In God we Trust/Under God

[Nicknyte]

So if anyone doesn't know the news...

Court hears atheist's 'Pledge of Allegiance, In God We Trust' cases

Associated Press

Dec. 4, 2007 06:04 PM

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist pleaded with a federal appeals court Tuesday to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs.

"I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Newdow's first case.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday that reciting the pledge is simply a "patriotic exercise" and a reminder of the traditions of the U.S.

"How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious act?" Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked. Cassidy said the pledge has religious elements but is not a religious exercise.

Newdow said the pledge has "tons of religious significance. That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it out."

Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words "under God" would make the pledge any less patriotic.

"Not necessarily," he replied, arguing it provided a historical context, not a religious one.

Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust" a year later. Congress first authorized a reference to God on money in 1864.

In describing the historical context for use of the word "God," the government cited the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled against him last year, and Newdow appealed.

On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but simply a patriotic or ceremonial message.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt indicated support for Newdow's position.

The "In God We Trust" motto "affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life," Reinhardt said. "The government has no compelling interest to put a slogan on a dollar bill."

Newdow said he didn't advocate hostility toward God or religion and respected people's right to their own beliefs. He said he wanted equal respect for atheists.

About 20 Newdow supporters in the courtroom and outside the courthouse wore T-shirts touting evolution and atheism and carried signs supporting the separation of church and state.

I understand what this dude is fighting for. I am a Christian, and I agree that this phrase offends some people. Buddhists, Hindi, and other Monotheist and Atheistic religions, but I feel that the phrases Under God and In God we Trust are historical in context these days, not religious. I mean, I don't see anyone walk up to an non-monotheist, pull out a dollar, stick it in their face and say "In GOD WE TRUST. Get it right." Thats just wrong, but does anyone really do that. When it comes to the pledge, hand over heart, yea. But If you decide to omit the "Under God" thats fine. That what makes this country a good one, its the face that amongst all these different people, that we can come together as a country.

On the flip side, people get insulted by insults all the time, why should we change a law that some people get offended by and not most? I honestly don't feel this way. Everyone SHOULD have a right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but where does this come from? If you say the Constitution, you're wrong. It's the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, the justices may just ignore this man, but this is the most liberal Supreme Court in history, we shall see what happens. I just hope for the best in this decision. How do ya'll feel about this?

 

[Zink]

Meh. Sounds kinda like mountains out of molehills. Plus, I don't see how this has anything to do with the First Amendment. If anything, he wants to restrict the First Amendment rights of the Mint.

 

[pdk]

it's a typical newdow case, just move along folks, or barbrady style:

 

[Tom]

hah, barbrady.

If the government views it as a statement in historical context, yet a significant population views it as offensive to their freedoms, then the gov't should have no problem removing it. =/

 

[AltF4]

Well, the antics surrounding the case (people wearing stupid t-shirts and holding signs) shed a bit of a bad light on the actual argument going on here.


Don't try to think of this as an "Atheist vs Theist" fight. That's certainly what it is not, at least not what it should be. This is a matter of rights, and the government respecting them. The "in god we trust" inherently is telling every polytheist that they are wrong. The verbiage clearly specifies that there is only one god.

Think of the christian reaction if it said "one nation, under the many gods". Or "one nation, not under any god, because he doesn't exist". All three are equally exclusive of some other group. The only fair compromise is to leave the mentioning of god out entirely.

(btw, the whole thing is blown out of proportion. It's not that big of a deal, but we're here with the intention of debating the issue. Which means saying "it's such a small issue" isn't valid here)

 

[Zink]

Well, the antics surrounding the case (people wearing stupid t-shirts and holding signs) shed a bit of a bad light on the actual argument going on here.


Don't try to think of this as an "Atheist vs Theist" fight. That's certainly what it is not, at least not what it should be. This is a matter of rights, and the government respecting them. The "in god we trust" inherently is telling every polytheist that they are wrong. The verbiage clearly specifies that there is only one god.

