http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTWLxfIJX2XvW2ic_eN7jIUBJV0Q?docId=a1e4985fd75b4d5b920a19271f32c4d4

House reaffirms 'In God We Trust' as US motto


WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Tuesday passed a non-binding resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

The measure sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., supports and encourages the motto's display in all public schools and government buildings. It was approved 396-9, with 2 abstentions.

Forbes said the resolution was needed because President Obama had once called "E pluribus unum" the national motto, and the Latin phrase meaning "from many one" was engraved in the new Capitol Visitors Center until Congress ordered that it be corrected.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called the resolution a meaningless distraction from the nation's real problems. "Nobody is threatening the national motto," he said.

"In God We Trust" first appeared on U.S. coins during the Civil War in 1864. It officially became the national motto in 1956 and began appearing on paper currency the following year.

Doesn't it make you feel all warm inside that we wish to make it known that God is watching down on all of us, watching the economic crisis and unusually long unemployment claims? But hey, God will take care of us. He's watching over us because he's a loving God.

What ever happened to the separation of church and state again?

Whether for better or worse I think both political parties are unwilling to stray too far from the graces of the "Church". No specific ties to any single branch but I don't see it far fetched for congress to declare the USA as a Christian nation. It already has in a way by keeping "In God We Trust" on money. The influence of the church can be seen at all levels of government.

As long as 78% of Americans claim to be Christian the influence will remain. As I have stated elsewhere the majority of the people on this planet need to believe in some religion to have a purpose in life and without organised religion the world would probably descend into anarchy.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

People do not need religion and this world would not descend into madness without it. Heck, most of those 78% of Christians don't even follow the Gospels now. They follow whatever parts benefit them the most at any given time. Religion isn't so much about belief anymore than it is about rationalization and comforting thoughts.


I personally don't think the US should be considered a Christian nation considering many of the founding fathers have been quoted with negative things to say about religion itself. I interpret the "In God We Trust" on currency to simply be nothing more than the majority forcing their will on the minority, which is not what this country is supposed to be about. Otherwise you are alienating every single non-Christian belief system and non-believers alike. This is not the foundation for an impartial system that respects all beliefs or lack thereof.

Last year, when Democrats controlled the House, they passed more than 250 commemorative resolutions, honoring everything from motherhood to motor homes.

Above from this article:

In God We Trust Reaffirmed

And from The KJV:

Psalm 56:11
In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.

Isaiah 36:7
But if thou say to me, We trust in the Lord our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?

'I will not be afraid what man can do unto me' from Psalm 56:11 is a good meaning for me of The US Motto.

Also from the above article:

In November 2010, in a speech in Jakarta, Indonesia, the president said, “In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum — out of many, one.” That Latin phrase is, indeed, written on the national seal. But it is not the national motto.

Guess Oblahblahblah needed a "Teaching Moment". Of course, Oblahblahblah used This Reaffirmation to get in His Messianic Jibes against The House not doing anything to Create Jobs and such other Weighty Matters.

0.0000001%Dull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

'I will not be afraid what man can do to me' from Psalm 56:11 is a good meaning for me of The US Motto.

Then make it so and leave God out of it so as to no alienate even a small portion of your citizens.

In November 2010, in a speech in Jakarta, Indonesia, the president said, “In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum — out of many, one.” That Latin phrase is, indeed, written on the national seal. But it is not the national motto.

No, but E Pluribus Unum is more neutral, and therefore s better motto than In God We Trust.

Guess Oblahblahblah needed a "Teaching Moment". Of course, Oblahblahblah used This Reaffirmation to get in His Messianic Jibes against The House not doing anything to Create Jobs and such other Weighty Matters.

I don't really care for Dems or Repubs, but I think in this case the GOP was wasting time that could be spent on other weighty matters such as job creation.

I interpret the "In God We Trust" on currency to simply be nothing more than the majority forcing their will on the minority.....

Isn't that what "Democracy" is all about ? I think the term is "majority rule"

Otherwise you are alienating every single non-Christian belief system and non-believers alike. This is not the foundation for an impartial system that respects all beliefs or lack thereof.

