# Mississippi Forces "In God We Trust" on Schools **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2001, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415 "2001-03-25T14:33:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/21 "2001-03-25T20:57:39Z")
> [@](#): > > A more reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the clauses originally is that the national government was not supposed to try and favor one religion or church above any other, either by prefering one or by hindering the practice of any religion…Extension of this principle to the states after adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be surprising. And how does the federal and Mississippi state governments’ official promotion of monotheism not favor monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones? Or “atheistic religions”, assuming that there can be such a thing? In the case of Mississippi’s promotion of monotheism, we’re even talking about the government promoting the beliefs of some religions over others to a captive audience of schoolchildren. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/22 "2001-03-25T21:04:08Z")
FriendofGod: You _already_ believe that Christians are subject to widespread persecution in this country, but you wouldn’t have any problems with it at all if the government started putting up big signs in all the schools that said “There Is No God”? ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/23 "2001-03-25T21:35:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Imagine, for a moment, that there were a city in Mississippi in which NOBODY believed in God, let alone trusted him. The Mississippi state legeslature has taken away the rights of these people to not recognize God (or god) in any way, as is guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. How did they take away their right to not recognize God? So there’s a sign there that says “In God We Trust”. They can walk by the sign and say to themselves, “Hmmm, someone put up a sign that says ‘In God We Trust’” and be on their merry way, continuing to not recognize God. Not one right has been violated. > [@](#): > > FriendofGod: You already believe that Christians are subject to widespread persecution in this country, but you wouldn’t have any problems with it at all if the government started putting up big signs in all the schools that said “There Is No God”? I didn’t say I wouldn’t have a problem with it, I just said it wouldn’t violate my rights if they chose to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/24 "2001-03-25T21:56:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > \*\* > > Other states have passed laws _allowing_ schools to post this, and I don’t know if any schools have done so yet or if ACLU lawsuit threats have kept them in check. This is the first that I know of to _mandate_ it. And, what’s worse, the article notes, “State lawmakers unanimously passed the bill mandating the posters in schools this week.” So, apparently there is _nobody_ in that state representing people who want church and state to remain separate. \*\* Well we print it on our cash. So it doesn’t appear to violate seperation of church and state. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Yeah, some kid was _planning_ to come in and shoot up the school, but he saw this poster and said, “Wow. If we trust in God, I’d better not do that.” Give me a freaking break. \*\* I agree that the whole thing is rather silly. > [@](#): > > \*\* > This issue is going to force the courts to take a stand on “IGWT.” I only hope it’s the _right_ stand. My guess is that they will rule that it’s okay on money but not okay in a school situation. \*\* Why would it be ok on money but not in schools? I’d rather not have it on either but I can’t say this pushes any of my hot topic buttons. Marc ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/25 "2001-03-25T21:57:15Z")
It violates your rights, oh FoGgy one, because this is _your_ government doing it. Or, in this case, it violates the rights of Mississippians because it is their government doing it. Some of us do _not_ trust in God. Thus, having a government stating that “we” do makes us second-class citizens. So, what right has been taken away? For one, the right to freedom of and from religion. Why should an atheist high schooler be told by his school, every day, that “we” trust in God? I think it’s likely that, quite the contrary of those who claim this will somehow magically reduce school violence, it may actually increase it. Those who have caused most of the violence are the outcasts. Now the state will be creating more such outcasts. Not a terribly smart thing to do. Incidentally, as DSYoung indicated, the courts sometimes do not agree with what I think is unConstitutional. What can I say? Sometimes they’re just plain wrong. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/26 "2001-03-25T22:01:49Z")
