CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How can anyone vote constitutional? Putting "in God we trust" on money CLEARLY violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment above. "Respecting" a religion means to promote it above others so putting God on there is the government showing that the US promotes christianity over islam, wicca, buddhism, atheism, and any other religious sect in America.
The Congress is not establishing a state religion, neither funding one. Thus it's constitutional. Furthermore, the money isn't even minted by the United States, it's minted by a private bank. The bank can put whatever the hell it wants on the money, so long as the money is made of gold and silver.
Any currency short of gold and silver however IS unconstitutional, and that's what we should be up in an uproar about, not the inscriptions upon the coins.
Fun fact:
The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing."
Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States.
The Congress is not establishing a state religion, neither funding one. Thus it's constitutional.
That isnt what the Establishment Clause means. What is means is that the US Govt cannot in ANY way promote any religion at all. The government of the US was formed to be purely secular, as in, indifferent to religion entirely. They are supposed to stay well away from it.
Furthermore, the money isn't even minted by the United States, it's minted by a private bank. The bank can put whatever the hell it wants on the money, so long as the money is made of gold and silver.
If it was JUST the federal reserve's decision within itself then technically it would be fine, HOWEVER, the US government was the one that thought of it AND passed it to be our motto and the motto is put on the money.
The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing."
Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States.
While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
In 1789, the 1st United States Congress created an oath to fulfill the requirement of Article VI of the United States Constitution:
I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.[58]
swear [swair] Show IPA verb, swore or ( Archaic ) sware; sworn; swear·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to make a solemn declaration or affirmation by some sacred being or object, as a deity or the Bible.
2.
to bind oneself by oath.
3.
to give evidence or make a statement on oath.
4.
to use profane oaths or language: Don't swear in front of the children.
verb (used with object)
5.
to declare, affirm, attest, etc., by swearing by a deity, some sacred object, etc.
6.
to affirm, assert, or say with solemn earnestness.
7.
to promise or undertake on oath or in a solemn manner; vow.
8.
to testify or state on oath: He swore it on the witness stand.
9.
to take (an oath), as in order to give solemnity or force to a declaration, promise, etc.
The word swear doesnt ONLY mean the religious option and, based on the secularity the Government was intended to have, it DOESNT mean that one.
The FIRST oath of office was PURELY SECULAR and was created by the men who created the constitution in the first place! AFTER they all died off the government was hijacked by religious types who then revised it to fit their religion.
That isnt what the Establishment Clause means. What is means is that the US Govt cannot in ANY way promote any religion at all. The government of the US was formed to be purely secular, as in, indifferent to religion entirely. They are supposed to stay well away from it. -----
Cite your source for the legal decision determining that interpretation. Consistent with the interpretive understanding evident in the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers.
As for Swearing- Legal Maxims predate the Constitution, and govern it's lawful and legal interpretation. "To Swear is to call God as a witness and is an act of Divine Reverence." Prove otherwise. You should try reading a Legal Dictionary.
Puting "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill is constitutional. It does not conflict wih your first amendment rights at all. There is no LAW being made which is the critical thing one must realize. It does not validate your right to express your freedom at all. It does not limit you in any manner. You can still spend the currency if you want to. The State and Federal government are not making any sort of LAW. The making of a LAW that conflicts with religion violates our first amendment rights. Not this.
Puting "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill is constitutional. It does not conflict wih your first amendment rights at all. There is no LAW being made which is the critical thing one must realize.
The constitution IS the law. Its the baseline absolute law for the United States on which we have based everything.
It does not validate your right to express your freedom at all. It does not limit you in any manner. You can still spend the currency if you want to. The State and Federal government are not making any sort of LAW. The making of a LAW that conflicts with religion violates our first amendment rights. Not this.
I know it doesnt mess with the Freedom To Practice part of the 1st amendment but it DOES violate the establishment clause:
The establishment clause says that the government cannot promote any religion over other religions or no religion. Basically the government is supposed to be secular and NEVER was meant to have ANY connection to religion at all. Declaring "In God We Trust" as the US motto AND putting it on currency is CLEARLY a violation of this. The government promoted Christianity OR just religion in general by doing this.