In matters like this people are only offended if they want to be and these days people are just too willing to be offended, WTF ever happened to "tolerance". There is no sense living in a country as part of a minority and railing against and being "offended" by the views of the majority. If these "alienated" people take advantage of religion based public holidays such as Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Yom Kippur, whatever (depending on the country they live in) if there is no form of discrimination against them can they really complain?

As a general rule, whether a person believes or not, in any type of philosophy or religion, they should respect and be tolerant of the beliefs and coda of others, and not be offended by the public trappings of such they see around them. It does wonders for your stress levels.

What good would it do for me to be "offended" by the mosque I drive past every day on my way to and from work? The worshippers there give me no grief or hassle. I deal with some of them on a regular basis and get along quite well with them, what they do on their own time is none of my business.

T.A.

I interpret the "In God We Trust" on currency to simply be nothing more than the majority forcing their will on the minority.....

Isn't that what "Democracy" is all about ? I think the term is "majority rule"

Not at all. The idea behind a democracy is to avoid anyone from forcing their will upon anyone else. In this case we have a tyranny of the majority forcing their will upon everyone else. That is not a democracy where all people and their beliefs are equal.

Otherwise you are alienating every single non-Christian belief system and non-believers alike. This is not the foundation for an impartial system that respects all beliefs or lack thereof.

In matters like this people are only offended if they want to be and these days people are just too willing to be offended, WTF ever happened to "tolerance". There is no sense living in a country as part of a minority and railing against and being "offended" by the views of the majority. If these "alienated" people take advantage of religion based public holidays such as Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Yom Kippur, whatever (depending on the country they live in) if there is no form of discrimination against them can they really complain?

As a general rule, whether a person believes or not, in any type of philosophy or religion, they should respect and be tolerant of the beliefs and coda of others, and not be offended by the public trappings of such they see around them. It does wonders for your stress levels.

What good would it do for me to be "offended" by the mosque I drive past every day on my way to and from work? The worshippers there give me no grief or hassle. I deal with some of them on a regular basis and get along quite well with them, what they do on their own time is none of my business.

This isn't about tolerance and being offended, as I am very tolerant of people's beliefs, and I'm not offended by the fact that people believe.

This is about a system for the people, representative of all people (not just the majority), and not giving any bias for any particular view or philosophical belief system.

But I do find it interesting that you attempt to turn it into an issue of tolerance and offense. Couldn't your logic work the other way around as well? All those in support of religion and in favor of In God We Trust are showing their intolerance toward anyone that isn't Christian, and any attempt at making the motto more neutral is a grave offense against their beliefs.

Then make it so and leave God out of it so as to no alienate even a small portion of your citizens.

Then "man" could not be part of it. Would Citizen be satisfactory, Captain Piccard?

In Our Citizens We Trust sounds like A Goodin'.

In this case we have a tyranny of the majority forcing their will upon everyone else. That is not a democracy.

Maybe when you get into A Room of like minded as yourself, The "Tyranny" word will be used, but amongst Most of The Citizenry, we don't Get To Riled About it.

The GreenBack spends The Same no matter what Motto is on it. I care about That Number Thang, not The Motto.

0.000001%Dull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Then make it so and leave God out of it so as to no alienate even a small portion of your citizens.

Then "man" could not be part of it. Would Citizen be satisfactory, Captain Piccard?

It sure would Captain Stubing, leaving "man" out of it as well is fine by me.

In this case we have a tyranny of the majority forcing their will upon everyone else. That is not a democracy.

Maybe when you get into A Room of like minded as yourself, The "Tyranny" word will be used, but amongst Most of The Citizenry, we don't Get To Riled About it.

That's because "most" of the citizenry are the majority and they're the ones being catered to with such a motto. I'd bet that nearly all of the non-Christian and non-believers would disagree about not getting to riled up about it.

The GreenBack spends The Same no matter what Motto is on it. I care about That Number Thang, not The Motto.

