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.
Should "In God We Trust" remain the USA's motto?
I was just looking at a dollar and I realized that there is a numerous amount of people residing in the US that do not believe in God, so should IGWT remain our national motto?
I don't want the Government to spend one cent on redesigning our currency. Just leave it. It's no big deal. Besides, it's not like we specify which God. ;)
It works for everyone but atheists. However! If you are atheist and do not believe in a God you can always write a tiny 'L' between the o and d to make it "In Gold We Trust".
Please do not pretend to feel wronged by this phrase. You have no better position for wanting to change it than we have for wanting to keep it.
In fact, I venture to say that you only follow this debate for the sake of arguing rather than wanting to accomplish something by actually changing one's opinion on the matter.
I say arguing, because it is not debating when you attack a person or group of people instead of the facts being presented.
To be honest, (and this genuinely is honest) I would want it removed because it's stupid. You may as well have "In jelly we trust". I want it changed because I think gods are stupid. The most powerful nation in the world trusts in superstition rather than real things. It's a stupid motto.
But that's my personal opinion, the one I was "debating", "presenting facts" say, such as the US constitution which expressly protects freedom from religion. I was debating that, because of such, it should be removed.
What/who do you feel I have so unfairly "attacked" by the way?
Yes, I think it should remain so. Our founding fathers had God as their guiding light in much of what they did even though the God they spoke of was the Anglo God. Our currency doesn't specify which God to believe in so I don't think it's an insult to anyone. This is, after all, America and it's history bears tribute to God...any God.
It doesn't specify gods either. To be totally fair you should include every god - including the non.
If someone had put "One nation under gods (possibly)" on there, I bet this debate would overwhelmingly be voting to remove it. Clearly no one cares whether minorities are insulted, as long as the majority think it's OK to have pseudo-state-acceptance of their beliefs. Which is shame, because the consistitution specifically tries to stop this. But what can you do against a majority rule? - apart from get on a boat, colonise a far away land and try and right these wrongs?
Yes, it should. A majority of Americans still believe in God. And besides, it is not hurting or injuring anyone. I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like looking at your dollar bill, use a credit/debit card instead. You have a right not to say the pledge of allegiance if you don't want to.
"And besides, it is not hurting or injuring anyone. I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like looking at your dollar bill, use a credit/debit card instead."
................
Come on. By that logic we could put "I love it when Satan licks my butthole" on our money and that would be peachy-keen too, since you can just not look at it. I bet if you took a poll, you'd find a majority of Americans also believe in practicing oral sex, but that doesn't mean "Eat Me" would make an appropriate national motto.
Prove to me objectively that our motto is causing irreparable harm to our nation. It is not. It's mainly a big deal to atheists, and they do not constitute a majority of the population. I have provided ways for them to deal with it.
That's not the point. The point is that it's a bad motto that doesn't reflect our national character and is offensive to many people whose religions (or lack of religions) don't adhere to the concept it espouses. Your "ways" of dealing with it are to say "if you don't like it, too bad." That's not the way our country deals with questions of individual rights and liberties. That's how fascist and fundamentalist-theocratic countries deal with questions of individual rights and liberties.
Ah, so you can't? That's what I thought. You keep saying that it is a bad motto, yet you cannot objectively prove that it is. So why are you trying to debate me on it? As I have said in my first statement, a majority of Americans believe in God, so I don't see how it doesn't reflect our national character. If you don't believe me, check Google for yourself.
Having the motto on your currency gives a credible appearance that the US government supports monotheism. Imagine any other motto which espoused a bias or discriminating opinion, you would probably want that removed; and probably because you simply disagreed with it. Because you happen to agree with it, even if you are in the majority it doesn't make it right. The US constitution specifically set out to remove this kind of thing - to protect minorities.
See now this isn't a bad argument here. We do have freedom of religion, and the government is supposed to comply with it. How are you going to go about changing it then? Congress does not think of it as much importance, and it would be hard to get a majority of America to approve of your view.
I think it's going to come to a head anyway, I just hope that the constitution & common sense wins out over the (religious) majority in this case.
I am not one for the infallability of the constitution (I am British everything's much greyer here) but I think most of it is admirable and the freedom from religion bit is an obvious step forward, I hope it doesn't get swallowed up.
You keep trying to divert the issue with this "irreparable harm" straw-man. The point is not "irreparable harm." The point is appropriateness and impact on the concept of personal rights and liberties. "In God We Trust" fails on both counts.
