How is "In God we Trust" and "Under God" constitutional?

[Zephie]

I read that "In God We Trust" was constitutional because it lost its religious meaning. This just seems to me like a shitty excuse to me though. Can anyone explain this to me?

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the constitution. Someone asks how it's constitutional to put God on money.

[Srboslavija]

In conclusion, the majority of the population [including President Obama] take no issue with "In God We Trust", "Under God", 'So help me God" and so forth, which ensures that they will remain the status quo for a long time to come.

[San Leggera]

No, it wouldn't. You inferred it.

The motto refers only to the Christian god; but yes, it can be interpreted as referring to the collective Abrahamic god. The change I suggested refers to all gods and was intentionally pluralised so that it's obvious more than one religion is being focused on.

Anyone could infer that your change points to a religion of multiple Gods. It would therefore be confusing to some and to those adherents of multiple God religions it could serve as a validation for them only. This is a circular argument going nowhere.

Let's put it this way. Four people have a car of their own, each of them a different model. They drive them to a valet service and tell the valet to look after their cars; not their car. Does that make sense?

[Nua Corda]

I read that "In God We Trust" was constitutional because it lost its religious meaning. This just seems to me like a shitty excuse to me though. Can anyone explain this to me?

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the constitution. Someone asks how it's constitutional to put God on money.

Freedom from religion is also guaranteed under the Constitution. It's a reasonable question.

[Condunum]

Yes, the graph is on the wiki page. It's not an image link, however.

Ok, see, that's where I got confused. Thank you for straightening it out. I apologize for my impatience.

It's alright. I'm really just jumping in here because I saw a dog pile, and figured he needed someone to help him, even if I do disagree with most of his points.

Fair enough. But is it really intellectually honest to lump them into atheism, just to declare a nation a majority atheist nation?

It is if they don't believe in any deities, as that is the sole qualification for atheism. "Scientific" on the other hand…

While I recognize this - I've entirely argued this point myself - I don't find it at all reasonable to lump the entire group into Atheism. It's quite possible that many are indeed theistic, in their own individual sense. That's why I don't really like these sort of surveys, because they provide no depth. Then, none really do.

[Wikkiwallana]

In conclusion, the majority of the population [including President Obama] take no issue with "In God We Trust", "Under God", 'So help me God" and so forth, which ensures that they will remain the status quo for a long time to come.

This isn't an issue that's up to majority vote.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

viewtopic.php?p=12110612#p12110612
viewtopic.php?p=12110780#p12110780

That's cool. You know you only need to link me to something once, right?

I don't know that. Several people have repeated themselves over and over again with no luck - taking his position, I assumed your mental capacity was similar to that of Srboslavija. Sorry if that's not the case.

[Nua Corda]

In conclusion, the majority of the population [including President Washington] take no issue with slavery, which ensures that it will remain the status quo for a long time to come.

See the flaw here? My edited statement is just as true, but that does not make it right.

[Zephie]

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the constitution. Someone asks how it's constitutional to put God on money.

Freedom from religion is also guaranteed under the Constitution. It's a reasonable question.

"in god we trust" on your monies is hardly oppression

[Demara]

(quick summary of the location for disagreement in this kind of discussion, courtesy of a good friend of ours on the subject of religion [hopefully been read, of course]:)

"If it is useful to know what a given religion consists of; it is far more important to examine what religion is in general. This is a problem that has always intrigued philosophers and not without reason: It is of interest to all humanity. Unfortunately, the method philosophers ordinarily use to solve it is purely one of dialectic: All they do is analyse the idea they have of religion, even if they have to illustrate the results of that mental analysis with examples borrowed from those religions that best suit their model." - Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (my copy is the 1995 Karen E. Fields translation, btw. My emphasis.).

If you are having this discussion and haven't read the grandfather of all sociological texts on the nature and basis for religion, shame on you, and go to the library/bookstore/internet, grab and copy, and read it. Please. It'll certainly deepen your understanding on a subject many people feel the need to bloviate on about pointlessly, and without any conception beyond the merely superficial.

[Condunum]

In conclusion, the majority of the population [including President Obama] take no issue with "In God We Trust", "Under God", 'So help me God" and so forth, which ensures that they will remain the status quo for a long time to come.

I'd like to see a survey on this, to know who would approve of a return of our old motto, "From one, Many."

[Srboslavija]

In conclusion, the majority of the population [including President Obama] take no issue with "In God We Trust", "Under God", 'So help me God" and so forth, which ensures that they will remain the status quo for a long time to come.

This isn't an issue that's up to majority vote.

That's just the thing - it's not up for vote. Period.

Unless you're counting NSG polls, lol.

[Condunum]

That's cool. You know you only need to link me to something once, right?

I don't know that. Several people have repeated themselves over and over again with no luck - taking his position, I assumed your mental capacity was similar to that of Srboslavija. Sorry if that's not the case.

I'm just giving a helping hand to someone who I thought I saw a dogpile on.

[Nua Corda]

Freedom from religion is also guaranteed under the Constitution. It's a reasonable question.