You are failing to realize that it says LAW after sentence it makes before it states something. You must realize that it cannot violate it if no law is made. The dollar bill is not law. It clearly says LAW.
Not just the money."in god we trust" was made the US official motto. That is in acting it into law. That is a violation of the constitution.
Also, there's a girl named Jessics Alquhist (poor spelling sorry) who just won a lawsuit against her school for having a prayer banner put up in her public school. It was rules UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on the establishment clause of the first amendment because public schools are technically part of the government through funding or whatever. The banner wasn't a law, or even passed by congress. If what your claiming is true why was this decided to be unconstitutional?
That is acting it into law? I see no law that says that it must be their. I do not see hiw this can be so if there is no law made. The rhetorical style of yours would have convinced me but you are giving two completely separate things. One is a school funded by government with laws entangled into it. Not a dollar bill.
Also we know the constitution is law. But there is no law being made. How is it violating if no rule is being tainted? You are taking out the "LAW" part and placing it in your favor.
"Not true, even in poly theistic religions there is still a supreme God and ruler of the universe accompanied by lesser Gods. For example Zeus."
I delt with this early in the debate.
In god we trust pertains to all religions and no religion not just one. The assumption that it pertains to only one religion is a false assumption and there is no proof that that claim is even remotely true.
The motto first appeared in 1864, on the short-lived 2¢ coin. It was still due to the Civil War, but as an expression of faith that it might end soon, not because the war was already over.
Between 1866 and 1873 it was added to a number of other denominations. In a few cases, such as the nickel, it was later removed due to design considerations, but by 1938 it was permanently on all coin denominations.
During the 1950s the US was in the depths of the Cold War against the Soviet Union which was officially atheist. As a reaction to what was called by many "godless communism", Congress passed a resolution in 1955 that the motto should appear on paper money as well. The intent was to point out the significant difference between those societies and our more faith-based one.
The motto was put on $1 bills starting in 1957 as well as some 1935-G and H bills still being printed then despite their series date. In 1963 it was added to all other denominations.
It was put on US currency just to show horse the USSR (propaganda)It is unconstitutional even if the Fed reserve creates the money, reason is they are printing US currency, because so it should not have God anywhere near it, that's like you or me printing money from our house because we got hired by the government and printing "I love cock" on the currency just because we created it, so because the currency is used for the US government as an exchange that makes it federal, there for "In God we trust" is in deed unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state and God is clearly church and has no right on anything state or government
I don't mind anonymous up votes, though it would be nice to know who it was, so maybe that could work. Eliminating down votes altogether could work too.
Yeah, downvotes serve no purpose. I propose a system where you could upvote them to add to their points, but eliminate downvotes. If something is that bad, leave a comment or report it.
Same here, I know one thing American Christians would go "ape shit crazy" if the money said "In Allah we trust" (even though it means God in Arabic) or "In Science we trust", I say get rid of it, I feel it is Unconstitutional.
Can't be unconstitutional if money isn't regulated federally and under complete government control. It's made by a private organization and under freedom of speech they are technically allowed to do this and get away with it.
"I know one thing American Christians would go "ape shit crazy" if the money said "In Allah we trust""
I agree, they probably would but, it doesn't really matter.
Interesting I have always said it was unconstitutional as it is forcing God on people who might not believe and in doing so affecting their freedom of religion. I hadn't thought about the fact that the government don't make the money so not having it on there could affect that companies freedom of speech. Good call, given me a new insight into this.
To really answer this we need to know who's idea is it to have in god we trust on the money, if its a government stipulation then its unconstitutional, if not as you say its the manufacturing companies choice.
The Federal Reserve System is organized with a government agency at the top (the Board of Governors), and branches beneath them that resemble private corporations. (http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/ f… )
The Board of Governors are all appointed for 14-year terms by the president and confirmed by congress. It operates per it's charter and laws set by congress. it is overseen by congress. There is no structure or mechanism for private ownership at this level. Board members are forbidden by law to have any economic interest in a private bank.