Think of the christian reaction if it said "one nation, under the many gods". Or "one nation, not under any god, because he doesn't exist". All three are equally exclusive of some other group. The only fair compromise is to leave the mentioning of god out entirely.

(btw, the whole thing is blown out of proportion. It's not that big of a deal, but we're here with the intention of debating the issue. Which means saying "it's such a small issue" isn't valid here)

Just for the sake of argument, it's certainly possible to interpret it as anything held sacred, whtehr it be God, gods, some human philosophy or value, or whatever.
But I agree, this seems more blown up than anything. I certainly don't see a significant part of the population agreeing with this guy.

 

[Luigi Ka-master]

(btw, the whole thing is rediculously blown out of proportion.

Quoted for truth, and emphasized >_>

 

[AltF4]

It's not important what the majority of the people think. In fact, it is VERY irrelevant. It is the role of the government to protect the rights of the minority, not bend to the will of the majority.


The only valid arguments here are ones showing that "In god we trust" does not categorically exclude a group of people. Because that would certainly be religious preference in the eyes of the law.

 

[Mediocre]

Just for the sake of argument, it's certainly possible to interpret it as anything held sacred, whtehr it be God, gods, some human philosophy or value, or whatever.

At a stretch, it might be possible to interpret it that way, but that's certainly not what most people think of when they hear the word "God."

Furthermore, that was definitively not the intention of the lawmakers who added the phrase to the pledge or the money.

 

[Zink]

At a stretch, it might be possible to interpret it that way, but that's certainly not what most people think of when they hear the word "God."

Furthermore, that was definitively not the intention of the lawmakers who added the phrase to the pledge or the money.

I've heard there's a school of thought which maintains that it was added partially as a counter to communism. Does anyone see any validity to this? Intention IS pretty important.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

It should be removed, not just because it defiles the name of god to put him on currency (the source of evil Exodus 20:17), but it was put on our paper money and "in god we trust" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the nineteen fifties during the red scare specifically to persecute atheists because it was believed at the time that all atheists were communist.

The entire history of these two articles is so anti-American that even the most religious among us should be patriotic enough to understand why it should be removed.

 

[Banjodorf]

I consider myself atheist (in part because my true beliefs are so similar, it doesnt matter.)

I think this guy, however took atheism a bit too far. the In god we trust thing does not in my eyes restrict tself to christians but to all the other religions, who all have their one main god, even hindus.

Vishnu is the one main god for them if Im not mistaken, Muslims have allah who they also call God. I dont see how this should offend other religions, although I do agree it does push religion onto atheist, but its nothing totally serious.

 

[Mediocre]

I consider myself atheist (in part because my true beliefs are so similar, it doesnt matter.)

I think this guy, however took atheism a bit too far. the In god we trust thing does not in my eyes restrict tself to christians but to all the other religions, who all have their one main god, even hindus.

You ignore many polytheistic religions, which don't have one God, or even one main god.

It might fit into all the religions you can think of, but simply because a religion does not have enough practitioners for you to be aware of it does not give the government the right to discriminate against it.

Vishnu is the one main god for them if Im not mistaken, Muslims have allah who they also call God. I dont see how this should offend other religions, although I do agree it does push religion onto atheist, but its nothing totally serious.

Advocating one religion or type of religions over other religions (or the lack thereof) is illegal. I agree that the effects of these phrases aren't all that serious, but the fact that they are being propagated by the government is an affront to every atheist and polytheist living in the USA.

 

[fluffy]

I don't understand why people would care about such small things.

I actually just found out from this thread that "IN GOD WE TRUST" are printed on dollar bills!

 

[Aesir]

"One nation under god" wasn't even in the original pledge of the united states. it was added in, for reasons that escape me right now.

It's really not a small thing, I think it falls under the separation of church and state. As it does favor monotheistic beliefs over polytheistic and atheistic. It's also quite obvious that "In god we trust" on the dollar bill was for Christians, it's just clever word choices that you can argue it's for all monotheistic beliefs.

