• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

In God We Divide?

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The words don't have to "establish" something to be in violation. The Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.." If Congress voted for funding the building with that inscription, they are RESPECTING an establishment of religion.

Befuddled Stoner got it right:

The Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.."

If Congress voted for funding the building with that inscription, they are not respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

The words have to ESTABLISH something to be in violation.

The words establish nothing, the words violate nothing, you suffer no damage by their presence.

You have no case.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.."

If Congress voted for funding the building with that inscription, they are not respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

The words have to ESTABLISH something to be in violation.

The words establish nothing, the words violate nothing, you suffer no damage by their presence.

You have no case.

Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion

Congress shall make no law having anything to do with an establishment of religion

The words establish that there is a God in the eyes of the government, the God of a monotheistic religion. Congress can't even establish religion itself, which it did by nmandating that phrase.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion

Source

"In God We trust" is not a law, so it can establish nothing.

Congress approving a cultural vestige like this establishes nothing.

Congress shall make no law having anything to do with an establishment of religion

Source please?

The words establish that there is a God in the eyes of the government,

Those words only represent the fact that the citizens of the country, not the governing judicial body, place faith in a god, which is true.

....the God of a monotheistic religion.

Your argument is so week that it can't even name the religion that was allegedly established.

Come on, are we talking about Jesus, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster....who?

Congress can't even establish religion itself, which it did by nmandating that phrase.

You still have not sourced any national religion, and doing so is so easy it is beyond me why you haven't already.

You say there is, so name it and give a link to its Federal web sight.

***
Honestly I don't know why your straw-manning your own side by not taking up its best arguments.

"In God We trust" is nothing more than a feel-good motto placed on money the same time the US dollar was taken off the gold standard. By placing that motto on currency people transpose some of their faith in God to the dollar...’cuz there's nothing ells holding it up but our faith.....different thread.

Why aren't you talking about tax exempt status for churches?

Why aren’t you taking about priests having the judicial power to officiate a secular state marriage license?

Why aren’t you talking about the military’s
Chaplin Corps
?

Those 3 examples are clear violations of the Wall of Separation as each of them either give judicial power to a church and/or establish religion.

"In God We Trust", however, is a non-issue.
It affects secular judicial law not.
 
Last edited:

PoliticalActivist

Active member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
284
Reaction score
19
Location
Highland Park Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You're wrong. No one has to swear on the Bible before testifying in court. Yor're wrong on the Presidential oath, too. A bible is not required. All that is required is the President swear to uphold the Constitution.

How am I wrong? You the one who is incorrect. Before a Judge,President,or
a witness takes the oath they are sworn in with the bible. It may not be a
requirement, but its a reality event, and you need to live up to your screen name.....tryreading.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion

Congress shall make no law having anything to do with an establishment of religion

The words establish that there is a God in the eyes of the government, the God of a monotheistic religion. Congress can't even establish religion itself, which it did by nmandating that phrase.
Since when is "God" the same thing as "religion?"
 

bigsmitty

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
168
Reaction score
45
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm not into religion, but I really don't care. I doubt anyone else really would either, considering most Americans don't even know who's on the $10 bill. In a well-informed, conscious society, it might matter, but I don't see it here.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A dollar's a dollar and it'll help pay for that abortion rather it says "In God We Trust" or not.

If "In God We Trust" were an establishment of religion then every dollar spent on a gay lover would be a Federal offence.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A dollar's a dollar and it'll help pay for that abortion rather it says "In God We Trust" or not.

If "In God We Trust" were an establishment of religion then every dollar spent on a gay lover would be a Federal offence.


Pretty much the dollar lies, eh?!;)
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Source

"In God We trust" is not a law, so it can establish nothing.

Congress approving a cultural vestige like this establishes nothing.



Source please?



Those words only represent the fact that the citizens of the country, not the governing judicial body, place faith in a god, which is true.



Your argument is so week that it can't even name the religion that was allegedly established.

Come on, are we talking about Jesus, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster....who?



You still have not sourced any national religion, and doing so is so easy it is beyond me why you haven't already.

You say there is, so name it and give a link to its Federal web sight..

...an establishment of religion...

You are adding words. You are saying a national religion. The actual law reads as above.

Congress, in 1954, mandated that 'In God We Trust' be printed on American currency. These words don't just represent something. They state unquestionably that we as a nation trust in God and the phrase is mandated by law to be imprinted on dollars minted and backed by the government.

Congress shouldn't be telling anybody to trust or believe in a God, any more than they should be telling us to not believe in a God.

What if we printed 'In God We Trust, but some of us think He is a myth' on money. Or, 'In God We Trust, Or Not.' That would be more accurate. Would that be okay with you? It wouldn't with me either, leave religion to itself without the government intervening.