The 12 branches, however, are organized similar to private corporations. Member banks are required to buy shares in their branch. The shares get a standard 6% dividend. These shares do not give ownership rights to the member banks, only the privelege of voting for 6 of the 9 branch board members. and cannot be sold on the open market; they. All 'profit' from the Federal Reserve branches are turned over to the Treasury at the end of the year.
Federal Reserve is a government controlled and regulated agency.
Federal Reserve is a government controlled and regulated agency.
"The Federal Reserve System is organized with a government agency at the top (the Board of Governors), and branches beneath them that resemble private corporations."
Doesn't say by a government agency.
"The Board of Governors are all appointed for 14-year terms by the president and confirmed by congress. It operates per it's charter and laws set by congress. it is overseen by congress. There is no structure or mechanism for private ownership at this level. Board members are forbidden by law to have any economic interest in a private bank."
No problem, I know it's hard to grasp some concepts especially when 1 word determines everything being stated. if it was "by a government" then it would definitively be a government agency but, since it is "with a government" then they are just technically partners with wording so confusing anyone I guess could mistake it.
Well, duh. I didn't claim it was unconstitutional. I just thought the debate would work better as for/against. In God We Trust goes against the first amendment in spirit, if not literally.
"in god we trust" is totally in the spirit of the first amendment. It's the words of the private company the federal reserve. On their own product. It would be like you being Muslim and not being able to sell your own hand made shirts saying "Muhammad rocks!" and saying uhh.. that's unconstitutional because I think it's a bad idea. Some christians might get angry and uhh... well a private companies don't have the right to free speech.
I can make shirts saying "Muhammad rocks," but the government is not obligated to use them as money. I'm sure they could get "In God We Trust" off our money if they wanted to.
Just like the Pledge Of Allegiance there were no references to god originally on money, today we have the "in god we trust" bullshit because in the 1950's these religious assholes in congress tried to make the founding fathers look Christians (even though they were not) and to make the country look like a christian nation in general, hence I think it along with "under god" in the Pledge is unconstitutional.
The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the Latin legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing."
Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States. America was founded as a nondenominational Christian nation, not a secular nation.
America was founded as a nondenominational Christian nation, not a secular nation.
Bullshit, Bullshit,Bullshit, However Will admit that Christians hijacked America but it was in no way founded on Christianity, here are some quotes from our founding fathers.
1. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"- Thomas
Jefferson
2. "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." -Thomas Jefferson
3. "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one- Thomas Jefferson
4. "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."- Thomas Jefferson
5. "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."- Thomas Jefferson
6. "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
.
7. "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."- Ben Franklin
8. "I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."- Ben Franklin
9. "In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."- Ben Franklin
10. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it"- John Adams
11. "The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.'- Thomas Paine
12. "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."- Thomas Paine
13. "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine
14. "Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."- Thomas Paine
15. "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."- Thomas Paine
16. "It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene.”- Thomas Paine
17. "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."- George Washington
18. "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."- Abraham Lincoln
19. "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on
one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."- James Madison
20. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison
You haven't yet explained away the operative legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence," as found in the constitution.
Also, the congress that confirmed "The Star Spangled Banner" as our anthem, check the fourth verse of that song. It clearly states, "and this be our motto, 'In God is our trust.'"
America was founded as a nation free of religion, the reason atheists usually don't seem to be able to be sworn in the office is because nobody would want to vote for them not because they do not have the right to run for president, this itself is a result of secular discrimination. When we have our first secular president we will probably do something to replace the religious text with something different but just as patriotic and also replace "so help me god" with "a solemn affirmation." Also just because the majority of people in the country are Christians does not mean that it was founded as a Christian nation!
Read and understand the Constitutional texts and the legal maxims that interpret them. Atheists have never been legally permitted to run for office, all law to the contrary aside - such legislation is foundationally unconstitutional, despite it's appearance and unlawful acceptance. The reason being that an Atheist can not be trusted, owing to his non-belief in justice in an afterlife.
The only difference is that it's not the pledge and the pledge may be unconstitutional in that respect. However, you cannot deny that the Federal Reserve is a private company and therefore is protected in this particular case because they have the freedom of speech to write whatever they like on their product. I don't know why people are trying to dispute this and claim to be advocates of the constitution.
