With the NEW government in town changing and or eliminating all the 
precious symbols and icons that we hold dear (i.e Pictures of Jesus hanging
in a school, school prayer, etc.); I wonder how long it will be before
the brilliant (?) people in Washington discover that out money will
have to changed, as well as the Pledge of Alleigience (sp) and other
stuff that contains a reference to God.

   The phrase "In God We Trust" clearly violates the separation of
church and state, as does the words "Under God" in the Pledge, as
well as the various references to God in the Constitution, and the
Declaration of Independence, as well as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

  I don't know where you stand-- however I prefer this nation t
keep In God we Trust on the money, and Under God in the Pledge. It was
in my opinion a miracle that this fledgling democracy lasted so
long, and I firmly believe that we did have a little help from above.

  What do you think?

176 responses total.

 The day they remove those words from the money, I'm moving to Saudi Arabia.
It may not have all the freedoms we enjoy, but at least they pray on a 
regular basis.

What happen when an atheist says the Pledge?  Are you going to say he or she
is lying?  What if he or she refuse to say 'under God'?  As I don't believe
in God, is it implied that I cannot believe in the greenback?

Our currency is just one of the many examples of the crooked wall that
seperates Church and State.  It is almost impossible to keep them
totally seperated.  When looking at the phrase 'In God We Trust,'
this obviously shows when Church interfers with the State, but there
are many times when the State interfers with the church such as 
financial aid to private religiously affiliated schools.  I go to a 
private Methodist school (although I am Catholic) but I get money
from the State.  I say teh crokked line of seperation should stay!

Since you asked - I'd like to see all the religious references removed
from all public documents and usages. The early ones are there because
that is how people spoke regardless of their convictions, and the later
ones were added by busybodies. Of course, everyone should still be free
to believe whatever they like (while acting within the bounds of law),
but we'd be a more civilized country if one group wasn't always trying to
impose their beliefs on others groups. Omni, I predict that you would
not be happy in Saudi Arabia - you would not be allowed ham radio.

First off, I'm curious about all the things you say the NEW government
is doing. Separation of church and state was gaurenteed in the constitution
over 200 years ago. Prayer in school was banned many years ago. What is
so new about the things going on now?

Yes, I too believe it should be removed from those documents. As an example
I've always wondered what would happen if I was ever called to testify
in court. They swear you in with the oat: "Do you swear to tell the
truth, the.... So help you God?" How do I answer that? I don't believe in
a god. Does taking it make me a lier? Would it invalidate the oath?

Hmm.  I wonder what the appropriate response to that is?

The NEW government is busy putting all the God and Jesus back *into* public
areas, documents, etc., or at least trying to.

If I understood the In God We Trust on the sawbuck issue, this was actually
put on "recently" - 1950's?  Personally, I'd rather see that kind of stuff
removed...

  Another vote for removal.  Historical documents like the declaration of
independence are set in stone, so there's no use quibbling about that, but
for new things, having "god" printed on them just doesn't fit with what I
think America is about.
 
  I think making kindergarteners say the pledge of allegiance would be a
farce even if it did lack the word "God."  It was probably years after I
had to say it daily before I learned what all the words actually were, and
what "allegiance" and "indivisibility" really meant.  If the gov't wants to
brainwash 5-year-olds with patriotism, they ought to at least get a Barney
songwriter to come up with lyrics they can understand!
 
  By the way, the pledge was first published in 1892; "indivisible" was
probably a jab at southern separatists.  "Under God" didn't appear until
1954, by Congressional mandate.  And since 1943, the gov't can no longer
force you to say the pledge to go to school; teachers can yell at you and
ostracize you, but you can claim a first ammendment "right of silence."

That's right -- the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was put
in by the Eisenhower administration.

I also would like to see religious references disappear from government-
issued items such as money.

I think that the courst no longer use, or at least require the use , of
"...so help you God" in the swearing in procedure.

This response has been erased.

Isn't the continuation of the quote, "Others pay cash"?

I've always wondered who put they "under god" into the pledge, how and why.
Is the "In God We Trust" as recent?  Did they put that on after moving off
the gold standard?

What about those Americans who (myself included) are not Christian? Think
about it.

Those Americans that are not christians share the identical rights and
responsibilities of citizenship as all Americans. So, what am I supposed to
think about (it)?

 
 Explanation about the NEW government: Newt and his bunch

 Rane, Ham radio is not the end all, be all of existence. I hardly operate
now, and I doubt if I would really miss it if I were to move to Saudi
Arabia.

Then, how about being forbidden to display pictures of Jesus, or to pray to 
any god but Allah, at the risk of losing your head?

About the phrase 'In God we trust': it doesn't say WHOSE god, does it?

re #19: That was my point too, but some folks have no "god".
I believe that if you check the Constitution, you will find no language 
regarding a separation of church and state. What the Constitution does is 
prohibit the state's establishment of a church, which IMHO makes a lot of
recent court rulings seem silly and paranoid.
Bloomingdale (picture of Jesus debacle) is near my home town. My suggestion:
leave Jesus there, and add Buddah, John Wesley, Nostredamus, etc., and call it
"Prophets Throughout History". Who could bitch?

  For accuracy's sake, the exact wording is "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof...."
 
  It's certainly very open to interpretation, but it's a bit different
than your wording; I think "establishment" might be meant in the same
sense as an "eating establishment," but in this case a "religious
establishment."  I don't think they were talking about congress
establishing The Church of The United States.
 