Sure they spend the same, but I do believe the Establishment clause of the First Amendment should be upheld since it holds great meaning to many Americans.

Hmm, then why have elections and pass laws. If the concept is to not force 'their' will upon anyone else, then what are laws for?

When you define 'common good' as *100%* then you run into difficulties.

That being said, Congress passing resolutions on God -- well that is a waste of time for so many different reasons.

Not at all. The idea behind a democracy is to avoid anyone from forcing their will upon anyone else. In this case we have a tyranny of the majority forcing their will upon everyone else. That is not a democracy where all people and their beliefs are equal.

---

Hmm, then why have elections and pass laws. If the concept is to not force 'their' will upon anyone else, then what are laws for?

I would think the answers are obvious. Elections are held to put the power of control of the nation in the hands of it's citizens. Laws are passed to ensure a level of equity (fairness) for all citizens. While this can easily be interpreted as forcing a sort of 'will' upon the people, if done right, this will is neutral and non-reflective or biased for any particular group or belief system.

When you define 'common good' as *100%* then you run into difficulties.

Good thing I've done no such thing.

Not at all. The idea behind a democracy is to avoid anyone from forcing their will upon anyone else. In this case we have a tyranny of the majority forcing their will upon everyone else. That is not a democracy where all people and their beliefs are equal.

Ozz, I really think you are pushing this point too far. You take umbrage because the motto on the dollar note says something you don't agree with and therefore you want it removed.

That's the problem with your stance, you appear to think is that your opinion should hold sway even though a signifcant majority disagree with you and then you talk about Democracy ??

Australian bank notes feature, or have featured, a shyster, a person with a criminal record, a drunk who was prone to acts of violence, a minister of religion, an army general and an opera singer. Should I demand the removal of the opera singer because I'm not into opera ? If I followed your line of thinking I should, then, people who are offended by any of the others should demand their removal too, so we finish up with a blank sheet of plastic with a number written on it. THEN, we'll have those from countries where they don't use Arabic based numerals being offended by the numbers. If the opera singer was removed from the Australian note it would offend the opera lovers. Sheesh.

But I do find it interesting that you attempt to turn it into an issue of tolerance and offense. Couldn't your logic work the other way around as well? All those in support of religion and in favor of In God We Trust are showing their intolerance toward anyone that isn't Christian, and any attempt at making the motto more neutral is a grave offense against their beliefs.

That's my point Ozz. It is an issue about tolerance and you are showing how extreme your intolerance is. If the motto was removed to avoid offending you, it would offend approx 100,000,000 other people. Is your opinion really worth more than that of greater than half the population? (Another 100 million just don't care as long as the shop accepts the bill as payment.)

As a person working in a service industry you must be aware that it's impossible to please everybody, the line has to be drawn somewhere or the result is anarchy with many, many tiny groups all arguing with each other over split hairs and accomplishing nothing. It would be a very small group who feel the motto "is a grave offense against their beliefs".

I know your attitude to religion, and I know you defend your opinion with as much vehemance as any "born again" defends theirs, but seriously, your whole point about the motto is simply that you don't like it. All the talk of "democracy", "rights" and "the first amendment" is just weak justification for your own personal opinion.

I Googled "Democracy" and "Human Rights", nowhere in any of the definitions did I find a clause that said people have a "right" not to be "offended". The definitions also included "Majority rule" and Freedom of expression and universal equality. The Wikipedia article also mentions "tyranny of the majority" but in a matter like this it would be stretching the argument way beyond the breaking point if you claim you are being tyrannised, victimised or your rights abused, just because you don't agree with four words on a banknote.

Null and Void is right, the only thing that really matters about a bank note is that the zeroes are in the right place.

T.A.

Off Topic

...or the result is anarchy with many, many tiny groups all arguing with each other over split hairs and accomplishing nothing.

I just realised, This pretty well describes the situation in the US at the minute anyway, regardless of what's printed on the money.

It's a shame to see how the mighty have fallen.

T.A.

Some thoughts on the topic: "In God we trust" all others pay cash.