It's not really theism that's the problem. Strangely enough me and Lizzy came to the same conclusion. I believe she already knew that the first amendment can only be violated by Laws and as such only a law can be unconstitutional in light of the first amendment. I learned this by my arguments with Ave Satanas. Which unfortunately have dissipated from the debate. I can see that people may have a problem with what is printed on the money but, the law is what is unconstitutional. There isn't a contest when you actually look at the first amendment. Also, the federal reserve is a private company and as long as it's in place you can repeal the law mandating that "In god we trust" be mandatory on the money. But, that doesn't mean that the printing of "In god we trust" is then subject to come off the money. The fed can still print it freely just because it wants to at that point and you wouldn't have any say in it and it all comes down to freedom of speech.
Here's the kicker to make you unconstitutional siding people go giddy.
Constitutional Tender Act
The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
Every dollar in circulation is clearly unconstitutional. EVERY DOLLAR. However In god we trust is protected under freedom of speech.
You're right in most respects, there's nothing legally wrong with it, except that written notes can and do violate laws (for example: any written threat or defamation). The issue is that these bank notes are promoting God on our legal U.S. currency; the dollar not limited to this.
-
And for paper money; it is a given courtesy that paper money is legal tender; and it seems to be that only strict constitutionalists would debate this. Those same people would also claim that we are entitled to literal "bear arms," and not weapons.
-
And the federal reserve is not a private organization. In the words of political science professor Michael D. Reagan;
"... the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank" profits."
You're right in most respects, there's nothing legally wrong with it
Good, now that you admit that this debate is over.
except that written notes can and do violate laws (for example: any written threat or defamation).
This is neither of those so they hold no place here.
The issue is that these bank notes are promoting God on our legal U.S. currency; the dollar not limited to this.
That doesn't matter. It is still constitutional.Also, under the tender act your money is illegal and I don't know how the Americans even let it get this out of hand in the first place.
And for paper money; it is a given courtesy that paper money is legal tender
Okay, I don't understand where you're coming from. You're arguing that it's unconstitutional to put in god we trust on your money, which you now admit is not even illegal (thus, constitutional) and even though the coinage act that details the use of paper money is in fact unconstitutional is Okay because it's generally accepted...
There has not been a case of irony so legendary as this.
and it seems to be that only strict constitutionalists would debate this
... You must think I'm stupid.
Those same people would also claim that we are entitled to literal "bear arms," and not weapons.
Well, they must be stupid because the word "bear" means in context to carry. The word bare is naked and the animal Bear would have nothing to do with human politics. They don't know what they are talking about and probably shouldn't be debating.
And the federal reserve is not a private organization.
I tend to believe it when the head of the organization publicly announces that it is a private organization and even has a sign on their front door step stating it as well. Holds a lot of credibility you know?(THIS MEANS IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT THE FED IS A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY AND THEY EVEN ADMIT IT THEMSELVES)
In the words of political science professor Michael D. Reagan;
That man was an idiot. Also, the Federal Reserve act that made it is unconstitutional.
It's constitutional and if Muslims don't like it then too bad.
Added note: In God we trust doesn't necessarily mean it's pertaining to any one religion. Just the notion that you trust in God. Also, that money isn't even federal. It's made by a private organization and they can do what ever and say whatever they want on their product.
I agree, however, the Federal Reserve's Customer is the government of the United States, not the people of the United States. Unfortunately, the whole organisation is unconstitutional, but, not enough people care to do anything about it, so they remain, under color of law, lacking the true lawfulness of it.
Since the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, only Congress is to coin money under enumerated powers, so anything the Federal Reserve puts on paper money is as well. Not to mention it violates the First Amendment as well.
I disagree that it violates our first amendment. The First Amendment clearly say that congress prohibits the making of any LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Simply placing that on a dollar bill does not violate your first amendment rights. It is not making any sort of law. It also says that neither a state or federal government can set up a church or pass LAWS which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another. All the first amendment does is keep church and state separate. We had a debate over this in class. They are not making any sort of LAW. Therefore it is perfectly constitutional and that makes your claims invalid.
