book, and while I'd like to see the phrase disappear from money, I don't think I could ever muster enough enthusiasm to care enough.

Turns out another worrisome atheist challenged the phrase - acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-nation-under-god.html. Seems he feels it violates his daughter's constitutional rights.

Fortunately, the Courts said "no dice".

Actually, as the article cited said - *Many of us who grew up learning the current iteration of the Pledge of Allegiance may be unaware that the phrase was added relatively recently after efforts led by the Knights of Columbus succeeded in convincing Congress to add the phrase in 1954.
*
And as the majority opinion of the Court said:

“Without knowing the history behind these words, one might well think the phrase ‘one nation under God’ could not be anything but religious. History, however, shows these words have an even broader meaning, one grounded in philosophy and politics and reflecting many events of historical significance. The pledge is constitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one nation under God – the founding fathers’ belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator.”

Just another liberal atheist who can't stand others being happy.

What's wrong with "In God We Trust"?

Some people don't in God trust.

And this is the key. It’s a later addition meant to spite the godless communists.

I think that gives atheists a legitimate argument. It seems innocent to me, though.

Someone said on another forum “You wouldn’t want In Vishnu We Trust on your currency.” True, but it wouldn’t cause me to lobby congress.

[quote="NCSue, post:1, topic:193735"]
Turns out another worrisome atheist challenged the phrase - acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-nation-under-god.html. Seems he feels it violates his daughter's constitutional rights.

Fortunately, the Courts said "no dice".

[/quote]

The problem is that something like 20 million Americans are atheists or agnostics, whenever those people say "in God we trust" they are essentially lying.

What good comes from making a significant number of people in your country lie :shrug:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402199.html

A study released in June by the Barna Group, a religious polling firm, found that about 5 million adults in the United States call themselves atheists. The number rises to about 20 million -- about one in every 11 Americans -- if people who say they have no religious faith or are agnostic (they doubt the existence of a God or a supreme deity) are included.

If you're saying a pledge of allegiance to your country, wouldn't you want everyone who says it to not automatically be a liar?

I would prefer my nation to b as secular as possible. We are more than a nation of God we are a nation representing the best in this world. To show any favoritism towards a group does a disservice to us and the image of the USA.

[quote="bolsheviks, post:6, topic:193735"]
And this is the key. It's a later addition meant to spite the godless communists.

I think that gives atheists a legitimate argument. It seems innocent to me, though.

Someone said on another forum "You wouldn't want In Vishnu We Trust on your currency." True, but it wouldn't cause me to lobby congress.

[/quote]

True but some folks would. I mean look at the protest over a Hindu priest doing the opening prayer in congress awhile back.

Conversely not every Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic ect protests 'In God We Trust'

[quote="flyingfish, post:7, topic:193735"]
The problem is that something like 20 million Americans are atheists or agnostics, whenever those people say "in God we trust" they are essentially lying.

What good comes from making a significant number of people in your country lie :shrug:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402199.html

If you're saying a pledge of allegiance to your country, wouldn't you want everyone who says it to not automatically be a liar?

[/quote]

Don't forget everyone belonging to a non Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

[quote="AntiTheist, post:2, topic:193735"]
Essentially, the "we." Not everyone in America trusts in a god -- your god or any other god, for that matter.

The phrase only started appearing on all money in 1865, during the Civil War, when religious sentiment was increasing. It wasn't until 1956 that Eisenhower made this phrase the official motto of the country (to emphasize the differences between this country and "godless communism," presumably).

It was "E Pluribus Unum" ("One from Many") that was adopted by Congress in 1782 as the phrase to appear on the Great Seal. Personally, I think that's a far better phrase, one that accurately sums up what the ideals of the country actually are.

Now, all that being said, is this the most vital issue in the world? Very far from it. It ranks pretty low in my book, and while I'd like to see the phrase disappear from money, I don't think I could ever muster enough enthusiasm to care enough.

Turns out another worrisome atheist challenged the phrase - acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-nation-under-god.html. Seems he feels it violates his daughter's constitutional rights.

Fortunately, the Courts said "no dice".

[/quote]

The "we" refers to us as a nation, not you as an individual. The vast majority of Americans do believe in a deity of some form or another. Most of them believe in one deity, that being God. Just because the phrase makes you or some other Atheist/Agnostic uncomfortable does not mean it should be abolished.

[quote="Holly3278, post:10, topic:193735"]
Just because the phrase makes you or some other Atheist/Agnostic uncomfortable does not mean it should be abolished.

[/quote]

Of course not -- I'm a firm believer in people's rights to say things that others find uncomfortable (first amendment)

However, the reason the phrase should be abolished isn't that it makes people uncomforable -- it's that it is untrue (there is a good percentage of the country that does not believe in the Judeo-Christian god) and does not reflect the values the country was founded on (which include the idea of the government not supporting any particular religion).

Perhaps you need to choose another nation as your home.
There are plenty that would conform to your preference.
For example, maybe you should move to China.

America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The motto is an accurate reflection of the American value system.

America is also founded on liberty. Therefore, if people do not like what America is, the principles that it was founded upon, they are free to change it into something other than what it was founded on, what it always has been.

What would be dishonest however, would be to continue on a path that denies that the motto 'In God we trust" is reflective of the traditional American path.

No religion or philosophy is given special rights in America. That is what American secularism means. Nevertheless, it is not American law that is the ultimate guarantor of American rights of life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness. The guarantor of these is of a higher level of reality altogether than human law. They come from God himself.

This is how America has been defined. Of course people have the freedom to reject that which is foundational. Change is always an option. That is what elections are all about. For those who have never been proud of America, who feel the American legacy to be shameful, then that which is foundational ,may be changed by their collective will.

Whats wrong with "in god we trust"? Well for starters the God america worrships is money which is an idol which is condemed as evil. So america trusts in evil thus proving what I have always thought -america is a nation of evil that makes the world a worse place to live each and everyday.

[quote="catharina, post:12, topic:193735"]
Perhaps you need to choose another nation as your home.
There are plenty that would conform to your preference.
For example, maybe you should move to China.

[/quote]

I'm sorry you don't share my opinion. So I guess like the WBC you just want to be a hate monger. Keep up the good job representing the Catholics in this forum :thumbsup:

A HATE-MONGERER?

Ah, no. Just wondering where you might find any other “better” nations these days.
So, where???

[quote="lynx, post:15, topic:193735"]
I'm sorry you don't share my opinion. So I guess like the WBC you just want to be a hate monger.

[/quote]

Erm...isn't that a bit overboard? I've never seen another member compared to WBC, but I wonder if this doesn't qualify as a Godwin?

[quote="catharina, post:16, topic:193735"]
Just wondering where you might find any other "better" nations these days. So, where???

[/quote]

I'm not sure that Lynx is interested in moving to another country. The idea of moving was suggested by you, as in "Perhaps you need to choose another nation as your home." Can you see why Lynx took offense to your comment?

[quote="lynx, post:15, topic:193735"]
Keep up the good job representing the Catholics in this forum :thumbsup:

[/quote]

Lynx, no member here represents Catholics or the Catholic faith. We are all just average folks, with the same flaws and weaknesses as in the rest of humanity. And if you weren't already aware, the membership of CAF skews heavily conservative. The views and attitudes which are common here are not necessarily the views and attitudes you will find among Catholics offline.

Now.... as for the Pledge. I think it doesn't matter. No one is obligated to recite the Pledge and if they do, they are free to omit any phrase which offends them. I don't think the "under God" phrase is necessary. My parents generation grew up before that phrase was inserted in the Pledge, and they turned out just fine. So I think this whole controversy is overblown.

I never said I didn’t like the US. I just stated how I would shape it.

The next time someone tells you to think about moving to another nation because they believe that their God should be on your nation’s documents, let me know how you feel.

Too true. But, the members of a group reflect that group. Much like how I hate the WBC for their shared thoughts, the more hate filled catholic comments I see the more I will begin to see Catholicism as a hate filled group. To be fair though, I think most people here are polite, understanding and accepting, and I feel bad that others have nothing better to do but ridicule and offend others.

In my school, Orange High School of Southern California, you were not allowed to not say the pledge at school functions. If you showed any dissent, such as not standing or omitting words, your were escorted away by the school’s ROTC for causing a disturbance. While this can’t be the case everywhere, it was where I grew up.

[quote="Dale_M, post:17, topic:193735"]

I'm not sure that Lynx is interested in moving to another country. The idea of moving was suggested by you, as in "Perhaps you need to choose another nation as your home." Can you see why Lynx took offense to your comment?

[/quote]

**
Nope. The saying has been floating around since the Vietnam war or earlier.
Seemed an appropriate tiime to throw it out there.
I'd rather folks find a better 'fit' elsewhere than throw this nation under the bus
- so to speak. You all comfy here? Then don't stir the pot of divisiveness.

IMO, of course.**

[quote="lynx, post:18, topic:193735"]

In my school, Orange High School of Southern California, you were not allowed to not say the pledge at school functions. If you showed any dissent, such as not standing or omitting words, your were escorted away by the school's ROTC for causing a disturbance. While this can't be the case everywhere, it was where I grew up.

[/quote]

Wow. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. If I had gone to school there, I would have contacted the ACLU (but then, I was quite obnoxious back then.) The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1943 case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, that schools can not make the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory or single out for special attention those who choose not to participate.

[quote="catharina, post:19, topic:193735"]

I'd rather folks find a better 'fit' elsewhere than throw this nation under the bus
- so to speak. You all comfy here? Then don't stir the pot of divisiveness.

[/quote]

If that were the case, politics wouldn't exist. We would all agree with whoever was in power.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.