How many people knew that the US's national motto is "In God We Trust"?

[Jodi]

While I’ve no doubt the courts would (and quite possibly have) rule in just this fashion, this just isn’t true.

I love this reasoning, an oldie but a goodie at the Dope. The courts are charged with determining what’s constitutional; I disagree with the courts; therefore the courts are “wrong” and their rulings “not true,” because I determine what’s constitutional . . . oh, wait.

I’ve argued this issue umpteen times here, and my opinion has solidified to the following: Don’t like it? Tough shit. To LISSENER and OTTO and others: You don’t respect the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens do approve of the motto and don’t object to it being present or even – gasp! – invoked, because you don’t believe in God and your government is supposed to represent you (as opposed to the clear majority who disagree with your position) and you are bothered and you you you.

Tough shit. The motto’s there, it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not going anywhere. Suck it up.

[Apos]

Tough shit. The motto’s there, it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not going anywhere. Suck it up.

I’ve never been able to take this attitude seriously, because the courts would be falling all over themselves to declare any government declaration of “There is no god” unconstitional. Until you convince me otherwise, your arguments are so much bilge over the side.

[Jodi]

And let me further clarify: I know exactly where this argument is going because it’s where it’s gone – what? half a dozen times before?: “I don’t think IGWT should be on the money/be our motto.” “Why not?” “Because I don’t like it and I think it’s unconstitutional.” “It’s not unconstitutional; here’s four of five legal citations showing that it isn’t.” “I still say it is, because I’m the great interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.” Except that you’re not, of course, so what you’re really talking about is your own personal opinion about what should be considered constitutional, without the pesky reality of what is considered constitutional, and that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it – you all are.

Don’t like it? Get out your lil’ Sharpies and alter your money as a quiet act of defiance and rebellion. Seriously, go right ahead; that’s your right as an American. Better yet, join one of the several organizations that fight this issue in the courts. It’s pretty much a lost cause at this point, but, hey, things could change.

But do NOT act like there is not a perfectly legitimate basis for many of us to conclude that this is not an issue worthy of outrage or even concern, and to further conclude that those of you who repeatedly get your undies in a bunch over it could be fretting over more important things. If LISSENER is allowed to post about how this is a “horrific” constitutional outrage, BRICKER is certainly entitled to post to tell him to get a grip and get over it. Especially here, in the Pit. So for you, OTTO, to offer BRICKER a hearty “fuck you” and then accuse him of being a prick is beyond ridiculous. He didn’t insult you or anyone else, but then you swear at him and say he’s the prick? Come on.

My attitude of total disregard to the concerns of the anti-IGWT camp is 100% formulated by dealing with people on this very Board, who insist that their ideation of constitutionality should be imposed on the rest of us, while simultaneously bleating about how the current concept of constitutionality is being imposed on them. Not everything is going to go your way. Suck. It. Up.

[Jodi]

APOS –

I’ve never been able to take this attitude seriously, because the courts would be falling all over themselves to declare any government declaration of “There is no god” unconstitional. Until you convince me otherwise, your arguments are so much bilge over the side.

What utter bullshit this is. Your argument is entirely premised on some hypothetical of what the courts would do – IYO, of course – in some fictional circumstances totally divorced from reality. And the validity of my argument is – again, IYO – dependent on me working to convince you, personally, of something you choose not to accept. So you can consider my opinion (and those of the numerous courts that have declared IGWT to be constitutional) as “so much bilge over the side” but don’t expect me to give a rat’s ass what you think on the subject, when the sum total of your authority is you.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@Incubus

I would have thought that Atheists, not believing in any supernatural diety, would be the least offended by the ‘G’ word.

I mean, unless they’re afraid that little eye-in-the-pyramid is beaming subliminal messages into their brain or something. But that’s what tinfoil hats are for.

Lynn, you better sharpie out that eye, too! You wouldn’t want the Government to see what you are doing!

