Timothy

There should be more options. That goes to both extremes.

I don’t really care either way. I don’t needs “In God We Trust” to keep faith, and I don’t need it gone to prove anything to theists.

Anyway, both of those arguments are lame and overused. This debate seems to be never-ending.
Michael

Looks like someone already crashed this one. 🙁
John

Timothy, the poll doesn’t ask whether you want to prove anything to anyone, so I’m not sure what that has to do with it.

Also, just because an argument is lame or overused does not mean it’s wrong. A governmental mandate displaying “In God We Trust” on currency does, in fact, violate the principle of separation of church and state.
Dan

You should bring this to the attention of the people who are guest blogging over at pharyngula; the readers there’ll crash it good and proper.
Timothy

Too many people think of seperation of church and state as saying “The church can’t rule the government”. Taking that mindset, I’ve made my comment above in response to those types of people.

To me, “In God We Trust” does violate it, because it’s allowing the government to control religion in the state. Which is wrong.

I said something about proving because that’s where I’m at right now. In my walk (yes, I am a Christian as much as I hate the word) I can’t stand to see when people want to use the phrase “In God We Trust” to “prove” that this nation was founded on their faith.

It’s just that this whole arguing thing about this is tiring, and I’m a bit annoyed that it keeps on getting brought up like this. Honestly, what’s more important is that we kick our butts into high gear to help the hungry, the dying, and the sick. Rather than worrying about the money that will be incinerated eventually says.
John Sutton

This result is another reason why we need to get ourselves organised in order to combat the disease of religion. Faith leaders can direct their gullible members to vote on mass.
llewelly

msnbc :

An atheist who has spent four years trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in public schools …

Wikipedia :

Newdow is best known for the lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words “under God” in public schools’ recitals of the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Seeking to remove the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance is very different from seeking to ban the pledge entirely. This is far more serious than the poll.

PS, your captcha code is broken. If I typo on the first try, the captcha fails to display for the second and third tries.
Siamang

I love (read: hate) the phrasing of the question… the term “patriotic significance”.

Yeah, that’s not fucking loaded.

It’s a push-poll. We need to push back.
Siamang

Hi Timothy.

You know, it really doesn’t bother me, the In God We Trust. It’s just a little reminder that I’m not wholly a “patriotic American” in the eyes of the powerful.

I do resent the religious oath within the pledge of allegiance, for my daughter’s sake, who will be starting to recite it come September. She doesn’t understand this now, but eventually she’ll realize that she’ll need to make a choice there between fitting in, being honest about the beliefs of our family, or swearing a false oath to God. I guess only God is offended by swearing a false oath to Him, and since (in our view) He doesn’t exist, we can’t really be breaking that commandment.

An overly cynical lesson for a child. Especially when attempting to teach here to value the freedoms of our nation. Here in America we’re free to be different, but not THAT different!
Aj

It’s one of the least subtle violations of the separation of church and state, but it’s also one of the most harmless. That people want it to stay because of “patriotic significance” should be enough for atheists to want it gone, that doesn’t sound good at all. Lets not forget that it’s there because people hated and distrusted atheists.

Symbols aren’t the biggest problem when there are laws and policies giving money to, promoting, and empowering religion. It should be the last thing on the list but it’s not as tiny an issue as some try to make out.
Alex

I alerted Pharyngulites. Our government should have NOTHING to say about deities of any cult or superstition, let alone announcing that all of its citizens put their trust in one.
Mriana

Love the new look of your blog, Hemant. 🙂

I voted yes, but I don’t think it’s going to help much from the looks of things.
sharon

I like the edited version:
“In God We Trust… Others Pay Cash”
Bjorn Watland

This argument is different depending on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Historically, this has been used to keep the Federal Government from using public funds to support any religious organization for the purpose of practicing or promoting their religion. This is why who is on the Supreme Court matters so much. The other view, is that as long as the US Government does not establish a State religion, anything else is fair game.
Arnoc Grayle

I consider it ridiculous that it mentions only one god and him not even specifically. This whole planet doesn’t look like it was under construction nor under planning let alone the rule of only one. I seem to have difficulties to understand that some think of it this way completely serious. o_O
hoverFrog

If it were “In Allah We Trust” would people see it as a problem? Allah is simply another word for God after all.

What about “In Yahweh we Trust”?

“In Jehovah we Trust”?

“In ‘I Am’ We Trust”

Of course “God” is a title as well as a name. How do people feel about “In Vishnu We Trust”? Or “In Thor we Trust”? Marvel Comics might like the last one.

If someone wants to place their trust in a particular god or gods then that is their business, their personal belief. It should not be forced on others by government mandate. It is a denial of the right to choose when, how and if to worship.

It makes me proud that we have a picture of Charles Darwin on some of our money in England. As a promissory note it promises more than just the financial promise of goods to a certain value. It says we honour those men and women who have shaped our nation. You do the same yet you defer it to an unseen and unfelt deity, effectively denying the strength and influence of your great people.
ubi dubius

“Yes” is up to 19%. By my calculations, 63% of the vote since Hemant started this has gone our way.
sapient humanista

just voted, PJ’s minions are making a difference. 25% – 75%
Awesomesauce

Just voted.

31% yes
69% no
rebekah

I alerted all my atheist/agnostic knitters. It’s now up to 35%.
Jack

It’s 3 years old.
John B.

I love (read: hate) the phrasing of the question… the term “patriotic significance”.

Yeah, that’s not fucking loaded.

Exactly what I thought. Throw in two loaded words, “patriotic” and “historical”. Nice way to skew that poll.

error: Content is protected !!