• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

USA voting on "In God We Trust" Motto

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
"John, you've been debating a commemorative coin for baseball? You had legislation reaffirming that 'In God We Trust' is our motto? That's not putting people back to work." —President Obama, calling out Speaker of the House John Boehner
 

GabrielWithoutWings

Well-Known Member
I don't know why they picked In God We Trust as the official motto when there are so many other good ones out there.

E Pluribus Unum
Live Free Or Die
United We Stand; Divided We Fall

If they really wanted to go all religious sounding, they should've just stuck with the Declaration:

Truths Self-Evident; Creator Endowed
 

Shermana

Heretic
I don't think there's any good reason to include G-d on a national motto, or currency, it is a mere carry over from Cold War days to define America from Atheist Russia (and communism in general), and now it is being brandished as a social-political rhetoric. If anything it is saying "G-d watches over us and condones what we do and its inhabitants obey and worship Him" which is presumptious to say the least. I doubt even the Kingdom of Israel would use his name on a Shekel.

It is one thing to say the Declaration of Independence acknowledges Him, it is another to have it as the 'national motto". I don't even think Swearing in the President on a Bible should be allowed under the constitution. Our religion and spirituality is up to the individual, not the national entity itself.
 
Last edited:

Dipintus

Member
Nobody wants to be associated with "taking away god from our nation", so I don't see the motto changing anytime soon. Religious communities are simply too important as a pool of voters to be thrown away.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It greatly worries me that my government conspicuously thumbs their noses at the notion of religious freedom and neutrality; regardless of how inconsequential a silly little motto is. It's a warning symptom of a far deeper sickness pervasive throughout this country.

The sad thing is, I'm not sure there's anywhere I can go that has true religious neutrality. Even countries that are for the most part secular have these ridiculous laws still on their books that either grant some religion more recognition than others or have a state religion (e.g., even Canada has ties to the Queen who is the head of the Church of England, etc.).

This world disgusts me sometimes, it really does. :(

Anyway, I didn't ignore your awesome limerick -- check your private messages again; you may have overlooked my response or something :p

No problem with a state religion like we have. it provides a useful service.
However, while those services are available to every one they are neither compulsory nor exclusive. As far as the Law is concerned all religions are equal.

On official occasions all religions can be represented. ( except for Ron Hubbard's lot who are classified as a business by the charity commission)
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I don't think there's any good reason to include G-d on a national motto, or currency, it is a mere carry over from Cold War days to define America from Atheist Russia (and communism in general), and now it is being brandished as a social-political rhetoric. If anything it is saying "G-d watches over us and condones what we do and its inhabitants obey and worship Him" which is presumptious to say the least. I doubt even the Kingdom of Israel would use his name on a Shekel.

It is one thing to say the Declaration of Independence acknowledges Him, it is another to have it as the 'national motto". I don't even think Swearing in the President on a Bible should be allowed under the constitution. Our religion and spirituality is up to the individual, not the national entity itself.

In the 17th and 18th centuries. very few doubted the existence of God and those that did were more likely to be Agnostic. The bulk of the population was Christian to a man. "Religions" meant "Christians" in one form or another... all the others were thought "Heathens" and would have been described as such. They were certainly not credited as religions.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
In the 17th and 18th centuries. very few doubted the existence of God and those that did were more likely to be Agnostic.

ever heard of the "Age of Enlightenment" or deism?

The bulk of the population was Christian to a man. "Religions" meant "Christians" in one form or another... all the others were thought "Heathens" and would have been described as such. They were certainly not credited as religions.

nah, nowhere close ^^ where did you get that from?
 

Shermana

Heretic
Nobody wants to be associated with "taking away god from our nation", so I don't see the motto changing anytime soon. Religious communities are simply too important as a pool of voters to be thrown away.

That's exactly it. Even if its blasphemous to have reference to Him printed on coinage and such, the voter base would reject the very idea of "taking away" His reference as if that somehow reflects on the country as a whole. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter what the country does or enacts (or what they vote for), because it's still "under G-d", which if anything would be rather insulting to Him I'd imagine.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
ever heard of the "Age of Enlightenment" or deism?
Of course I have. However it was an elite of the more educated, and hardly filtered down at all. However it did give a push to Unitarians.
Very few disavowed God but were more agnostic in thier views.


nah, nowhere close ^^ where did you get that from?