Suggesting that no law was created is sadly mistaken in establishing "In God We Trust", everything the United States Government does must be promulgated by law, it is its only the legal authority.
In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."
Therefore, it does established religion, yet they didn't even recognize it, and it is unconstitutional.
A dollar bill is not law. In no way does it restrict you from doing anything. You can spend it the same way you do if it was blank. Also it clearly says LAW in the amendment. A dollar bill is not law it is currency. It is also printed by a private bank so why strip there right away? It is constitutional.
Actually, the use of the dollar bill is law under legal tender laws, which means no other tender can be used in a exchange, otherwise, currency would be left to the free market.
Since legal tender laws are clearly laws, it is unconstitutional.
The establishment of religion doesn't need to be mentioned in the letter of the law, that is why there is court to interpret the intent of law. Only that the motto was established in law in coinage act and the force in use of currency.
Oh okay. I looked at the law. All it allowed was the two cent coin to be made. The coiners decided to put that there. Again no law placed it their. Also a motto is the backbone of our nations history of which it seem like there is no respect for.
Also it is still made by a private bank and if you force the removal of it you are taking away their rights. That is truly unconstitutional. Legal tender laws just talk about the currency. Please show me exactly where it mentions the religious?
You're making good points. The federal reserve is unconstitutional I'm not denying that. However, this is about having "in god we trust" printed on the money. And as the first amendment clearly states
|Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.|
Which makes what is printed on the money entirely constitutional even though the entire organization is not.
Actually, Congress unconstitutionally established "In God We Trust" on coins before in the 1873 Coinage Act before the Federal Reserve.
SO, not only did Congress establish religion with God on money, but it unconstitutionally created the central bank that prints money while unconstitutionally establishing religion.
|Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.|
Congress unconstitutionally established "In God We Trust"
Sure did! So congress is to blame and laws should be repealed. However what`s printed on the money still seems to be entirely constitutional. Seeing as the entire amendment is about law making and nothing more. ``Congress shall make no law ``
That's my point, the Law is what is unconstitutional. and the fact that the coinage act was established makes the entire bill unconstitutional but, thats irrelevant. In god we trust could easily be on gold and silver coinage and be entirely constitutional. The laws surrounding the phrase are unconstitutional because this debate is about in God we trust being in violation of the first amendment. Not the coinage act.
Wrong, legal tender laws forcing people to use paper money using the tern violates the first amendment because it establishes religion through the force in use of paper money. The same can be said for coins as well.
Wrong, legal tender laws forcing people to use paper money using the tern violates the first amendment because it establishes religion through the force in use of paper money
And my mother wonders why I believe shooting myself in the head because of the idiocy of the world is so great that no intelligent person can actually cut though it is the only way to go.
It isnt constitutional and if YOU dont like it then too bad.
In God we trust doesn't necessarily mean it's pertaining to any one religion. Just the notion that you trust in God
Yes it does! God is attributed to Christianity. Judaism calls him Yaweh and Muslims call him Allah so G-O-D is specifically geared towards xianity. If it was saying what you claim it is, as in, claim in A god, then that's what it would say: In A God We Trust" that way it could incorporate all deities. HOWEVER, that would still be infringing upon Atheists and Agnostics and any other philosophic type of religion.
Also, that money isn't even federal. It's made by a private organization and they can do what ever and say whatever they want on their product.
It was passed by congress to have it added on, not the "private organization". The government made the unconstitutional move to have it put on.
It isnt constitutional and if YOU dont like it then too bad.
It's not my money so I don't particularly care.
Yes it does! God is attributed to Christianity. Judaism calls him Yaweh and Muslims call him Allah so G-O-D is specifically geared towards xianity. If it was saying what you claim it is, as in, claim in A god, then that's what it would say: In A God We Trust" that way it could incorporate all deities. HOWEVER, that would still be infringing upon Atheists and Agnostics and any other philosophic type of religion.
God
[god] Show IPA
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
Actually, that's a matter of opinion because in the English language simply means the supreme being and creator of the universe.
Also, Atheists and agnostics are not a religion. They are exempt.
(edited note: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have the same God. The God of Abraham.)