"in god we trust" on your monies is hardly oppression

No, but it implies a de-facto acceptance of Christian religion in the US government, which is unconstitutional. Remember, the question here isn't "is it right?" it's "is it constitutional?".

[Zephie]

"in god we trust" on your monies is hardly oppression

No, but it implies a de-facto acceptance of Christian religion in the US government, which is unconstitutional. Remember, the question here isn't "is it right?" it's "is it constitutional?".

Christianity is the only religion that believes in God? EVERYTHING I KNOW HAS BEEN A LIE.

[Condunum]

This isn't an issue that's up to majority vote.

That's just the thing - it's not up for vote. Period.

Unless you're counting NSG polls, lol.

It very well could be, if the people demand it. And quite frankly, the atheist population is large enough that we could demand it.

[Ecans]

Anyone could infer that your change points to a religion of multiple Gods. It would therefore be confusing to some and to those adherents of multiple God religions it could serve as a validation for them only. This is a circular argument going nowhere.

Let's put it this way. Four people have a car of their own, each of them a different model. They drive them to a valet service and tell the valet to look after their cars; not their car. Does that make sense?

Sure. But a follower of the Abrahamic religions would say "I pray to God". Those in a multi-God faith could say "I pray to------god, or all my Gods. Hey, they could look at the motto and feel that it points to their favourite God!

[Wikkiwallana]

Ok, see, that's where I got confused. Thank you for straightening it out. I apologize for my impatience.

It's alright. I'm really just jumping in here because I saw a dog pile, and figured he needed someone to help him, even if I do disagree with most of his points.

It is if they don't believe in any deities, as that is the sole qualification for atheism. "Scientific" on the other hand…

While I recognize this - I've entirely argued this point myself - I don't find it at all reasonable to lump the entire group into Atheism. It's quite possible that many are indeed theistic, in their own individual sense. That's why I don't really like these sort of surveys, because they provide no depth. Then, none really do.

Except "Believe in a god" was a choice on the survey. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that if they did believe said spirt or life force included a deity, even one unlike the traditional concept usually associated with the word in the West, they would have marked that choice instead of merely "spirit or life force".

[Duvniask]

No, but it implies a de-facto acceptance of Christian religion in the US government, which is unconstitutional. Remember, the question here isn't "is it right?" it's "is it constitutional?".

Christianity is the only religion that believes in God? EVERYTHING I KNOW HAS BEEN A LIE.

Don't you think the one being implied is the judeo-christian god?

[Wikkiwallana]

Freedom from religion is also guaranteed under the Constitution. It's a reasonable question.

"in god we trust" on your monies is hardly oppression

It's still wrong, though.

[Ifreann]

This isn't an issue that's up to majority vote.

That's just the thing - it's not up for vote. Period.

Therefore it doesn't matter that the majority of the population allegedly takes no issue with "In God We Trust", etc.

[San Leggera]

Let's put it this way. Four people have a car of their own, each of them a different model. They drive them to a valet service and tell the valet to look after their cars; not their car. Does that make sense?

Sure. But a follower of the Abrahamic religions would say "I pray to God". Those in a multi-God faith could say "I pray to------god, or all my Gods. Hey, they could look at the motto and feel that it points to their favourite God!

I'm rather sure a follower of Islam would say 'I pray to Allah' instead. I can't speak for Judaism as I'm not all too knowledgeable on it.
However; you're taking it a little bit out of context - if the motto were to purposely be plural, it would be easier to recognise that it's referring to multiple religions.

[Wikkiwallana]

(quick summary of the location for disagreement in this kind of discussion, courtesy of a good friend of ours on the subject of religion [hopefully been read, of course]:)

"If it is useful to know what a given religion consists of; it is far more important to examine what religion is in general. This is a problem that has always intrigued philosophers and not without reason: It is of interest to all humanity. Unfortunately, the method philosophers ordinarily use to solve it is purely one of dialectic: All they do is analyse the idea they have of religion, even if they have to illustrate the results of that mental analysis with examples borrowed from those religions that best suit their model." - Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (my copy is the 1995 Karen E. Fields translation, btw. My emphasis.).

If you are having this discussion and haven't read the grandfather of all sociological texts on the nature and basis for religion, shame on you, and go to the library/bookstore/internet, grab and copy, and read it. Please. It'll certainly deepen your understanding on a subject many people feel the need to bloviate on about pointlessly, and without any conception beyond the merely superficial.

But bloviating pointlessly is fun! If we're not going to do that, why should we even bother coming on NSG?

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

I don't know that. Several people have repeated themselves over and over again with no luck - taking his position, I assumed your mental capacity was similar to that of Srboslavija. Sorry if that's not the case.

I'm just giving a helping hand to someone who I thought I saw a dogpile on.

You should read his posts. (Well, just read one or two, then you've read them all, really)
Then maybe you'd reconsider if he's actually worth it.

[Srboslavija]

That's just the thing - it's not up for vote. Period.

Unless you're counting NSG polls, lol.

It very well could be, if the people demand it. And quite frankly, the atheist population is large enough that we could demand it.

Already been shot down. Looks like you'll need a third party in 4 years time.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/religion-public-square-us-motto