 

[shadenexus18]

I understand all of what was said above. If the shoe was on the other foot....I wouldn't be want to be forced to say "One Nation, under *insert important deity/deva here*" if that's not what I practiced or believed in. Geeze, schools are so stupid now adays.

 

[Zink]

I understand all of what was said above. If the shoe was on the other foot....I wouldn't be want to be forced to say "One Nation, under *insert important deity/deva here*" if that's not what I practiced or believed in. Geeze, schools are so stupid now adays.

Nobody's forcing you to do anything. The pledge is not required by law.

 

[tmw_redcell]

It's not just force. There shouldn't be any governmental pressure whatsoever to adhere to any religion. God has no place within the walls of a public school, just like facts have no place in organized religion.

 

[Formula1]

Well for the sake of our country becoming more objectional, Yes change it

But I think that there should something about something creating earth though

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Well for the sake of our country becoming more objectional, Yes change it

But I think that there should something about something creating earth though

In gravity we trust? One Nation under gravity? Or do you mean In nova we trust?

 

[notftomearth7]

I don't get the whole under God thing. It's just kind of stupid and forcing religion on others. I do agree, however, with "In God We Trust." as this can be said by anyone. Even if you aren't super religious, you trust God. If you're an atheist though...

 

[Zink]

It's not just force. There shouldn't be any governmental pressure whatsoever to adhere to any religion. God has no place within the walls of a public school, just like facts have no place in organized religion.

It can be argued that you're violating the First Amendment rights of Congress if you remove it. You're also needlessly insulting much of the population. I say leave it there. Our culture is too dominated by political correctness already.

 

[Mediocre]

I don't get the whole under God thing. It's just kind of stupid and forcing religion on others. I do agree, however, with "In God We Trust." as this can be said by anyone. Even if you aren't super religious, you trust God. If you're an atheist though...

Oh, that's rich.

Look, atheist's right should not be ignored simply because we are in the minority. Polytheist's rights have to be protected too, so it's ridiculous to say that everyone can agree with "in God we trust."

Some people trust in many gods; some people trust in no God or gods. To ignore the rights of those people is to go against one of the principles expressed in the First Amendment.

It can be argued that you're violating the First Amendment rights of Congress if you remove it. You're also needlessly insulting much of the population. I say leave it there. Our culture is too dominated by political correctness already.

The Bill of Rights applies to individuals and groups of individuals, not the government. The concept behind the first ten amendments is to protect people from government oppression, not the other way around. The government is wielding the power; it doesn't need to be protected from it.

 

[Zink]

But what right do individuals have to censor the government? And where do they apply?

 

[Mediocre]

But what right do individuals have to censor the government? And where do they apply?

Individuals have the right to censor the government when the government is breaking the law.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[shadenexus18]

It's not just force. There shouldn't be any governmental pressure whatsoever to adhere to any religion. God has no place within the walls of a public school, just like facts have no place in organized religion.

*nods and agrees*

Even though I just so happen to be a firm believer that God is my lord and savior, it's not everyone's lifestyle. That's why I agree with this statement. The "under God" in the pledge should be taken out and replaced with nothing.

 

[Aesir]

Bring the pledge back to it's previous wording before they added the pledge hell you could bring it back to it's original 4 lines if you wanted to.

and you can just remove "in god we trust" from paper money, as it wasn't always there to begin with.

 

[voittaa711]

"One nation under god" wasn't even in the original pledge of the united states. it was added in, for reasons that escape me right now.
.

They added one nation under God because it seperated us from the communists who did not believe in God. Almost to make us "better."

 

[Zink]

Individuals have the right to censor the government when the government is breaking the law.

Pretty simple, really.

Breaking the law? As strong as that? I dunno about you, but I see a big difference between the state endorsing a religion and the state aknowledging religion itself.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

They are also acknowledging a specific type of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[...]" And that means any religion, any type of religion and any style of religion. Congress cannot favor anything like that.

 

[Eor]

Breaking the law? As strong as that? I dunno about you, but I see a big difference between the state endorsing a religion and the state aknowledging religion itself.