In a democracy you will have the "tyranny" of the majority. This will of course go against the idea of individual freedom ( Anarchy maybe??). What we definitely don't need is the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of ever smaller and "politically correct" minorities.

and can we talk about herman cain and his Koch brother financiers

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Ozz, I really think you are pushing this point too far. You take umbrage because the motto on the dollar note says something you don't agree with and therefore you want it removed.

That's the problem with your stance, you appear to think is that your opinion should hold sway even though a signifcant majority disagree with you and then you talk about Democracy ??

My opinion is that the United States Government is supposed to have a wall of separation from religion, and by having God in it's currency or in it's motto violates that which was put into our Constitution.

Australian bank notes feature, or have featured, a shyster, a person with a criminal record, a drunk who was prone to acts of violence, a minister of religion, an army general and an opera singer. Should I demand the removal of the opera singer because I'm not into opera ? If I followed your line of thinking I should, then, people who are offended by any of the others should demand their removal too, so we finish up with a blank sheet of plastic with a number written on it. THEN, we'll have those from countries where they don't use Arabic based numerals being offended by the numbers. If the opera singer was removed from the Australian note it would offend the opera lovers. Sheesh.

I note this entire paragraph is nothing more than a reductio ad-absurdum and not indicative of my stance or views at all.

But I do find it interesting that you attempt to turn it into an issue of tolerance and offense. Couldn't your logic work the other way around as well? All those in support of religion and in favor of In God We Trust are showing their intolerance toward anyone that isn't Christian, and any attempt at making the motto more neutral is a grave offense against their beliefs.

That's my point Ozz. It is an issue about tolerance and you are showing how extreme your intolerance is. If the motto was removed to avoid offending you, it would offend approx 100,000,000 other people. Is your opinion really worth more than that of greater than half the population? (Another 100 million just don't care as long as the shop accepts the bill as payment.)

It's not a matter of my opinion being worth more. It's a matter of Separation of Church and State as afforded by our First Amendment. Also, you would be hard pressed to find even 100,000,000 "other" people who care enough to write their congressmen in support of this, suggesting that this is actually the work of a vocal religious minority being intolerant of those who don't believe in the same God or any God at all.

As a person working in a service industry you must be aware that it's impossible to please everybody, the line has to be drawn somewhere or the result is anarchy with many, many tiny groups all arguing with each other over split hairs and accomplishing nothing. It would be a very small group who feel the motto "is a grave offense against their beliefs".

The US Government doesn't have to try to please everyone, they only need to make sure their laws do not support the establishment of religion.

I know your attitude to religion, and I know you defend your opinion with as much vehemance as any "born again" defends theirs, but seriously, your whole point about the motto is simply that you don't like it. All the talk of "democracy", "rights" and "the first amendment" is just weak justification for your own personal opinion.

Wow, and here I thought those were strong justifications in support of my own personal opinion, and the opinion of many other Americans, and the support of our own national government via the document that many have given their lives in defense of these personal freedoms.

I Googled "Democracy" and "Human Rights", nowhere in any of the definitions did I find a clause that said people have a "right" not to be "offended". The definitions also included "Majority rule" and Freedom of expression and universal equality. The Wikipedia article also mentions "tyranny of the majority" but in a matter like this it would be stretching the argument way beyond the breaking point if you claim you are being tyrannised, victimised or your rights abused, just because you don't agree with four words on a banknote.

Try Googling "Wall of Separation", and try to come out of your anger and haze of my opinions long enough to understand that you don't know me as well as you think you do. I have religious friends that believe the same way I do (and they would argue with you on your claim of my religious intolerance). I respect the right of any individual who wishes to worship any deity they choose, or their right not to worship any deity at all. You are demonizing me because I have spoken up against a religious statement as a motto of our government and it's currency, and I note your entire argument is an attempt make this all about me, to make my argument seem as "small" as possible. I think your decision to make this your stance against me seems to say more about your personal issues with me (or are purposefully making it as personal as you can) than it does about my stance or my views.