2) Sure, by definition it is general but everybody knows that the US is predominantly christian and that Christians (and maybe jews) refer to God. Muslims dont say "the god of islam" they say allah. And Buddhists and Wiccans the same. They all have different names. So putting G-O-D on money, by dictionary definition is technically general, but all people see it as clearly a pro-christianity movement.
3) Congress passed it to seperate the US from the GODLESS communists and back then EVERYONE was christian so nobody had a problem with it. I would argue that it was a Christian movement for a Christian people, which, violates the 1st amendment.
4) Even if this dictionary definition was the basis for it, it still violates those who dont believe in any god.
5) Atheists and Agnostics are exempt from what? A piece of their country? Being included in a statement that is supposed to reflect EVERY american citizen? That isnt right and isnt constitutional.
Congress may not have came up with it but them passing it is just the same. They reviewed the proposal that they knew violated the constitution and passed it anyway.
They reviewed the proposal that they knew violated the constitution and passed it anyway.
I agree, in 1954 the words "under GOD" were added to the pledge, but this nation was and still is a majority Christian nation, and no one felt the need to argue, and if they did they didn't have very much success.
This is good and I encourage you to end the fed. It would do a lot for you, your country and even mine.
2) Sure, by definition it is general but everybody knows that the US is predominantly christian and that Christians (and maybe jews) refer to God. Muslims dont say "the god of islam" they say allah. And Buddhists and Wiccans the same. They all have different names. So putting G-O-D on money, by dictionary definition is technically general, but all people see it as clearly a pro-christianity movement.
Where would we be if dictionary definitions were not the basis for our language and words used? The dollar bill does not state "In the God of Christianity either" If it made the Christians feel special back in the day then well, tough luck and they were fooled. Allah is the Arabic word for god. There really isn't a difference except for vocabulary used. We Wiccans tend to learn or make up the name of our own personal gods and again the statement on the bill wouldn't have any effect on me in disbelieving it wasn't my god it was referring too.
3) Congress passed it to seperate the US from the GODLESS communists and back then EVERYONE was christian so nobody had a problem with it. I would argue that it was a Christian movement for a Christian people, which, violates the 1st amendment.
Evidence please.
4) Even if this dictionary definition was the basis for it, it still violates those who dont believe in any god.
I addressed this below.
5) Atheists and Agnostics are exempt from what? A piece of their country? Being included in a statement that is supposed to reflect EVERY american citizen? That isnt right and isnt constitutional.
Agnostics believe in a supreme being. Therefore, even without a religion they can still find solitude in this writing. Agnostics believe in no god and have no religion and seeing as this brings the term of God down to earth it simply would mean their government to them. They may as well be exempt from the argument.
Congress may not have came up with it but them passing it is just the same. They reviewed the proposal that they knew violated the constitution and passed it anyway.
Since when has the government been around to uphold constitutions? That's the peoples Job.
But a single GOD in this case the capitalized version, referred to in the definitions 1, and 2 seems to me to exclude any polytheistic religions, like Hinduism,and any sub-sects of it. Violating the Establishment Clause, as AveSatanas mentioned
And actually come to think of it, it isnt just a phrase thats plastered on money. Its the US's MOTTO. How can whole amounts of US citizens be exempt from being included in the motto? Also, this means that the Government is directly promoting God through the nations motto and it is not solely the work of the Federal Reserve so it clearly violates the 1st amendment.
This isn't about the american motto. This is regarding to the constitutionality of "in god we trust on american money". Sadly, this is off topic and I don't know where to begin to respond.
anyway.
""In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto"
This isn't about the american motto. This is regarding to the constitutionality of "in god we trust on american money". Sadly, this is off topic and I don't know where to begin to respond.
anyway.
""In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto"
"In God We Trust" IS the american motto and you just stated that!
Id assume the federal reserve had a hand in it.
Assuming something isnt an argument and even if it DID originate with the Fed Reserve, Congress was still unconstitutional in passing it.
Also, after 1913 it stopped being unconstitutional because at this point the federal reserve ha been created and had begun printing the nations money. Had you been here in 1912 arguing with me you would be right. At least I think... Iunno. .