But if you want "irreparable harm," how about chipping away at the First Amendment by stretching its text to exclude its spirit in adopting "In God We Trust" as a national motto? That seems like irreparable harm.
A larger majority of Americans believe in consumerism and oral sex than believe in a monotheistic male God. Perhaps "Eat Me" really would make a better national motto.
"81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion: 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then: at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians. The percentage will dip below 70% in 2008. By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S. . . . 14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990 . . . The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca/Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months."
Perhaps given these facts, our national motto should instead be one of the sacred sayings of Hekate, since Christianity is on a rapid decline whereas the Wiccans are doubling their numbers every two-and-a-half years? Maybe we should replace "In God We Trust" with "Beginning and end are you, and you alone rule all" (preferably in Greek).
Or, maybe we should just go back to "E Pluribus Unum."
"about the year 2042" "If this trend has continued"
Yeah, that's real accurate...
"81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion"
Like I said, proving my point that you still have yet to refute.
Until 2042 or whatever comes around, you still cannot refute my statement that the majority in America believes in a God. We are talking present, not future here. You still have not objectively proven that the motto causes harm, instead providing excuses and whining.
I have not whined nor given excuses. You have tossed out red herring after red herring, harping on this "irreparable harm" notion that nobody but you thinks has anything to do with the topic at hand.
I had deleted my comment about how you're as pathetic a debater as Palin herself, but now I find I have to retract my retraction. When presented with actual statistics and sources, you just retreat into sloganeering and issue avoidance. You have no point to refute, because your point is not even vaguely relevant to the topic.
It's a tradition. God is in the Pledge of Allegiance and "God Bless America". So should we cater to the atheists and remove these things for them? No. If we start changing things like these, some of the backbone of this country, for groups of people, then it would seem like the government can get stepped on like a doormat.
1.) "In God We Trust" was not our original national motto. The nation's motto was "E Pluribus Unum" (out of the many, one). The notion of "In God We Trust" as a motto came out of the final verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner", written in 1814 (during the war of 1812, which lasted well beyond 1812), which WRONGLY identified "in God we trust" as the national motto. In fact it was not adopted as a national motto until 1956, more than a century later, as part of a McCarthy-sponsored anti-communist push. The change was motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which was seen as promoting atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, whose citizens were, for the most part, at least nominally Christian.
2.) "In God We Trust" was not put on our money by the Framers. Our earlier money was inscribed only with the "liberty goddess" figure, who we know as Lady Liberty. "In God We Trust" was put on U.S. coins by banking mogul Salmon P. Chase (for whom the ubiquitous Chase banks are named) during the Civil War, and it wasn't put on paper money at all until 1957, at the height of McCarthyism and again as a reaction against the "communist threat".
"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. [Letter reads]: Dear Sir . . . You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have [a Christian text] . . . This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters."
3.) Several prominent Americans, including Teddy Roosevelt, thought that putting "In God We Trust" on our money was a crappy idea.
4.) There's nothing about our governmental tradition that rests on Christianity. In fact, separation of church and state was a pretty basic principle of our government. The Founding Fathers and Constitutional Convention delegates were an eclectic bunch that included deists, a few atheists, and multiple Christian faiths including Quaker, Episcopalian, and Congregationalist. Many of these folks were also heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought and there is considerable debate as to whether they were (as a group and as individuals) more "devout" followers of religious thought or of early secular humanism.
5.) "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s. Like putting "In God We Trust" on our paper money, this was part of a McCarthy-era response to the communist scare. "God Bless America" is an Irving Berlin tune written originally in 1918, revised and published in the late 1930s. So those are hardly bastions of our government, not are they necessarily very apt reflections of our national identity.
6.) We are not a Christian nation today and we never have been. Christianity may be the faith to which a majority of our citizens ascribe, but we've also got that whole First Amendment thing about Congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion. We also have a diverse population whose members may believe in a god, no god, lots of gods, a goddess, a "force" or "spirit" or "cosmic intelligence", or any number of theological constructs. The plain fact is that we are not a nation who does, or is required to, "trust in God" -- and especially not in any one particular god. So it seems a bit idiotic to keep it on our money, knowing that it stems from nothing but a pair of reactionary Christian wartime traditions and given that it seems to undercut far more central principles of our political and national identity.
Backbone of this country? If we didn't have the word God printed on our money this country would fall apart? This country is made up of many different groups of people that do not believe in your God, since the USA is a melting pot we have countless religions in this country and we should not all be subject to Christianity.