If you look at the curch populations at the time and read the popular literature from then. You get a clear picture of the daily life of the time and their beliefs and predjuices. It was very common to describe foreigners with other religions as heathens. The social isolation caused by rejecting christianity was overwhelming.

It is very easy for us to day to subscribe our ideas and thoughts on to those in earlier generations. ...we would be wrong.

Even a free thinker like Benjemin Franklin sought out a Unitarian church for worship when visting Tenterden in England. http://www.ukunitarians.org.uk/tenterden/
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
Of course I have. However it was an elite of the more educated

oh, you mean like the founding fathers?

If you look at the curch populations at the time and read the popular literature from then. You get a clear picture of the daily life of the time and their beliefs and predjuices. It was very common to describe foreigners with other religions as heathens. The social isolation caused by rejecting christianity was overwhelming.

okay this is a bit random, but:

Thomas Jefferson and religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jefferson did not believe in miracles, nor in the divinity of Jesus. In a letter to deRieux in 1788, he declined a request to act as a godfather saying he was unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity "from a very early part of my life".

^ doesn't strike me as beating around the bush. unless the letter of course goes on "please don't tell anybody" ^^
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
I love this! what happened between then and now :/

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

IMHO the evangelicals/"conservatives" talking about a "christian nation" are engaging in either ignorant or willful revisionism -- it's a power grab, no more, and they should be put in their place.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
oh, you mean like the founding fathers?



okay this is a bit random, but:

Thomas Jefferson and religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



^ doesn't strike me as beating around the bush. unless the letter of course goes on "please don't tell anybody" ^^

Thomas Jefferson like Benjamin Franklin was very much a Unitarian.
I share those view on the Trinity, and have no problem with them or calling myself a Christian.

They certainly shared the Christian Ethic, based on the teaching of Christ.

The constitution Bars the enforcement of any religion, it does not preclude the following of a religion of choice, or of none.
It says nothing at all about the enforce meant of Ethic, which of course is what the law does in practise.
The United states law is founded and still based on British Common Law, which in turn is based on the traditional Christian Ethic and the earlier Church law.

One way or another the USA, in both laws and custom, is very strongly influenced and structured by the Christian Ethic. This does not make the people or the country necessarily Christian.

Christianity is a faith.
The Christian Ethic is not.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
The United states law is founded and still based on British Common Law, which in turn is based on the traditional Christian Ethic and the earlier Church law.

what "christian ethic"? like, love your enemies, lol? when someone says sorry, flat out forgive them at least 490 times? ^^

Christianity is a faith.
The Christian Ethic is not.

define it then.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
what "christian ethic"? like, love your enemies, lol? when someone says sorry, flat out forgive them at least 490 times? ^^



define it then.

ethics

[eth-iks]  Example SentencesOrigin
eth·ics

   /ˈɛθ
thinsp.png
ɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
plural noun1.(used with a singular or plural verb
thinsp.png
) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.(usually used with a singular verb
thinsp.png
) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
that's ethics, not christian ethics..

there is just so many possible interpretations as to what "christian ethics" are... for example, is america based on the notion that the world is going to end real soon, yesterday rather than tomorrow, and does "see the lilies in the field" show up anywhere in domestic politics or foreign policy? no? define what you mean by christian ethics then :D
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
that's ethics, not christian ethics..

there is just so many possible interpretations as to what "christian ethics" are... for example, is america based on the notion that the world is going to end real soon, yesterday rather than tomorrow, and does "see the lilies in the field" show up anywhere in domestic politics or foreign policy? no? define what you mean by christian ethics then :D

Christian Ethic.
This universal ethic that has been derived from the teachings of Jesus.
as against other teachings in the Bible such as the ethic that might be derived from the Jewish laws, Or the later roman laws or the developed church laws.

There appears to be a distinct modern American "Christian " ethic, that runs counter to Jesus teachings. This is a new modification to accommodate the needs and desires of wealth and politics.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
There appears to be a distinct modern American "Christian " ethic, that runs counter to Jesus teachings. This is a new modification to accommodate the needs and desires of wealth and politics.
I agree. It is the hypocritical unethical mantra of the unholy alliance who are Christian in name only.
 
Top