"one nation under God." That's the key word. It is endorsing. It's not "One nation that has religion", it's very specific in that our nation is "Under" the Judeo-Christian God, which is how it was intended and how it is perceived.

 

[Zink]

They are also acknowledging a specific type of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[...]" And that means any religion, any type of religion and any style of religion. Congress cannot favor anything like that.

And is this "establishing" a religion? Not really. It aknowledges religion exists, mentioning it, but not "favoring" it, I would say.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

And is this "establishing" a religion? Not really. It aknowledges religion exists, mentioning it, but not "favoring" it, I would say.

What Eor said.

 

[digitalmaster287]

I think that it should be taken out, simply because it is basically telling any polytheistic religions that they are wrong. Can you imagine the Christian reaction if it was changed to "In the many Gods we trust"? It is the same thing. Even if it was a foreign country that had that message on their money, I'm sure the entire thing would get spread to the entire world, like those Danish comics...

 

[Mediocre]

And is this "establishing" a religion? Not really. It aknowledges religion exists, mentioning it, but not "favoring" it, I would say.

The phrase "under God" in the pledge was unequivocally added to promote Christianity. The phrase "in God we trust" is also pretty clearly promoting Christianity, although you could argue that it was promoting religion in general.

Click here and here.

These phrases are not merely acknowledging that religion exists, they are saying that we trust in God. They're saying we are under God. You may consider yourself to be, but I certainly don't.

The government is very obviously promoting religion if they are telling everyone in the United States that they trust in God, and that they are under God. That's not simply "mentioning" religion. That's promoting it, and I really don't see how you can argue that it's not.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

They should also change the national motto back to E Pluribus Unum. If that isn't an establishment of religion, then I don't know what is.

 

[pikachun00b7]

Oh you silly politically correct extremists.

 

[Mediocre]

Oh you silly politically correct extremists.

Politically correct? I expect the government to be politically correct, yeah. I don't much care about anybody else, though.

Extremists? Hardly. Removing misplaced religious zealotry from government is not extremism. It's moderation. Forcing your religion into the government is extremism. Taking it out again is moderation.

I don't expect the government to endorse my beliefs. I just expect it to be neutral, and secular. Why should Christians expect it to endorse theirs?

 

[pikachun00b7]

Politically correct? I expect the government to be politically correct, yeah. I don't much care about anybody else, though.

Extremists? Hardly. Removing misplaced religious zealotry from government is not extremism. It's moderation. Forcing your religion into the government is extremism. Taking it out again is moderation.

I don't expect the government to endorse my beliefs. I just expect it to be neutral, and secular. Why should Christians expect it to endorse theirs?

Cool down. I hardly call this forcing religion on someone. It was not even added for the sake of religion! But to promote Capitalism instead.

It was added to the pledge in the Cold War. Implying that communists were godless, and rasing the pride in a capitalist society. It should be taken out for its outdatedness, not for religion purposes.

 

[Mediocre]

Cool down.

Cool down? Did I say anything that sounded angry, or even annoyed?

You really shouldn't tell someone to cool down when they're not "warmed up" to begin with.

I hardly call this forcing religion on someone. It was not even added for the sake of religion! But to promote Capitalism instead.

It was added to the pledge in the Cold War. Implying that communists were godless, and rasing the pride in a capitalist society. It should be taken out for its outdatedness, not for religion purposes.

I never said that it was forcing religion on anyone. Obviously, it isn't. It is, however, forcing religion into government, a place where it shouldn't be.

No, it was not added to promote capitalism, or at least not simply to promote capitalism. It was added to combat atheism, which was associated with communism, and had a very negative stigma at the time. The fact that the communists were characterized as "godless" and that this was intended to be derogatory (as if atheism was a bad thing) just makes it even worse.

I'm sorry, but if the government is using atheism to vilify people that makes it much worse than if they are simply promoting religion.

I'm glad you agree that it should be removed, but I don't think it makes it okay for the government to promote religion no matter what the circumstances, whether they're trying to stop the "godless communists" or not. Your logic does not make sense to me.