If we didn't have the words God printed on our money we would be going against the whole base of this country.
The country wouldn't fall apart but why change something that doesn't hurt anyone? Is there someone out there who becomes angry at the site of the IGWT written on their money?
In God We Trust was what the founding fathers believed in and its what I believe in, its the USA and thats our motto.
It's amazing how American's go on about their constitution up until the point where it goes against something they personally believe in.
"In God We Trust was what the founding fathers believed in and its what I believe in, its the USA and thats our motto."
I'm from the UK, and even I know that that is an absolutely baseless claim. The very purpose of the Americas was to escape religious persecution from the British. America was very much set up, from the beginning, as a country that niether endorsed nor condemned any single religion. The motto In God We Trust was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins.
I'm sorry, but please don't confuse your personal beliefs with fact. The USA was set up with ideals that included the seperation of church and state, and placing In God We Trust on your money and introducing federal law that states that In God We Trust is the national motto goes against everything that the idea of seperation of church and state stands for.
If you believe in your constitution and REALLY want to stand up for American values (the sort that the founding fathers stood up for), you should insist that In God We Trust is taken off of your money and removed as your national motto.
Or would you rather your government specifically endorses your specific religious view? Because if you do, then you're endorsing a future of religious persecution such as the one that America was set up to escape.
Wow, incredibly magnanimous of you, a rare thing indeed (not from you, I have no idea, but from most). They should have a "I yield" button for such occasions.
If I am wrong I am wrong, and leaving nothing makes it like I just ignore good arguments when I see them and demolish weak ones when I see them. My argument was not well thought out ( I was a bit tipsy last night ) so I concede to an undebateable argument provided by xaeon.
It's not the "base of the country," it's not "what the founding fathers believed in," and it's not what many of the citizens of our country believe today. It's something Joe McCarthy and his cronies scared us into doing in 1956 to prove we weren't all godless commies.
"The 'In God we Trust' motto promotes theistic religion at the expense of non theistic religion and a secular lifestyle. It promotes the belief in a single, male deity which is followed by the main Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; however, it is foreign to the beliefs of many other religions: Buddhists do not believe in a personal deity; Zoroastrians and Wiccans believe in two deities; Hindus believe in many. It would seem to violate the principle of separation of church and state. Many Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, other Neopagans, and others are offended by the motto."
-- Religious Tolerance - The U.S. National Mottos: Their history and constitutionality
Wow you are so hypocritical. If it said on US money "In God We Do Not Trust Because We Know God Doesn't Exist" you would care. If on public buildings it said "Christianity is false" instead of the Ten Commandments you would care. If the pledge of allegiance went "Definitely not under God because there is none" you would care.
All we ask is the same respect. We are not asking for those things to be change to the quotes I said. We just think that according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, the government should not espouse any specific religion or religious belief. Be that Christianity or atheism.
Like I said you would offended if my prior examples were true, but that wouldn't make you a self-righteous prick.
And yet I know plenty of atheists that have said "Oh my god!" or "Holy shit!" or even "Jesus Christ!" How can an atheist say those things?
I'm sure I wouldn't like it if US money said that and et cetera, but then again, I most likely wouldn't be a practicing Catholic living in a country that blatantly hates religion and most likely the religious peoples. But you are right about saying "Like I said you would offended if my prior examples were true, but that wouldn't make you a self-righteous prick." Sorry about that. :(
I guess I never thought it was offensive because every atheist or agnostic person I've ever known honestly didn't care about it. If you think about it, it's not a HUGE part of this country and it can be overlooked. I've always thought atheists, etc should still say the Pledge but skip "Under God" and nobody forces anybody else to sing "God Bless America".
I don't think we should do something simply because it is tradition. However, you can not wisely say that slavery is a tradition because it never was.
Forced slavery has existed since the beginning of time. That doesn't make it right, but it has always been around. Americans didn't invent slavery, nobody honestly knows who did. Thousands of years ago, the Jewish race were slaves in Egypt. Before that other countries would invade their neighbors and often make the losing country's people into slaves. Only a handful of leaders allowed the invaded people to become part of the new country as equals.
Also, America was founded by Christians. We are a Christian nation. If you don't like this, you can always go to another country that doesn't identify with or believe in Christian beliefs. I suggest Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Freedom of religion is a right invented by who? Christians. You didn't see those Romans looking around thinking, "Well... Jesus of Nazareth claims to be the son of God but... that's his right as long as it harms nobody else."