I will never understand why some people want government interfering in their religion.


[
Honestly I don't know why your straw-manning your own side by not taking up its best arguments.

"In God We trust" is nothing more than a feel-good motto placed on money the same time the US dollar was taken off the gold standard. By placing that motto on currency people transpose some of their faith in God to the dollar...’cuz there's nothing ells holding it up but our faith.....different thread.

Why aren't you talking about tax exempt status for churches?

Why aren’t you taking about priests having the judicial power to officiate a secular state marriage license?

Why aren’t you talking about the military’s
Chaplin Corps
?

Those 3 examples are clear violations of the Wall of Separation as each of them either give judicial power to a church and/or establish religion.

"In God We Trust", however, is a non-issue.
It affects secular judicial law not.

The dollar was taken off the gold standard in 1971. These laws were made well before that.

Congress does what it thinks it can get away with. During McCarthyism's height and the era of the cold war, some thought we could show how much better we were than the Godless communists by officially and legislatively involving God in our government. That was the thing. There is always a desire by some to legislate their God into our government, and at times they have gotten away with it.

We have had unprecedented inflation since being off the gold standard, and though 'In God We Trust' didn't help with that, staying on the gold standard would have. Faith doesn't support the dollar that well.

I have often talked about tax exempt status for churches. Actually, that status helps keep religion and government a little further apart than churches would like it, so its kind of a good thing. First, churches have limited government influence since they are not chipping in to the coffers. (One can also argue that since churches are supposed to be separate from government, they should not be required to pay taxes to the government). And, since most churches are charitable institutions with 503 (c) status, the backing of political candidates by church leaders, when in church, is illegal. These are effective divisions between church and you-know-who.

The priest/ marriage thing? Rome wasn't built in a day. I haven't gotten to that one yet.

The Chaplain corp is a problem too. I don't like it, James Madison fought it. It is ripe for abuse. There has been abuse in that system lately by some of the Christian Chaplains. There will be abuses there in the future. We should talk about it sometime (although, correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to remember you are against it too). But for now, In God We Trust came up and its a good subject for discussion.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How am I wrong? You the one who is incorrect. Before a Judge,President,or
a witness takes the oath they are sworn in with the bible. It may not be a
requirement, but its a reality event, and you need to live up to your screen name.....tryreading.

There is no requirement for a witness to swear on a Bible. You said below that witnesses must do it, but that's wrong.

And actually, some presidents have not done it during their oaths. It is an individual choice.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Since when is "God" the same thing as "religion?"

Since bombastic pandering hypocritical Congressmen decided God was no more pure than their need for attention and re-election, and their desire for government support of their weak faith.

I didn't demote him.

Nice to see you on a non-abortion thread, btw.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since bombastic pandering hypocritical Congressmen decided God was no more pure than their need for attention and re-election, and their desire for government support of their weak faith.
uh...okay...remind me not to tick you off...;) :mrgreen:

I didn't demote him.
:lol:
Nice to see you on a non-abortion thread, btw.
Hey baby...I get around...I just save myself for special moments.;)
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What about a motto that says...

"In God We Trust....All Others, Pay Cash..."
 

hypgnostic

Banned
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
628
Reaction score
75
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
EXACTLY, we are one of the few countries that are removing faith from everything.

When we can finally succeed in removing 'God' and faith from the planet, we can finally start to know what it is like to live in peace.

God was the first cop.

I believe you're wrong though about US being one of the 'few' countries that removes faith, because most European countries, Australia and many parts of Asia make a point of not involving their governments in religion. That is why they have such low crime rates because there are less extremist religious freaks bent on indoctrinating others with their lies and bogus promises. I think it's very obvious that religion causes war and violence because that is all we see when we look at theocratic countries. Or for that matter, we can look at Hiter's faith in Christianity to see where his ideologies were derived.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
...an establishment of religion...

You are adding words. You are saying a national religion. The actual law reads as above.

We're just going to keep going in circles until you make an argument evidencing that "In God We Trust" has established religion.

Congress, in 1954, mandated that 'In God We Trust' be printed on American currency. These words don't just represent something. They state unquestionably that we as a nation trust in God and the phrase is mandated by law to be imprinted on dollars minted and backed by the government.

The majority of Americans do place faith is some form of a "god". Saying so is just stating a fact and there's nothing wrong with calling the sky blue.

Congress shouldn't be telling anybody to trust or believe in a God, any more than they should be telling us to not believe in a God.

Congress is not telling anyone to believe in any "god". Congress is not telling anyone to disbelieve in any "god".

What if we printed 'In God We Trust, but some of us think He is a myth' on money. Or, 'In God We Trust, Or Not.' That would be more accurate. Would that be okay with you? It wouldn't with me either, leave religion to itself without the government intervening.