I’m not offended by the word. I AM offended and frightened by the declaration that the United States Government believes and trusts in (a) god. I don’t think that it’s at all constitutional. As for the many people who are OK with it, at one time many people were OK with institionalized racism and sexism, too. These days, many people are OK with the notion that atheists aren’t “real Americans”. Somehow, my lack of belief is very, very threatening to many people.

[Miller]

Alright, who went and stole Jodi’s brain? C’mon, give it back! She’s not usually this dumb, so I know one of you little buggers must’ve run off with it. Look, I’ll turn my back, and who ever took it can put it back, no questions asked.

Seriously, your argument is “The Supreme Court is always right and nobody ever gets to disagree with them,” and “If the majority is in favor of something, then it must be good”? Are you for fucking real? I don’t really care one way or the other about the National Motto, but I can’t let that sort of babbling stupidity go by without comment.

[duffer]

@Lynn Bodoni

I’m not offended by the word. I AM offended and frightened by the declaration that the United States Government believes and trusts in (a) god. I don’t think that it’s at all constitutional. As for the many people who are OK with it, at one time many people were OK with institionalized racism and sexism, too. These days, many people are OK with the notion that atheists aren’t “real Americans”. Somehow, my lack of belief is very, very threatening to many people.

Wow, linking a line on currency to racism is a new tack. Lynn I have a very simple solution. Send me any money you have with IGWT printed on it. Blacking it out is not enough! By blacking out the words that offend you so, you’re still free to spend it. That in turn will help the economy. And Good Lord, you certainly don’t want to contribute to the economic recovery, do you? Do you?! Here’s what I will do. I’ll burn the money for you in my fireplace. Now that’s taking a stand! I’m a little disappointed you’d take the action of a kid thinking she’s the bestest smartass ever by this ingenious tactic.

Now send me the money. I’ll destroy it for you. No, really, I will. What? I’m serious.

[Jodi]

You may worry about my brain’s location, MILLER, but at least I can fucking read for comprehension. You might want to give that a try.

Seriously, your argument is “The Supreme Court is always right and nobody ever gets to disagree with them,” and “If the majority is in favor of something, then it must be good”?

If you can point out where I said either of these things, in this thread or in any thread I have ever posted to, I will give you $100.

I never said the Supreme Court is always right. They are, however, the subjective arbiters of what is or is not constitutional at any given time. So you might argue that segregation is unconstituional, but until the Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, that argument was a loser, because segregation was constitutional, not just as a theoretical matter (which is open to argument) but as a matter of enforceable legal reality (which is not open to argument). Something either is or is not constitutional, as determined by those who get to say so. IGWT is constitutional. Your opinion to the contrary is just that – your opinion.

I have never said “if the majority is in favor of something, it must be good.” But the obverse – “if the minority is in favor of something, it must be good” – is equally fallacious, and for the same, obvious reasons.

And the next time you decide to call me stupid you’d better bring some bigger ammunition, because attempting to claim I said something I quite obviously didn’t say doesn’t exactly make you look like a rocket scientist.

[Shade]

WWJD?

Matthew 22:20/21. (parody) “And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, POTUS’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto POTUS the things which are POTUS’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

I’m not sure what this has to say, but I’m sure it’s relevant somehow.

[Gorsnak]

@Jodi

I love this reasoning, an oldie but a goodie at the Dope. The courts are charged with determining what’s constitutional; I disagree with the courts; therefore the courts are “wrong” and their rulings “not true,” because I determine what’s constitutional . . . oh, wait.

I’ve argued this issue umpteen times here, and my opinion has solidified to the following: Don’t like it? Tough shit. To LISSENER and OTTO and others: You don’t respect the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens do approve of the motto and don’t object to it being present or even – gasp! – invoked, because you don’t believe in God and your government is supposed to represent you (as opposed to the clear majority who disagree with your position) and you are bothered and you you you.

Tough shit. The motto’s there, it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not going anywhere. Suck it up.