Nor do the Chinese accept Christians today. Try going over there and 'converting' people to anything other than the government approved religion.
I do believe in limiting the use of religion in government however. Public schools should teach every major religion, not exclude them. Knowledge of other nations beliefs is sadly lacking and we need to stop keeping our children in the dark.
"Freedom of religion is a right invented by who? Christians. You didn't see those Romans looking around thinking, 'Well... Jesus of Nazareth claims to be the son of God but... that's his right as long as it harms nobody else'."
........................
Actually, freedom of religion was quite a common principle in Rome. It was the Roman practice to allow indigeneous religious practices to continue and, in many cases, to bring remote cults home to Rome. This is why temples to Gaulish and Greco-Egyptian deities, as well as a variety of other deities from around Asia Minor, can be found in the ruins of Rome and its provinces. Often, foreign deities were simply given Latin names and adopted into the ever-widening pantheon. Rome did not give one fat crap who your gods were.
The only religious requirement Rome placed on its territories was that they also worship the Emperor, and the Jews had a special dispensation not to do even that. The main reason that Rome persecuted its Christian population prior to the conversion of Constantine was that they refused to take the special dispensation alloted to the Jews. Also, they were popularly thought to be whackos.
"Broadly speaking, Roman citizens were free to experiment with other cults, as long as they remained loyal to the state religion, and as long as the cult did not pose a threat to the state (practices such as druidism and the cult of Bacchus were repressed for their challenge to the authority of the state). Christianity was different; its followers were perceived as criminals . . . Much of the rumour surrounding them seems to have been based on a woeful ignorance and misunderstanding of their practices. The Eucharist, for example, was taken literally to involve cannibalism, and their secret meetings were said to practice incest and child murder and to resort to group sex. Chief amongst the accusations was that of atheism. The monotheistic nature of Christianity precluded its followers from worship of any other gods, and in a society where the well-being of the state was so intimately bound to the will of the pagan gods, this could only be viewed as dangerous. The 'atheism' of Christians could therefore be used as an excuse for any manner of ill-fortune; one fourth-century proverb sums up the situation well: 'No rain, because of the Christians' . . . [Christianity's] evangelical nature led to charges of apostasy, [and] the apostle Paul’s exhortations against marriage could also have been viewed as an attack on 'family values' . . . the charge of Christianity was a peculiar one in itself, for unlike other crimes, the simple act of repentance was generally enough to get the accused acquitted." (C.J. Lyes, "From Republic to Empire: Rome's Persecution of the Christians," http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/CJLyes_Roman_Persecution_Xians.pdf )
Even so, the Roman persecutions were "generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor," says the Wiki. Theologian Herbert Workman suggests that the "average" Roman Christian was not affected by persecutions at all. Imperial decrees against Christians were often directed solely against the clergy and church property. Christian scholar Everett Ferguson estimated that more Christians have been killed for religious reasons in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years. (Christian History Vol. XI, Issue 27.)
Christianity was, however, also generally seen as anti-social and immoral: Porphyry of Tyre wrote of the Christians, "How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? What else are they than fighters against God?" ("Against the Christians: The Literary Remains," trans. R. Joseph Hoffman.) Both the Bible and histories of the period describe acts of mob aggression -- and even violence -- against Christian preachers (my personal favorite being the story of how the people of Ephesus shouted out the apostle Paul for more than two hours with cries of "Great is our Goddess Diana" until he finally gave up and left town).
Others, like the philosopher Celsus, dismissed the early Christians as being merely "silly." ("On the True Doctrine: Discourse Against the Christians," trans. R. Joseph Hoffman.)
Yet even after the initial conversion of the Roman state, when the emperor Julian the Apostate advocated for a return to eclectic Roman paganism, he condemned the killing of Christians, saying instead that Christians should be pitied for their ignorance and provided with further education in the virtues of Roman polity and Roman paganism. "Would not any man be justified in detesting the more intelligent among you, or pitying the more foolish, who, by following you, have sunk to such depths of ruin that they have abandoned the ever-living gods . . . you are so misguided and foolish that you regard those chronicles of yours as divinely inspired, though by their help no man could ever become wiser or braver or better than he was before; while, on the other hand, writings by whose aid men can acquire courage, wisdom and justice, these you ascribe to Satan and to those who serve Satan! . . . you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered so as to be worse and more impious . . . yet often I have admonished those who hold fast to true doctrine not to harm the Galilaeans or abuse or insult them, but learn to persuade them with reason; for such men deserve pity more than scorn, since only pity is a sound response to their sad state." ("Against the Galilaeans," Book 1.)
