politcally correct? or incorrect?

Live Vote: Should ‘In God We Trust’ be yanked? - Faith- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/)
i cant believe this. are we so quick to satsify a few, that screw the rest of us?

may god save us from these imbeciles

God will have to save us as is evident from things such as this we have no power to save ourselves.
(comments provide courtesy of Saden may be taken out of context)

If separation of church and state is in our constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment) why does the word god appear in our currency and is our national motto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)? This is a legitimate concern (http://www.nonbeliever.org/images/CR102-13917.pdf). Whether a majority of people want it is irrelevant. Personally I don't care but I understand why people care and these people are no different than gun loving second amenders.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The motto E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto. However, by 1956 it had not been established so by legislation as the official "national motto". The Congressional Record of 1956 reads: "At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that 'In God we trust' be so designated as U.S. national motto."

First, the term "separation of church and state" is not in our Constitution, which Saden proves by highlighting the text of the Bill of Rights. The clause is simple when it say:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
A motto does not, and can not establish a religion. Nor does it prohibit one from following any religious belief they may have. So it is legal for the Congress to establish one. Having said that, given the politics of the day, it is also legal for them to un-establish one.

I really think this argument mostly is just for people who like to stir the pot because it is very clear to most intelligent people, that we are not an Anglican, or Islamic, or Atheistic state, and that what one chooses to believe(or not believe) and worship in their house and places of worship are not controlled by the State.

edit: I had not looked at the poll results, as of now, only 15% said yes, so again, just media trying to stir the pot.

Since when are we to follow the Constitution? It's funny that people point to the Constitution when they have a bone to pick. When people get bombed and the government runs the country into bankruptcy that's ok, as long as a D or an R do it.

Who is the dumb atheist that worries about what's on a dollar? I'm pretty close to being an atheist myself and I say, "don't worry about what's on the dollar, worry about how much it's worth."

Politically incorrect is un-Constitutional since the Free Speech Clause was set up to protect political speech IE the King Of England.

There are certainly legitimate cases where one could argue that the presence of religious language in a public context raises questions regarding the establishment clause, but I don't think this is one of them. Does anyone really believe that "In God We Trust" on the currency has the affect of establishing a state religion? How does such a motto violate someone's rights? Are there atheists who feel like second class citizens because someone pays them with this sectarian, God money?

These campaigns to purge the public square of any reference to God no matter how benign or ceremonial, actually create more division and strife than they alleviate, which was what the establisment clause was all about avoiding in the first case.

Who the frick cares.

Who the frick cares.

I agree there are bigger fish to fry than whats on the U.S. currency...

"In God We Trust" motto indicates preference of theistic religion to no religion at all. Congress did in fact pass a legislation (H. J. Res. 396 (http://members.purespeed.com/%7Emg/images/CR102-13917.pdf)) that made it a national motto in 1956. I wonder how you guys would feel if we replaced God with Jesus and used "In Jesus We Trust?" This motto is not limited to just money either, it is fully flaunted in court houses all across the country and the Supreme Court is ducking (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/14/supremecourt/main1041947.shtml) the issue, and for an understandable reason. It's politically too hot and hard to swallow for the majority, especially folks who believe "we're a Christian nation."

I don't mind using the word God and I think it's great message to have on our currency, in court houses not so much, a court house is after all a place of reason not faith. Unlike you folks I am not in denial about the whole matter being in violation of the constitution especially as indicated by the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.


Jefferson doing it big as always:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

-Thomas Jefferson (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

One of the points I should have made in the anti-religious bigotry thread is that the constitution offers both freedom of religion and separation of church and state, but not freedom from religion, which is how a lot of people wish to interpret it.

These people are wrong.