What kind of bullshit is this? I never said a fucking word about constitutionality. I said IGWT is neither ceremonial nor deist. Respond to those points; don’t make an unrelated point and pretend to have refuted my post. SCOTUS might be the final word on what the US constitution means, but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible in other regards.

For the record, I don’t really give a flying fuck what kind of assinine motto you people down south choose. Hell, it’s not my country. I just detest bad arguments, and there I was, looking at one.

[Miller]

@Jodi

You may worry about my brain’s location, MILLER, but at least I can fucking read for comprehension. You might want to give that a try.

Is it just me, or do you accuse people of not having any reading comprehension in just about every single fight you get into? Might want to look into that, could be significant.

If you can point out where I said either of these things, in this thread or in any thread I have ever posted to, I will give you $100.

Do I get the hundred for showing you just did one, or does it have to be both? If I only do one, do I get $50? I think these sorts of details are important when entering into a financial relationship.

I never said the Supreme Court is always right. They are, however, the subjective arbiters of what is or is not constitutional at any given time. So you might argue that segregation is unconstituional, but until the Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, that argument was a loser, because segregation was constitutional, not just as a theoretical matter (which is open to argument) but as a matter of enforceable legal reality (which is not open to argument). Something either is or is not constitutional, as determined by those who get to say so. IGWT is constitutional. Your opinion to the contrary is just that – your opinion.

Yes, Jodi, these are, indeed, opinions. In terms of dramatic new insights on the human condition, this one ranks right up there with “Fire hot.” We’re all pretty much aware that the Supreme Court has held that IGWT is Constitutional. It’s kinda the point of the whole argument. Which is (so that there’s absolutely no confusion here) “The Supreme Court says it’s okay to have God on our money, and I disagree with them.” It is not, as you seem to believe, “The Supreme Court says it’s illegal to have God on our money, but they won’t tell anyone about it.”

I have never said “if the majority is in favor of something, it must be good.”

Actually, yes, you did.

Previously posted by Jodi
You don’t respect the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens do approve of the motto and don’t object to it being present or even – gasp! – invoked, because you don’t believe in God and your government is supposed to represent you (as opposed to the clear majority who disagree with your position) and you are bothered and you you you.

What is that but a naked appeal to popular opinion? Someone says, “I think it should be unconstitutional for IGWT to be on our money,” and your reply is, “Well, a lot of people like it, so shut up.” Enlighten me, oh Mistress of Reading Comprehension, how else should I interpret that quote?

@Jodi

But the obverse – “if the minority is in favor of something, it must be good” – is equally fallacious, and for the same, obvious reasons.

Can you show me where anyone, any where, at any point in history, has ever made that argument? You do that, and you can keep your $100.

[Roland_Orzabal]

You know, Jodi, I’m going to have to go with Miller on this one. You stated that any expression of disagreement with current constitutional interpretation was merely arguing

…your own personal opinion about what should be considered constitutional, without the pesky reality of what is considered constitutional…

Um, yes. Some people disagree with certain laws, and sometimes choose to voice those opinions. This is called “debate”, and it’s a function of individuals with differing patterns of thought and opinion presenting facts and logical arguments in an attempt to inform others about their viewpoint. I’m not sure whether your argument here is merely that debate involving constitutional matters is a bad thing, or whether that extends to all legal/moral debate in general (since there’s really no difference except for topic and nomenclature), but either way, you’re wrong. Debate is not only a good thing to have around, it’s also entirely legal, regardless of the topic at hand. Want to argue with me? Well, I guess you can’t, because neither of us is a judge, therefore rendering our opinions on any legal matters irrelevant, or so you would have me believe.

Furthermore, when you state that

…until the Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, that argument was a loser, because segregation was constitutional…

you are implying that constitutionality, which you had previously declared to be an absolute state, can in fact be changed. In fact, I see that you continue to treat it as an absolute (“it was constitutional” as a statement of fact), so that leads me to conclude that constitutionality is an absolute that can nonetheless be changed only by the members of the Supreme Court. I guess they are pretty damned good, since they can change absolute quantities and all. Or perhaps they are people, who listen to other people stating their opinions on constitutional issues, and calling on their own powers of judgement to make the interpretation they feel is right at the time.