And, if you remember your Bible, Rome didn't really give a huge crap about Jesus calling himself the son of God; Pilate wanted him released. The Jews of the time, on the other hand, considered apostasy (renunciation of one's faith) a capital crime -- and it was for that crime that they wanted Jesus to be executed. "Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place . . . And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him; I will therefore chastise him, and release him. And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas." - Luke 23:4-5 , 13-18
Nope, "freedom of religion" is Roman through and through; whereas it's the Christians who instituted pogroms like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
I do support "In God We Trust" This motto is to remind us that GOD who spoke things in existence is the GOD that we need to trust. Its just a reminder to the almighty GOD who loves us all that there are still some believers. Just a reminder who was the cause for everyone existence yea Adam and Eve.
Why should it not? It is historically our motto, is not oppressive, and does harm to no one. It is not taken literally by the government or the population, and destroying this motto would do no particular good. Why should time and political capitol be wasted on a motto? Is there no other, more pressing issue facing the world? We can right petty wrongs when there is nothing better to do- which is no time in the near future.
America was founded on religious principles; should that not count for something? Besides, most Americans believe in the Christian God (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109108/Belief-God-Far-Lower-Western-US.aspx). Think of the Bible belt, the pilgrims, the founding fathers!
"E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) was our original national motto, and it is and has always been a far better one than "In God We Trust." "E Pluribus Unum" is much more reflective of our national and governmental character. It suggests our diversity as a people, our divided-yet-unified system of government, and our emphasis on the importance of individual liberty to the body politic; it even alludes to the Roman roots of our governmental and social system. "In God We Trust" is just something we picked up in the 1950s because our government was a-skeered of commie Russia. Both commie Russia and our fear of it are things of the past, and so should be the motto we picked up as a part of our cold-war mentality. "E Pluribus Unum" has a much longer tradition of use as our national motto, and is much more reflective of our nation.
This always bothered me. I was raised an atheist and raised not to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school (not only because of 'God,' but because it always seemed like some insane fascist ritual, I don't know). It makes assumptions about the American public. I dislike it.
I had a similar experience in high school. I wasn't raised an atheist but I ended up one anyway. In school I felt more of what you are talking about with regard to the Pledge as a nationalistic thing and I didn't mind the God thing so much. I used to just sit out, but eventually I just amended the Pledge for my use.
"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic upon which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I believe that under no circumstances should the Americans that do not believe in 'God' be subject and forced to this motto "In God We Trust". So what if that what the founding fathers wanted, its not what I want. Change is good sometimes and I think that this needs change.
The same goes for saying the pledge of allegance, if my child does not want to say this ode to America and God she shouldn't have to.
1.) You DON'T have to say the Pledge. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624 (1943)), the Supreme Court ruled that requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violated the First Amendment. THAT'S one of the things our nation was founded on, and one of the things that made this nation great.
2.) The Pledge is hardly something on which "the nation was founded." The Pledge didn't even exist until more than a century after the nation was founded. "The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy's original 'Pledge of Allegiance' was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day . . . Bellamy [ ] had initially also considered using the words 'equality and fraternity' but decided they were too controversial since many people opposed equal rights for women and blacks . . . In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for the words 'my Flag' to be changed to 'the Flag of the United States'. The reason given was to ensure that immigrants knew to which flag a reference was being made . . . the phrase 'under God' was officially incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954." (Wikipedia, the convenient summation tool.) So, it's hardly something our nation was "founded on."
I'm not convinced that the founding fathers wanted the God thing at all. In fact, the evidence I've read says just the opposite.
Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth"- Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
Yeah...Jefferson is especially harsh. Nonetheless, the argument stands true that your personal beliefs do not justify imposition on others.
You want to live in the land of the free but only as it suits you. Isn't that freedom at its finest? Living as it suits you (so long as it doesn't harm others...)?
While I agree that we shouldn't spend a penny on unnecessary overhaul to the monetary system, upon the next necessary update of each form of our nation's currency, the phrase should be removed. Since this process of making new money is cyclical, that would mean that the phrase would gradually phase out.
In short, they're going to be printing new twenties in not too long anyway, may as well finally make them without religious insinuation.