The federal reserve isn't constitutional. I never said it was. I'm trying to get it through some thick skulls that a private organization can print whatever it wants on it's product under the first amendment. On top of that, it had congressional approval and lastly there is no evidence that "in God we trust" pertains to any one religious god so it is not technically forcing any religion on anybody. Besides if you get rid of the Fed you get rid of the product.
I'm trying to get it through some thick skulls that a private organization can print whatever it wants on it's product under the first amendment.
Sure they can, but the government doesn't have to use that product as money. If you make a bunch of slips of paper that say "I Hate N*ggers," the government isn't going to say, "Oh well, freedom of speech. I guess this is the new design for our money." They'd find something better to use.
there is no evidence that "in God we trust" pertains to any one religious god so it is not technically forcing any religion on anybody
While not forcing a particular religion on anyone, it is forcing religion in general on them. "In Santa Claus We Trust" would be better.
Which is just essentially the gold standard... but, for some reason the U.S doesn't want this?... in the world... at all? Suspicious, no?
While not forcing a particular religion on anyone, it is forcing religion in general on them. "In Santa Claus We Trust" would be better.
It's not forcing religion on anyone. I'd love to agree with you here but I cannot.
"Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.” - G.K. Chesterton
Chesterton has the right idea. Really, it has so many diverse meanings to every religion and non-religion denomination alike. Unfortunately, it's non-religious meaning is the most terrifying and should be considered by all atheistic people. To non-religious folk, this statement means "In my ruler(government) I trust". As I stated elsewhere on this debate.
The name by which one calls upon God is meaningless. Whether you say Allah, Yaweh, or God, or the one great and true creator, the meaning is intended to be the same.
Furthermore, putting an inscription on a coin is not establishing a religion, nor infringing upon the free exercise thereof. The money as taxed is not going to fund and establish a religion either, therefore it is entirely constitutional.
By the way, America was founded to be a nondenominational Christian nation, which one principle of Christianity is tolerance of other religious faiths. Thus the nation is Christian, but it makes no intent to force the practicing of the Christian religion on it's populace. Other religions are free to exercise. But it was not intended to allow Atheists to hold public office.
The name by which one calls upon God is meaningless. Whether you say Allah, Yaweh, or God, or the one great and true creator, the meaning is intended to be the same.
I would argue that it isnt meaningless, but that doesnt matter really in this debate because even saying "creator" in general is still promoting religion in general over non-religion
Furthermore, putting an inscription on a coin is not establishing a religion, nor infringing upon the free exercise thereof. The money as taxed is not going to fund and establish a religion either, therefore it is entirely constitutional.
The establishment clause isnt about establishing a state religion. It means the Government cannot promote one religion over another OR religion over non religion in any way. Putting a religious inscription on the countries currency is promoting God and religion over secularity.
By the way, America was founded to be a nondenominational Christian nation,
I did an entire thesis paper on this very topic. No it wasnt. It was founded to be a purely secular one for many MANY reasons. But instead of giving all of them ill give my ace-in-the-hole:
Treaty of Tripoli- between US and Barbary: "The United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion..." -Signed by President John Adams
which one principle of Christianity is tolerance of other religious faiths. Thus the nation is Christian
WHAT? Christianity does NOT promote the following of other faiths! It tells people to go out and convert the masses. And theres many stories of Jews or Christians mass murdering other peoples because they dont believe in the bible. I have no clue where you pulled that out of but i have a good guess.
but it makes no intent to force the practicing of the Christian religion on it's populace. Other religions are free to exercise. But it was not intended to allow Atheists to hold public office.
Other religions OR no religion. It was never intended to mean that every religion is free to be practiced as long as you HAVE a religion, it is all encompassing. A few founders themselves were atheists, and a couple closet atheists as well. And a few more were deists. But they all have one thing in common: they were extremely critical of organized religion and christianity based on quotations we have from them. Some were christians, but they founded the US to be a purely secular nation, with a secular government. That is, indifferent to religion.
They fully intended for anyone to be able to hold office.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The establishment clause isnt about establishing a state religion. It means the Government cannot promote one religion over another OR religion over non religion in any way. Putting a religious inscription on the countries currency is promoting God and religion over secularity.