Seriously, how do you think these cases come before the Supreme Court in the first place? If everybody who felt their rights were being violated were to take your advice and just “suck it up”, nothing would ever change. Women would never have gained the right to vote, and civil rights would be a slave’s silent dream. If you don’t have the right to debate constitutionality, you don’t have the right to an opinion. And I’ll be damned if that’s not unconstitutional.

[Evil_Captor]

@Otto

IGWT and “under God” were not adopted as an homage to the Founding Fathers. I like to think the FFs would be appalled by the politicization of religion. They after all had the chance to weave religion into the national Constitutional fabric. The government is supposed to be neutral on matters of religion, neither denying them nor endorsing them. Not only did they not do so, they wove religious freedom directly into it. Putting IGWT on the money and declaring it the national motto and adding “under God” to the pledge is taking sides on a religious question. It is an endorsement by government of the religious belief of those who believe in God. Don’t think so? Turn it around and mandate “There Is No God” as our national motto and listen to the faithful scream.

I think a strong case could be made that injecting religion into govenrmental processes is a direct insult to the founding fathers, a crude attempt by ignorant politicians to make Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton lesser men than they were – men more like the aforesaid ignorant politicians.

[Roland_Orzabal]

Sorry to double-post, but I figured I ought to respond to the OP, since, you know, it’s the OP.

I am not offended by IGWT in a personal sense. I do not believe it affects me overtly in any way, and I tend to be quite passive when it comes to generic “personal assaults”. Matter of personal choice; makes my life easier.

I have always believed that there is a marked and important difference between insulting a thing or a concept, and insulting a person. I like Tears For Fears. But you can insult Tears For Fears all you like, and I won’t get offended, because I am not Tears For Fears (despite my username ). You aren’t insulting me, you’re insulting something I like. Now, if you were to call me an idiot for liking Tears For Fears, that would be a personal assault, and I’d be forced to tell you to fuck off. I think that’s an important distinction, especially in this debate.

But probably not for the reason you’d think.

You see, there is a very specific subject upon which an attack cannot be considered as anything but personal, and that is one’s religion. If a person truly believes in their religious ideas, then those ideas do in fact comprise a part of that person. It’s the nature of the concept; religion is so inherently personal (or ought to be, anyway) that if you attack somebody’s beliefs, you’re attacking them. No way around it.

In God We Trust is a flagrant attack, via presupposition of incorrectness, on the beliefs of the non-theistic. The courts can refer to it as “ceremonial deism” all they like; it does nothing to change the fact that it is an endorsement of a deity, and is as religiously-themed a statement as any you’ll find in the Bible. And this, quite frankly:

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency, ‘In God We Trust’, has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.

is bullshit. Pure, unadulterated, inexcusable bullshit. If a statement of faith in God is unrelated to religion, then what the hell possibly does? And if the idea was to use the phrase “establishment of religion” to denote a difference between organized religion and the personal, spiritual sort, then they are claiming that the government may endorse spiritual religion as long as it doesn’t favor any specific establishment, and that’s bullshit as well.

So, am I offended by IGWT? No, I can’t be bothered to think that the government is making a personally-themed attack on my agnostic beliefs. Do I think it’s morally wrong? Yes, because I can easily see where non-theists could draw that conclusion, and the evidence (both practical and idealistic) is on their side. Do I think it’s unconstitutional? Emphatically, resoundingly, and indeniably, yes.

[Evil_Captor]

As an atheist I see all this god stuff being injected into government as analogous to the problem of being a man living among monkeys. You aren’t going to change the monkeys into human in any kind of short time span, so you do the best you can: you live as well as you can as a man and try to keep the poo off you when the poo fights break out, and try to teach the monkeys how to be more evolved.