And no sooner do I post my message than I see that very issue come up in a message that was posted while I was merrily typing away. MGibson said: > [@](#): > > Well we print it on our cash. So it doesn’t appear to violate seperation of church and state. According to the courts, it does not. According to me, it does. I think the courts have merely wimped out of ruling on what appears to be a fairly obvious breach of church/state separation. But, yes, according to U.S. law, having it on money is not a Constitutional violation. And that’s what starts the slippery slope. This provided a loophole for those who want to force their “God” statements on others. And, as we see, they’ve taken that opportunity. So, why would the court rule that it’s okay on money but not in school? I’m sure they could come up with some reason. For example, school is an educational institution filled with impressionable kids. By posting such a statement, it appears to be a direct government advocacy of belief in God. Sure, the same thing is true of money, but forcing it on school kids might somehow be viewed differently. I don’t pretend to know how they’d weasel their way into such a distinction – but I do think they will make one. That’s just my gut feeling. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/27 "2001-03-25T22:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Some of us do not trust in God. Thus, having a government stating that “we” do makes us second-class citizens. How? > [@](#): > > So, what right has been taken away? For one, the right to freedom of and from religion. Whoa! You’ve just invented a right. The constitution clearly protects freedom of religion. Where does it protect freedom _from_ religion? And, in fact, how on earth can you have a country with both? If freedom _from_ religion is a “right”, aren’t your rights being violated DB each time you channel surf past a religious TV station or see a church? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/28 "2001-03-25T22:19:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > \*\*And no sooner do I post my message than I see that very issue come up in a message that was posted while I was merrily typing away. \*\* I’m sorry. PLEASE PLEASE DON’T BEAT ME!! > [@](#): > > \*\* > MGibson said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Well we print it on our cash. So it doesn’t appear to violate seperation of church and state. > > According to the courts, it does not. According to me, it does. I think the courts have merely wimped out of ruling on what appears to be a fairly obvious breach of church/state separation. > > But, yes, according to U.S. law, having it on money is not a Constitutional violation. \*\* Yeah, what stinks is that it doesn’t always matter what you or I as individuals think. I think sometimes the anti-religious crowd displays a tendancy for knee-jerked reactions just as much as the religious crowd. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And that’s what starts the slippery slope. This provided a loophole for those who want to force their “God” statements on others. And, as we see, they’ve taken that opportunity. \*\* When I was in public schools I got all sorts of ideas forced down my throat. Drugs are bad and shouldn’t be legalized, guns are bad, we were meant to be a two party system, etc, etc… Through the government I’m “forced” to provide funds to art which I may or may not like or agree with. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So, why would the court rule that it’s okay on money but not in school? I’m sure they could come up with some reason. For example, school is an educational institution filled with impressionable kids. By posting such a statement, it appears to be a direct government advocacy of belief in God. \*\* Most people appear to believe in God. Those of us who don’t are obviously in the minority. I can’t actually say that “In God We Trust” is offensive to me, I’m not offended by prayers before football games or during graduation, or holiday music or decorations. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Sure, the same thing is true of money, but forcing it on school kids might somehow be viewed differently. I don’t pretend to know how they’d weasel their way into such a distinction – but I do think they will make one. That’s just my gut feeling. \*\* I don’t see the big difference. But then I’m one of those jerks who doesn’t think that children deserve more consideration then adults. David, I think you have some decent points. This is just one of those issues I’ve got next to nothing intellectually or emotionally invested into. But we’re suppose to be living in an age of “multi-culturalism” but it doesn’t seem like most people practice what they preach. Marc ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/29 "2001-03-25T22:19:19Z")
I asked you a similar question in another thread, and you didn’t respond… so I’ll try again. Suppose the saying was changed from “In God We Trust” to “In Allah We Trust.” Does this infringe on anyone’s rights? Would you object to it? Quix ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/30 "2001-03-25T22:22:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > So, why would the court rule that it’s okay on money but not in school? I’m sure they could come up with some reason. Easy. There’s actual constitutional doctrine that if a government endorsement of religion is basically meaningless and has been that way since the dawn of the time, there’s no violation of the establishment clause. That’s how Nebraska got away with having a Christian chaplain on the payroll to open each legislative day. _Marsh v. Chambers_, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). “IGWT” has been on our money for a long time. (Spare me the history lesson–I know it’s a 20th century invention.) “IGWT” has _not_ been posted on our school walls since time immemorial, and would almost certainly not get the _Marsh_ treatment. BTW, **DSYoung** got the principles of law right, but the application of _Lemon_ is always arguable. I personally think he goes wrong from the very first prong, since the purpose of the “IGWT” signs is not just to promote good behavior, but to promote good morals through Judeo-Christian doctrine. My best guess is that if (big if) this goes to the Supreme Court, we’d have another 5-4 decision along the lines of last term’s _Santa Fe Independent School District_ prayer-before-football games decision. But that’s only a guess. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/31 "2001-03-25T22:36:32Z")