I can do ya one better.
There is a Greek goddess on the CA state seal.

As a former citizen of CA and as a Christian who views the Greek gods as the Nephilim described in Genesis 6, I have no issue with it.

The presence of a picture on a state seal is just a cultural vestige, it neither established that “god” nor the Greek pantheon, nor did it grant any temple who worship that god judicial power.

I will never understand why some people want government interfering in their religion.

That's a misnomer.

The dollar was taken off the gold standard in 1971. These laws were made well before that.

I stand corected.

Congress does what it thinks it can get away with. During McCarthyism's height and the era of the cold war, some thought we could show how much better we were than the Godless communists by officially and legislatively involving God in our government. That was the thing. There is always a desire by some to legislate their God into our government, and at times they have gotten away with it.

This is true.

We have had unprecedented inflation since being off the gold standard, and though 'In God We Trust' didn't help with that, staying on the gold standard would have. Faith doesn't support the dollar that well.

I grant you that I would rather be back on the gold standerd.

I have often talked about tax exempt status for churches. Actually, that status helps keep religion and government a little further apart than churches would like it, so its kind of a good thing. First, churches have limited government influence since they are not chipping in to the coffers. (One can also argue that since churches are supposed to be separate from government, they should not be required to pay taxes to the government). And, since most churches are charitable institutions with 503 (c) status, the backing of political candidates by church leaders, when in church, is illegal. These are effective divisions between church and you-know-who.

I've seen it argued that 501 (c) status granted to a church "respects an establishment of religion". I think it's an issue which could be argued either way. Very sticky.

The priest/ marriage thing? Rome wasn't built in a day. I haven't gotten to that one yet.

I would have assumed that this issue would have been fought before IGWT, as the violation can be clearly identified.

Let the church hold whatever religious ceremony it chooses, but when it comes to obtaining the legal status of "married" with the state, that is an issue for the court house, not the church.

Also, that argument can be fought on the flanks of the gay 'marriage movement, in that gay 'marriage advocates assert that marriage is nothing more than a "strictly legal contract", and, given the Wall of Separation, no religious institution should have any say in rather or not 2 people of the same gender may marry.

I'm not familiar with the official title a priest holds when he has the authority to officiate a marriage license, but I do know that having that authority makes him some level of state official.

As a state official he can not invoke a religious conviction as grounds to deny a marriage license.

Perhaps this is not the case in every state, but my experience is that marriage licenses are under "shall-issue" status.

Denying a marriage license on the grounds of the religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin is akin to denying a pistol permit on the grounds of the religious conviction that violence is a sin.

I wonder what the world would be like if priests could officiate concealed-carry licenses.

Any different?

The Chaplain corp is a problem too. I don't like it, James Madison fought it. It is ripe for abuse. There has been abuse in that system lately by some of the Christian Chaplains. There will be abuses there in the future. We should talk about it sometime (although, correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to remember you are against it too). But for now, In God We Trust came up and its a good subject for discussion.

We’re in agreement here.

***
I compare IGWT with things like the Chaplin Corps and I'm just not seeing a violation.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We're just going to keep going in circles until you make an argument evidencing that "In God We Trust" has established religion.

While circling, please revisit the actual wording. This is where you went haywire.

Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion..

Nobody is saying the words "In God we Trust" established a religion. Those words are paying respect to a monotheistic religion that has already been established.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While circling, please revisit the actual wording. This is where you went haywire.

Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion..

Nobody is saying the words "In God we Trust" established a religion. Those words are paying respect to a monotheistic religion that has already been established.

I'll just say it as cut and dry as I know:

A citizen's trust in any "God" is not an ESTABLISHED religion.

It is a personal trust.

Therefore saying that many citizens ("We") trust "God" does not respect an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

It respects a personal trust that many people share, nothing more.
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,296
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'll just say it as cut and dry as I know:

A citizen's trust in any "God" is not an ESTABLISHED religion.

It is a personal trust.

Therefore saying that many citizens ("We") trust "God" does not respect an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

It respects a personal trust that many people share, nothing more.


God represents an ESTABLISHED religion, not the INSTITUTION of some religion. Those having a "personal" trust in God, even if they don't support any institution of religion, are worshipping an "established" religion. As you pointed out, while the majority of the population does worship a God, not 100% does, so the statement is a lie as well.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know...the word that hangs me up on this is "respecting."

I think it is being used to say "concerning"--not offering "high regard for."

If you read it Congress should make no law "concerning" the establishment of religion--the point is moot. That means Congress should just stay out of it--make no laws for or against. But also the amendment says you can't abridge the free excersize of religion--so if people want to put up the 10 commandments and say "In God We Trust"--even if it's on our money....Congress needs to let that happen.
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,311
Reaction score
3,296
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
You know...the word that hangs me up on this is "respecting."