  As for hanging Jesuses in schools, another factor to consider is how
Jesus is depicted.  If it looks like a White Anglo-Saxon Jesus, it could
definitely draw some criticism from historians or non-Anglo-Saxons.
Jesus has been "marketed" in the US similarly to how we market the Mighty
Morphin' Power Rangers in other countries: make them appear to be local
natives of target market.

It's odd how our culture is changing so much...Those that are religious are
arguing with those that arenot religious, and vice versa over something that
unless you are inspecting the coin, one won't notice.  My opinion, I think
people in general just want something to bitch about :>

  True :).  But folks here aren't violently fanatical about getting rid
of the slogan, they're just expressing that if it were up to them, they'd
want it one way or another.  I think the reason it's not a big national
issue is that people just don't care all that much about it!
 
  I was thinking some more about what was meant by "establishment" in
the first ammendment.  The only thing clear about the sentence is that
it sure isn't clear!!

 re 18- When in Rome....

"In God We Trust" is annoying. It should be removed. I don't put my trust in
God. I put my trust in myself.

The picture of Jesus in the Michigan school is a very interesting story. In
a small community where funding is minimal, the school spent six digits to
go to court to try to stop the removal of the picture. They are taking it all
the way to the supreme court -- more money! Forget the books and computers.
Let's spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars going to court so
a picture of some dude is not removed. Who are these religious fanatics? Who
are their leaders, the blind leading the blind? Their children are paying for
their religious fanaticism. They are playing Russian Roulette with the
education of their children. Over what? A picture. Can we say, "I am a 
religious fanatic. I will sacrifice the education of my children for a 
picture. I will let David Koresh have sex with my 12 year old daughter. 
I am going to heaven..."

#17: Ummm. Let's not be ignorant, omni. Newt Gingrich and his Republican 
     buddies would never let the picture of Jesus be taken down. The 
     "NEW government" is your friend, omni. Look at the Republicans 
     running for the nomiation in 1996: Dole, Gramm, Buchanan, etc. They
     are the ones who are friendly to the maniacal religious right -- that
     includes you. Buchanan and Robertson would probably like to line up all
     non-Christians and kill them. That's cool.

        If "In God we trust were not already on the coins, I wouldn't
support putting it on.  However, since it's already on, I think there are
a lot more important issues than whether it should be taken off.  Given
the choice between seeing the word "god" written on a coin and being
forced to pray to a god I don't believe in, I'll choose seeing it on the coin.

 I guess I am turning into a Republican. (shudders at the thought). and
to think I voted for Clinton. Imagine that.

Comfort omni, for he knowns not what he does :)

re 25:  Why would you want to remove part of history?  The 'In God We
Trust' shows the historical backround of the United States.

So, we should keep a little slavery around, for its historical background?

Omni, have a look at the Libertarian Party before you "go Republican".

No, we shouldn't keep the slavery around.  However, the "In God we trust"
is hurting noone.  Everyone has a "god"  As a matter of fact, a large
portion of the US has their "god" be money, which is ironical.  Some
people have their "god" be themselves.  My "god" happens to be Jesus
Christ, but that's not universal.  

Really...Everybody has a God? What god do athiests worship? :)
Believe it or not...There are athiests living in the U.S

Re #25, rogue didn't suggest filing off the logo on past coins; *that* would
be erasing a part of history.  Changing them now is a different matter.
 
Re #32, I think the "god" referred to on money is the Christian one with a
capital G, but you can't tell because they now use all upper case.  Regardless
of your definition, many people by their own definition *don't* believe in god.
At any rate, while it doesn't physically "hurt" anyone, that's no rationale for
keeping it around, either.  The slogan just mildly annoys to me, like if it
said "Coke is It!" on coins, and I preferred Pepsi.  (Though personally I do
prefer Coke...maybe there are enough of us to lobby congress for the change!)

Religous words *do* hurt people. All the misery created by religious
differences is based solely upon differences in words. These differences
have probably led to (when translated into deeds) more human misery than
has slavery.  We have succeeded in eliminating slavery from our society. A
good next step would be to eliminate those words of religious difference
that lead to conflict. Religion is a private matter, to be kept to
oneself. 

<set drift=slight>
About the phrase 'One Nation under God': The people who wrote the Constitution
were Deists, which is to say that they recognized that everyone would have
their own concept of Deity. The 'God' that was written about in the Consti-
tution was Natural Law.
<drift=normal>

#27: Yeah, but it's interesting how you thought the Republican right wing
     wants to rip down pictures of Jesus. 

#31: If the Liberitarians have any balls, they would tear down every picture
     of Jesus in every public school. They would probably allow private
     schools to put up anything they want, however. 

#32: "In God We Trust" is hurting me emotionally. I cannot sleep at night.
     I cannot work during the day. As a matter of fact, if it isn't changed
     very soon, I am initiating a class-action suit on behalf of all 
     non-Christians against the United States government for $1 trillion. 
     It will bankrupt the US government. 

Re: #37, point #32:  The US govt needs help to bankrupt?

Overall I must agree with rogue on the reasons, if not to the extreme 
effects he suffers.  As a "dogmatic agnostic" my usual belief is that 
there may or may not be a god[s], favoring one that is popular in this
world might backlash considerably in an after-death environment (to
use a Frank Zappa term, "necrodestination" :) ).  What if the American
Christian "God" is totally wrong?  Suppose there is something else that
has an analogue to the Christian "Hell" for all those who went to church?
Yikes!  Strict neutrality for me, please.

Re 33:  Everyone has a god.  It may be money, power, hedonistic lusts,etc.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss