Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[WinePusher]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

Whoever wrote that petition isn't very smart. The concept of a God is not unique to Christianity. The concept of God is affirmed by every single theistic religion in the United States. Therefore, having 'God' put on our currency and in our pledge doesn't violate the treaty. Putting Jesus Christ, savior and son of God, would violate the treaty because it is a uniquely Christian concept that only Christians would affirm. But it isn't, so there is no problem.

[McCulloch]

I will not sign the petition; I really doubt that a Canadian's signature would be at all helpful. However, I do believe that references to God should be removed from your currency and your pledge. Heck, I believe that the even more veiled reference to god on our currency should be removed. And when we have dealt with the eleventy-seven more serious issues regarding our governments' religious neutrality, I'll get right on to it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

My understanding is they're allowed to stay because they're sufficiently generic. I disagree with that notion and also prefer to have these divisive additions removed.

I signed the petition simply as a matter of protest, and doubt very seriously if any prominent politician has the guts to see it through if it does reach the required amount of signatures.

While I respect McCulloch's reasoning in his Post 3, I think we must do what we can, when we can, regardless of the real or perceived urgency of the issues.

[playhavock]

As a rule I do not sign pentions online because I have yet to see any evedance that doing so actualy effects things, in real life I would have to veryify that said petnetion is going to the right place - and at least there I can grant that it might actualy change things. All that being said, I have no issue with the idea of removing it from the pledge , as it would not cost any money - I think, however it would probley cost some amount of money to change the plates we use to print money, we have enough money problems without finding a new way to spend it that, really is pretty a moot point. I disagre with "in God we trust" it should be something else or nothing at all - but I'm not willing to put my money (tax money or otherwise) where my mouth is to change it physicaly , so -- yeah... meh.

[dianaiad]

From the OP:

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

My understanding is they're allowed to stay because they're sufficiently generic. I disagree with that notion and also prefer to have these divisive additions removed.

I signed the petition simply as a matter of protest, and doubt very seriously if any prominent politician has the guts to see it through if it does reach the required amount of signatures.

While I respect McCulloch's reasoning in his Post 3, I think we must do what we can, when we can, regardless of the real or perceived urgency of the issues.

I'm for taking 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance because the author didn't put it in there in the first place. Leave the 'In God we trust" on the money, because taking it OFF, at this point, is indeed an establishment of religion. Since the wording is general, and refers to any and all possible versions of deity there are or can be, then the act of specifically removing it IS a violation of the establishment clause in the sense that the very act establishes an 'anti-religion' idea.

So...I'm not going to sign the petition, no.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

...
Leave the 'In God we trust" on the money, because taking it OFF, at this point, is indeed an establishment of religion.

I contend that placing it there, ostensibly as a rejection of "godless communism" is what established a religion. Remove it and folks can still trust in their gods, but can't 'force' such a position on those who don't.

Notice an author writing something shouldn't be messed with, but the dude who designed the dollar is up to the whims of the religious.

Since the wording is general, and refers to any and all possible versions of deity there are or can be, then the act of specifically removing it IS a violation of the establishment clause in the sense that the very act establishes an 'anti-religion' idea.

And we see that the god concept can settle any conflict. Where one places a religious phrase onto something, there is an establishing of religion.

It's not "anti-religious" to not include a religious statement, where the adherent is able to trust their god regardless of whether they do so through the almighty dollar or not.

So...I'm not going to sign the petition, no.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

[dianaiad]

From Post 6:

...
Leave the 'In God we trust" on the money, because taking it OFF, at this point, is indeed an establishment of religion.

I contend that placing it there, ostensibly as a rejection of "godless communism" is what established a religion. Remove it and folks can still trust in their gods, but can't 'force' such a position on those who don't.

Notice an author writing something shouldn't be messed with, but the dude who designed the dollar is up to the whims of the religious.

The dude who designed the dollar put it there. Shouldn't that be given the same respect that I would give the dude who did NOT put 'Under God" in the pledge, and for the same reason?

Or do we need to respect the author's intent only when YOU agree with it?

Since the wording is general, and refers to any and all possible versions of deity there are or can be, then the act of specifically removing it IS a violation of the establishment clause in the sense that the very act establishes an 'anti-religion' idea.

And we see that the god concept can settle any conflict. Where one places a religious phrase onto something, there is an establishing of religion.

It's not "anti-religious" to not include a religious statement, where the adherent is able to trust their god regardless of whether they do so through the almighty dollar or not.

It may not be anti-religions to refrain from including it in the first place, but I submit that going in later and REMOVING it is.

So...I'm not going to sign the petition, no.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I'd like, to be honest, to find a petition worth signing.

On either side.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

The dude who designed the dollar put it there.

In God we trust has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957.

I s'pose in the land of Miss dianaiad, the United States didn't come into being until sometime between 1864 and 1957.

Shouldn't that be given the same respect that I would give the dude who did NOT put 'Under God" in the pledge, and for the same reason?

See wiki quote above.

When one writes thier own history, it's kinda hard to argue against it.

Or do we need to respect the author's intent only when YOU agree with it?

I was pointing out your inconsistency. Trying to accuse me of it is not gonna work.

It is my contention that regardless of who put what where, such religious phrases should not be present on government documents, instruments, and the like.

It may not be anti-religions to refrain from including it in the first place, but I submit that going in later and REMOVING it is.

LOL

Step 1 - Get a bunch of religious zealots to force inclusion of a religious phrase on government documents.

Step 2 - Holler "you're establishing a religion" when requests to remove said religious phrase is mentioned.

The mind of the theocrat at work.

I'd like, to be honest, to find a petition worth signing.

On either side.

Seems an inconsistent notion to me.

[dianaiad]

From Post 8:

The dude who designed the dollar put it there.

In God we trust has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957.

I s'pose in the land of Miss dianaiad, the United States didn't come into being until sometime between 1864 and 1957.

I suppose to Mr. Joey, the coins upon which those mottos appeared were the product of some cosmic chance and rearrangment of molecules, since, evidently, nobody was capable of designing anything before 1864???

Those mottos weren't simply tacked in there the way "under God" was in the pledge. They were complete redesigns. By artists who were commissioned to design them.

Shouldn't that be given the same respect that I would give the dude who did NOT put 'Under God" in the pledge, and for the same reason?

See wiki quote above.

When one writes thier own history, it's kinda hard to argue against it.

Indeed...the way you just decided that these things 'just appeared' out of some aetheric mist of non-creationism?

Or do we need to respect the author's intent only when YOU agree with it?

I was pointing out your inconsistency. Trying to accuse me of it is not gonna work.

It is my contention that regardless of who put what where, such religious phrases should not be present on government documents, instruments, and the like.

Again...they should not have been considered in the first place. However, the coins and the currency which held the mottoe were deliberately designed with that motto in mind; the pledge was written specifically WITHOUT it.

It may be an esoteric point, and a very thin line, but it's identifiable. At one point the United States government went to a great deal of trouble to commission a redesign of the currency with 'In God We Trust" (the national motto) on the money.

To REMOVE it from the money would be, in my opinion, an action deliberately taken to be 'anti-religious,' requiring yet another complete redesign of the currency.....and cost a great deal OF that currency, and for what?

Removing 'under God' from the pledge is simply restoring the pledge to its original form. No redesign required.

It may not be anti-religions to refrain from including it in the first place, but I submit that going in later and REMOVING it is.

LOL

Step 1 - Get a bunch of religious zealots to force inclusion of a religious phrase on government documents.

Step 2 - Holler "you're establishing a religion" when requests to remove said religious phrase is mentioned.

The mind of the theocrat at work.

I'd like, to be honest, to find a petition worth signing.

On either side.

Seems an inconsistent notion to me.

Does it?

I'm all broken up about that, y'know.