I think it is being used to say "concerning"--not offering "high regard for."

If you read it Congress should make no law "concerning" the establishment of religion--the point is moot. That means Congress should just stay out of it--make no laws for or against. But also the amendment says you can't abridge the free excersize of religion--so if people want to put up the 10 commandments and say "In God We Trust"--even if it's on our money....Congress needs to let that happen.

:doh You're contradicting yourself, first you say Congress should make no laws for or against, they you say they should vote for allowing Ten Commandment displays and "In God We Trust" mottos. Allowing religious displays is CONCERNING themselves, and us, since they represent US, with establishment. Now if you are correct that disallowing religious displays is interfering with religious rights, they would have to allow religious displays from EVERY religion represented in this country, which is at least 2000 different religions.

Synonyms for "respecting" are "concerning" and "considering". All of them mean that Congress should keep hands off.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know...the word that hangs me up on this is "respecting."

I think it is being used to say "concerning"--not offering "high regard for."

If you read it Congress should make no law "concerning" the establishment of religion--the point is moot. That means Congress should just stay out of it--make no laws for or against. But also the amendment says you can't abridge the free excersize of religion--so if people want to put up the 10 commandments and say "In God We Trust"--even if it's on our money....Congress needs to let that happen.

I agree with the first part of your post. But the exercise of religion is controlled all the time. For instance, you can not pray out loud in a court room that is in session. You'll be told to be quiet. If you continue, you'll be removed from the room, and possibly held in contempt and jailed. This is government control of religion, and it is legal and accepted. In other words, religious action can be controlled.

What is illegal for the government to do, in all cases, is to tell you what to worship or tell you to worship (or not worship) anything at all. There is no exception to this. Religious thought can not be controlled.

That means religious symbols and monuments can be kept out of public buildings. There is no freedom to do whatever one wants in the name of their religion.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If Congress can make no law *concerning* an establishment of religion, then the very next line in that amendment is illegal.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We're just going to keep going in circles until you make an argument evidencing that "In God We Trust" has established religion.



The majority of Americans do place faith is some form of a "god". Saying so is just stating a fact and there's nothing wrong with calling the sky blue.



Congress is not telling anyone to believe in any "god". Congress is not telling anyone to disbelieve in any "god".



I can do ya one better.
There is a Greek goddess on the CA state seal.

As a former citizen of CA and as a Christian who views the Greek gods as the Nephilim described in Genesis 6, I have no issue with it.

The presence of a picture on a state seal is just a cultural vestige, it neither established that “god” nor the Greek pantheon, nor did it grant any temple who worship that god judicial power.



That's a misnomer.



I stand corected.



This is true.



I grant you that I would rather be back on the gold standerd.



I've seen it argued that 501 (c) status granted to a church "respects an establishment of religion". I think it's an issue which could be argued either way. Very sticky.



I would have assumed that this issue would have been fought before IGWT, as the violation can be clearly identified.

Let the church hold whatever religious ceremony it chooses, but when it comes to obtaining the legal status of "married" with the state, that is an issue for the court house, not the church.

Also, that argument can be fought on the flanks of the gay 'marriage movement, in that gay 'marriage advocates assert that marriage is nothing more than a "strictly legal contract", and, given the Wall of Separation, no religious institution should have any say in rather or not 2 people of the same gender may marry.

I'm not familiar with the official title a priest holds when he has the authority to officiate a marriage license, but I do know that having that authority makes him some level of state official.

As a state official he can not invoke a religious conviction as grounds to deny a marriage license.

Perhaps this is not the case in every state, but my experience is that marriage licenses are under "shall-issue" status.

Denying a marriage license on the grounds of the religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin is akin to denying a pistol permit on the grounds of the religious conviction that violence is a sin.

I wonder what the world would be like if priests could officiate concealed-carry licenses.

Any different?



We’re in agreement here.

***
I compare IGWT with things like the Chaplin Corps and I'm just not seeing a violation.

Congress mandating that 'In God We Trust' be printed on American currency is illegal, because Congress has made a law respecting an establishment of religion. That's my point, and I'm sticking to it.

The majority of Americans can state they believe in God all they want. But our government can't.

There are Greek and Roman Gods, and pagan symbols, on a lot of the currency printed before last century.

No misnomer. Any religion intermixed in our government intermixes our government with religion to the same degree. For instance, the 501(c) status we're talking about is available to churches that are charitable if those churches agree their leader cannot stump for a political candidate while in the pulpit. The church gets a very desirable break, but only while it cooperates with the government, which gives the government some control over the church itself.
 
Top Bottom