Null and Void is right, the only thing that really matters about a bank note is that the zeroes are in the right place.

Not if my tax dollars went into printing it, and it's never too late to correct a mistake made nearly 60 years ago.

In a democracy you will have the "tyranny" of the majority. This will of course go against the idea of individual freedom ( Anarchy maybe??). What we definitely don't need is the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of ever smaller and "politically correct" minorities.

Agreed, which is why the vocal minority of the religious right should not push their brand of political correctness onto our nation's motto or currency.

Agreed, which is why the vocal minority of the religious right should not push their brand of political correctness onto our nation's motto or currency.

How about their stupid ideas to replace evolution and corrupt impressionable young minds at school?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Agreed, which is why the vocal minority of the religious right should not push their brand of political correctness onto our nation's motto or currency.

How about their stupid ideas to replace evolution and corrupt impressionable young minds at school?

Yeah, forcing Creation Theory or Intelligent Design into public schools is certainly a violation of the wall of separation of church and state.

I note this entire paragraph is nothing more than a reductio ad-absurdum and not indicative of my stance or views at all

It was basically to make the point "where do you stop?" and that no matter what is done the authorities can never make everyone happy because someone will always find something to complain about. If you change things to make one person or group of people happy, the action will always upset someone else.

Also, you would be hard pressed to find even 100,000,000 "other" people who care enough to write their congressmen in support of this...

At the moment maybe but it would be interesting to see the reaction from the populace if there was a serious proposal to remove the motto from the currency

try to come out of your anger and haze of my opinions long enough to understand that you don't know me as well as you think you do.

I note your entire argument is an attempt make this all about me, to make my argument seem as "small" as possible. I think your decision to make this your stance against me seems to say more about your personal issues with me (or are purposefully making it as personal as you can) than it does about my stance or my views.

Why in the name of fortune would I have personal issues with you ? Apart from our debates in this forum on a very narrow range of subjects I know nothing about about you (and visa versa) if somehow we were to pass in the street, neither would know. It isn't about "you" it's about one or two of your opinions. If you look back through the old threads you will even find matters that we have agreed on.

If I were living in the US at the minute and had your concerns about the separation of church and state, I would be more worried about the mid-west bible belt that forces candidates to jump through hoops to prove their "christianess" in order to have a hope of getting elected. It's these pressure groups that are the real problem, the motto on the currency is just a storm in a teacup by comparison. These groups worry me and I'm 15,000 miles away.

The reason I wrote as I did was because, whenever someone starts banging on about their rights, the constitution and how they are "offended" by something, it usually means that some of my rights are going to be taken away in order to appease them. It looked like you were singing from the same hymn book, so you got the same reaction.

One of the reasons for this is you used some pretty strong statements yourself such as

All those in support of religion and in favor of In God We Trust are showing their intolerance toward anyone that isn't Christian,

I don't think so, a true christian would be tolerant, it's the "love one another" thing.

I interpret the "In God We Trust" on currency to simply be nothing more than the majority forcing their will on the minority.

In this case we have a tyranny of the majority forcing their will upon everyone else.

How is the "forcing" done? Are non christians rounded up and sent to church at gunpoint, made to wear distinctive marks on their clothing or threatened with burning at the stake ?

That is not a democracy where all people and their beliefs are equal.

I suspect you are right there but not for the reasons you think

you are alienating every single non-Christian belief system and non-believers alike

So, apart from those at the more sensitive end, how many non christians feel "alienated" by the motto ? I suspect not many.

Whether you like it or not your own opinions are colouring your writing and it shows. You are not just making a point on legal and constitutional grounds

You're trying to paint a black and white situation where none really exists, you infer that if a person favours one thing they automatically have to be against something else, the reality is that depending on the individual there are many shades of grey in between. AFAIK there is no "official" state religion in the US and most citizens are very tolerant of non-christians (except for Islam but we both know why that is the case, nut cases from one political ideology vs nut cases from another, with both using religion as a justification [and I'm aware I left an opening for you there:) ])