[Otto]

@Jodi

I love this reasoning, an oldie but a goodie at the Dope. The courts are charged with determining what’s constitutional; I disagree with the courts; therefore the courts are “wrong” and their rulings “not true,” because I determine what’s constitutional . . . oh, wait.

Huh. I guess you’re right. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, can do no wrong so disagreeing with their rulings is futile.

coughPlessy v FurgusencoughBowers v HardwickcoughMinersville School District v Gobitiscough

I’ve argued this issue umpteen times here, and my opinion has solidified to the following: Don’t like it? Tough shit. To LISSENER and OTTO and others: You don’t respect the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens do approve of the motto and don’t object to it being present or even – gasp! – invoked, because you don’t believe in God and your government is supposed to represent you (as opposed to the clear majority who disagree with your position) and you are bothered and you you you.

You’ll forgive me if, as a member of a despised minority whose fundamental rights in this country are a current political football, I don’t find the “the majority is OK with it” to be anything less than a completely worthless argument. If the majority said that women should be barred from the practice of law (coughBradwell v Illinoiscough) would you surrender your license cheerfully or would you perhaps be a bit perturbed?

Tough shit. The motto’s there, it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not going anywhere. Suck it up.

Fuck you too (just so you don’t feel left out).

[bashere]

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
It’s Eisenhower’s world after all…

And Bashere, I can’t find any Supreme Court case dealing with the motto, but the 10th Circuit in Gaylor v. US, said that the motto’s:

QUOTE]

Thank you, Captain Amazing. I didn’t think the motto had been challenged at the Supreme Court level, but to be honest, if the 9th decided it passed muster, the Supreme Court certainly would. You’ve given me enough that I can find the decision if I get energetic.

I don’t find the motto offensive (although whether I am an atheist is a matter of debate); in fact, given the greenbacks recent slide against other currencies, I think it particularly appropriate at the moment. That said, there are things that bother me about it. I’m not sure there is such a thing as “ceremonial deism”; there’s just something about that phrase that seems sneaky. Second, during the pledge debates, many people used IGWT as precedent, by saying that, effectively, since we’ve got “In God We Trust” on our money, we may as well go ahead and recite the Nicean Creed every morning, too*.

As a motto, I do rather think it unbecoming of the US. I would rather we trusted in something more American and less supernatural. I would rather place my trust in the American people, or, as another poster put it, in the Federal Reserve.

• Yes, I’m exaggerating. Hyperbole. Used to make a point.

[Frank]

@Jodi

It’s not unconstitutional; here’s four of five legal citations showing that it isn’t.

I know it’s a typo, but I liked this: “Four out of five jurists recommend ceremonial deism!”

I agree with your “the buck stops here” portrayal of the Supreme Court, but that in no way should stop anyone who desires from continuing to challenge the motto. Maybe someday… But arguing from popularity doesn’t cut it.

And to the OP - it doesn’t bother me. Now if I had to offer a prayer each time I handed over a piece of currency, that would bother me. I’d be pleased if god was taken out of the motto, the currency, the pledge, and so on, but I’m not going to get bent out of shape about it.

[Tiggrkitty]

@lissener

Is anyone else as horrifically offended by this as I am?

Why hasn’t the ACLU been working to change this, instead of more simply removing it from the currency?

Actually, I have more important things to worry about than this issue. If you are this offended by our currency, try using a bank that does “online banking” and get a check card. That way you will never have to touch any coins or paper currency again.

Why hasn’t it been changed? It would cost the US Treasury far more than it’s worth to change the plates out that print the money than what it is really worth. Honestly, I would rather them spend the money on other things such as SS or Medicare than changing out fucking printing plates, just because in tiny little print it says “In God we trust”.

[Otto]

@Tiggrkitty

It would cost the US Treasury far more than it’s worth to change the plates out that print the money than what it is really worth.

Far more than it’s worth to whom?

Considering that the plates get periodically remade anyway (they wear out, break, the design of the bill changes), the “it would cost too much” argument really doesn’t hold up either.