I don't think it means what you think it means. I think you are changing words around to suit your purpose. To me what it means is "No one in congress can make a law respecting (With reference or regard to) an establishment(The recognition by the state of a national church or religion.) of religion.
Not what is, can be or cannot be printed on the money.
I don't think it means what you think it means. I think you are changing words around to suit your purpose. To me what it means is "No one in congress can make a law respecting (With reference or regard to) an establishment(The recognition by the state of a national church or religion.)
So if there was no law would it still be unconstitutional?
because It's sounding more like the law making it mandatory to be put on the money is the unconstitutional thing. Not the printing of "in God we trust".
Also, it sounds like making a law saying you cannot put anything religious on the money is unconstitutional because both would be "laws in reference to an establishment of religion" clause and if that wasn't enough it might even break the "freedom of speech" clause by signing into law that it cannot be printed.
So if there was no law would it still be unconstitutional?
because It's sounding more like the law making it mandatory to be put on the money is the unconstitutional thing. Not the printing of "in God we trust".
Also, it sounds like making a law saying you cannot put anything religious on the money is unconstitutional because both would be "laws in reference to an establishment of religion" clause and if that wasn't enough it might even break the "freedom of speech" clause by signing into law that it cannot be printed.
The law is unconstitutional because the printing of it is.
And it wouldnt violate free speech because it isnt a person that passed it and printed it, its the government that passed it.
The law is unconstitutional because the printing of it is.
And it wouldnt violate free speech because it isnt a person that passed it and printed it, its the government that passed it.
What you said are blatant lies. The law isn't unconstitutional because the printing of the words "in god we trust" is. The law is unconstitutional because it goes against the constitution.
It would violate free speech because it would be a double dashed law that both makes a law in regards to an establishment of religion AND it is a law that would say "you can say anything anywhere at any time under the constitution but... you can't have the words "in god we trust" (which is covered under the free speech clause) on the money" which is printed by anything but a government agency. Good thing that one is hypothetical.
Thus, the printing of "In God we trust" would then be constitutional even if the law's surrounding it are not. I would recommend an appeal(petition) to get the law removed. Then maybe you can ask the FED nicely to remove the words from the money since it concerns you so very much.
Congress passed change in motto to one with a religious nature
therfore unconstitutional
end argument. End debate. goodnight"
Nice poem,
Establishment clause does indeed promote secular government.
The establishment only forbids the congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress passed change in motto to one with a religious nature; therfore unconstitutional end argument. End debate. goodnight
BUT THAT ONLY MAKES THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NOT WHAT IS PRINTED ON THE MONEY! EVEN THE MOTTO IS CONSTITUTIONAL! IT'S SPEECH! THE LAWS ARE WHAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Stupid Liberals... All you want to do is undo everything the founding fathers have done. You people are ruining this country. No one complained about this crap until now. Do you think in the 1800's the people of America were bitching about something on a piece of paper? Do you think they freak out whenever they see someone pray? Do you think they made a huge deal about someone's self-esteem? You people just do this because you have nothing better to do. If you complain about America so much, why are you still here? Go complain in some other liberal country.
FYI the majority of our founding fathers were not Christian, also if we are to remain a free nation with religious freedom from and for we should get rid of God in anything government, money, national anthem, everything and remain neutral, you might not like it but it's only fair.
If we as a nation embrace any religion then we can no longer call ourselves a free nation but a "Theocracy".
(bush interview saying "God told me to invade Iraq")
Theocracy: a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
However, I believe that they should know that there is a greater being above them so that they don't then consider themselves as God. If this could even work... im not exactly sure.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
respecting an establishment of religion.
Means congress can't set up a church, nor fund any church with tax money. That's it pure and simple.
Making money is not making a church, neither is that money going to the establishment of any religion.
Fun fact:
It's actually not unconstitutional (according to the US Constitution) for a State to establish a state religion. In fact, at the time of ratification, at least 2 states retained a state religion, until prevailing opinion later down the line caused their individual state constitutions to be amended to reflect a greater degree of freedom.
The 2nd Amendment binds the US congress only, not the congresses of the Several States. For that, you must look to your individual state constitutions for restrictions on congressional acts.