I said: > [@](#): > > Some of us do not trust in God. Thus, having a government stating that “we” do makes us second-class citizens. **FoG** wondered “How?” I’m afraid that if you can’t see it, I doubt I can explain it to you. But let’s try one more time. We have a government that is supposed to be neutral when it comes to matters of religion. That government decides to state that “We” trust in God. There are citizens of that government who do not even believe in God, let alone trust in Him. These citizens are now being told that they are not really represented by the government, because the government trusts in God. Thus, they are second-class citizens. I also said: > [@](#): > > So, what right has been taken away? For one, the right to freedom of and from religion. FoG responded: > [@](#): > > Whoa! You’ve just invented a right. The constitution clearly protects freedom of religion. Where does it protect freedom _from_ religion? Freedom of religion is, by necessity, also freedom from religion. > [@](#): > > And, in fact, how on earth can you have a country with both? If freedom _from_ religion is a “right”, aren’t your rights being violated DB each time you channel surf past a religious TV station or see a church? Don’t play dumb, FoG. We’re talking about government, not the church on the corner. If it was the First Church of the U.S., then it would apply. Otherwise, it doesn’t, and it’s just a silly straw man. **MGibson** said: > [@](#): > > Yeah, what stinks is that it doesn’t always matter what you or I as individuals think. I think sometimes the anti-religious crowd displays a tendancy for knee-jerked reactions just as much as the religious crowd. I don’t disagree. I’ve seen such instances and I shake my head at what they do to the public image of atheists. But this is not one such instance. > [@](#): > > When I was in public schools I got all sorts of ideas forced down my throat. Drugs are bad and shouldn’t be legalized, guns are bad, we were meant to be a two party system, etc, etc… Through the government I’m “forced” to provide funds to art which I may or may not like or agree with. None of which are addressed in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is. > [@](#): > > Most people appear to believe in God. Those of us who don’t are obviously in the minority. Yes, and that’s why we have a Constitution – to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. > [@](#): > > I can’t actually say that “In God We Trust” is offensive to me, I’m not offended by prayers before football games or during graduation, or holiday music or decorations. Well, to each his own. But just because one particular person isn’t offended by something doesn’t make it alright, of course. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/32 "2001-03-25T22:38:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Suppose the saying was changed from “In God We Trust” to “In Allah We Trust.” Does this infringe on anyone’s rights? Would you object to it? I never saw this question in another thread, sorry I missed it. Answers to your 2 questions: 1. No 2. Yes ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/33 "2001-03-25T23:19:59Z")
My dear **FoG** : You are _strongly_ mistaking what the First Amendment, as construed through the Fourteenth, says, by that little excursion into “Fundy-speak” (I recognize that line about “freedom from religion” as a favorite of Jerry Falwell and other Christian Reconstructionists.) You, I, David, and everybody else has the right to believe precisely whatever we choose, as regards matters religious. Including nothing at all. That is our right as American citizens. To abrogate that right in any way whatsoever is step one towards establishing a mandatory line of belief, to which everyone must adhere or suffer the consequences. I do not need to tell you, of all people, who is supposed, according to Scripture, to impose such a line of belief, do I? (Hint: think of a three-digit number using only one symbol repeated.) Think about it. Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/34 "2001-03-26T00:05:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > \*\* > > We have a government that is supposed to be neutral when it comes to matters of religion. That government decides to state that “We” trust in God. There are citizens of that government who do not even believe in God, let alone trust in Him. These citizens are now being told that they are not really represented by the government, because the government trusts in God. Thus, they are second-class citizens. \*\* You’re stretching quite a bit to come up with that one. I hope you did some warm ups before hand to avoid straining anything. The Congress opens up with a prayer, the pledge of alligence mentions god, and the president traditionally ends his swearing in oath with “so help me god.” I certainly don’t feel like anyone is saying I’m a second class citizen. Are my rights protected any less? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I also said: > > > [@](#): > > > > So, what right has been taken away? For one, the right to freedom of and from religion. > > FoG responded: > > > [@](#): > > > > Whoa! You’ve just invented a right. The constitution clearly protects freedom of religion. Where does it protect freedom _from_ religion? > > Freedom of religion is, by necessity, also freedom from religion. \*\* It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to not be exposed to religion. I can see a cross or hear a prayer without it violating my freedom of religion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > When I was in public schools I got all sorts of ideas forced down my throat. Drugs are bad and shouldn’t be legalized, guns are bad, we were meant to be a two party system, etc, etc… Through the government I’m “forced” to provide funds to art which I may or may not like or agree with. > > None of which are addressed in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is. \*\* Freedom of association isn’t addressed in the Constitution? By giving tax money to the National Endowment for the Arts I am being associated with an organization I may or may not agree with. Damn, I should have done some warm ups because I think I just strained something with that stretching. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Most people appear to believe in God. Those of us who don’t are obviously in the minority. > > Yes, and that’s why we have a Constitution – to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. \*\* Well if you think this comes anywhere near the tyranny of the majority then we’ve got different ideas of what tyranny is. > [@](#): > > I can’t actually say that “In God We Trust” is offensive to me, I’m not offended by prayers before football games or during graduation, or holiday music or decorations. Well, to each his own. But just because one particular person isn’t offended by something doesn’t make it alright, of course. \*\* [/QUOTE] I agree. But then just because a minority is offended doesn’t mean it really matters. But it would be nice if folks in the state and federal legislature could come up with more constructive things then putting mottos on school walls and expecting a change. Maybe they could spend all that money on those cute posters of kittens hanging off the branch with the words “Hang in There” on the bottom. Marc ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/35 "2001-03-26T02:33:11Z")
MGibson said: > [@](#): > > The Congress opens up with a prayer, the pledge of alligence mentions god, and the president traditionally ends his swearing in oath with “so help me god.” I love the “two wrongs make a right” argument. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I certainly don’t feel like anyone is saying I’m a second class citizen. Are my rights protected any less? As I said to you before, to each his own. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean it’s untrue. When we’ve had presidents saying that atheists are not real Americans (hint: the father of our current pres.), yes, it does make one kind of feel second-class. When we’ve had politicians pushing their religious viewpoint on us from all sides, yes, it does rather seem that our rights are protected less. This particular discussion only covers one of many symptoms of this disease. I had said: > [@](#): > > Freedom of religion is, by necessity, also freedom from religion. You responded: > [@](#): > > It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to not be exposed to religion. I can see a cross or hear a prayer without it violating my freedom of religion. Which is pretty much what I said immediately following my statement above. Did you somehow miss it? > [@](#): > > Freedom of association isn’t addressed in the Constitution? Not in the way you are stretching it, no. > [@](#): > > Well if you think this comes anywhere near the tyranny of the majority then we’ve got different ideas of what tyranny is. As I said, this is but one symptom. But when the majority forces their religious beliefs on the minority, yes, I do call that a form of tyranny. > [@](#): > > But it would be nice if folks in the state and federal legislature could come up with more constructive things then putting mottos on school walls and expecting a change. Maybe they could spend all that money on those cute posters of kittens hanging off the branch with the words “Hang in There” on the bottom. There you go. But, see, their point really isn’t to help the schools. That’s just their shield. Their point is actually to push their religious viewpoint. And therein lies the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/36 "2001-03-26T03:04:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > \*\*MGibson said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The Congress opens up with a prayer, the pledge of alligence mentions god, and the president traditionally ends his swearing in oath with “so help me god.” > > I love the “two wrongs make a right” argument. :rolleyes: \*\* You’re being a bit unfair to me by breaking apart my paragraph and choosing one statement out of context to reply to. I didn’t acknowledge any of those things as being right and wrong. I simply said that these things happen and _I_ don’t feel like a second class citizen. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I certainly don’t feel like anyone is saying I’m a second class citizen. Are my rights protected any less? > > As I said to you before, to each his own. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean it’s untrue. \*\* And just because you, or the majority, happen to think it violates your rights doesn’t make it true. > [@](#): > > \*\* > When we’ve had presidents saying that atheists are not real Americans (hint: the father of our current pres.), yes, it does make one kind of feel second-class. \*\* I find it offensive. But I didn’t feel like a second class citizen. > [@](#): > > \*\* > When we’ve had politicians pushing their religious viewpoint on us from all sides, yes, it does rather seem that our rights are protected less. This particular discussion only covers one of many symptoms of this disease. \*\* Well gee, it seems that folks from every walk of life are trying to push their viewpoints on the rest of us. Why should I be more afraid of religious viewpoints then other viewpoints? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I had said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Freedom of religion is, by necessity, also freedom from religion. > > You responded: > > > [@](#): > > > > It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to not be exposed to religion. I can see a cross or hear a prayer without it violating my freedom of religion. > > Which is pretty much what I said immediately following my statement above. Did you somehow miss it? \*\* This is the pot calling the kettle black. Yes I read your statement about this not being a church on some street corner. But I guess I should have made myself more clear. If I heard a prayer before a football game or high school graduation it didn’t get my panties in a bunch. It didn’t make me feel like a second class citizen. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Freedom of association isn’t addressed in the Constitution? > > Not in the way you are stretching it, no. \*\* And it SOCAS is addressed in a court case not in the US Constitution. And if it is addressed so well then why do we have IGWT on our money? Of course it says “Congress shall make no law…” so it seems to me that by making it a law that schools need to have these things up is an establishment of religion and clearly a violation. However if schools put them up on their own? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Well if you think this comes anywhere near the tyranny of the majority then we’ve got different ideas of what tyranny is. > > As I said, this is but one symptom. But when the majority forces their religious beliefs on the minority, yes, I do call that a form of tyranny. \*\* And if they’re not religious beliefs is it still tyranny? See I get annoyed when religious and non religious folks try to pass laws based on their own values which don’t coincide with mine. So while there may be a legal basis for distinction between the two I don’t notice the results being any different. Either way someone is forcing their beliefs down my throat. The fact that it might not have religious origins doesn’t make me feel better. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There you go. But, see, their point really isn’t to help the schools. That’s just their shield. Their point is actually to push their religious viewpoint. And therein lies the problem. > \*\* See that’s what upsets more me then anything else. Talking a lot and coming up with some sort of half assed solution that will acomplish nothing in the long term. Although I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they probably believe that this is a good thing that’ll help. Marc ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/37 "2001-03-26T03:21:05Z")
FriendofGod, your right to freedom _of_ religion–that is, your right to be a Christian–necessarily entails your right to be free _from_ all those other religions which conflict with the teachings of Christianity. In other words, the state does not have the right to force you to convert to Shintoism, or to make you pay a special Christian Tax to finance the construction of mosques, or to force you to burn incense before the idol of George Washington. “…And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” (Revelation 13:17). In a sense, this is what we atheists have to put up with–every dollar bill and every thin dime has what is, to us, “the mark of the beast” on it. Of course, we atheists are at a disadvantage in these matters. We don’t get irrationally upset about things like this; we don’t fear we’ll be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented for ever and ever if we deny the tenets of atheism. We just get peeved. You can count on it that if every red cent in the United States had a formal renunciation of Christianity stamped on it Christians would be martyring themselves right and left rather than use such wicked and evil money–those of them that weren’t taking to the hills in armed rebellion against the government. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/38 "2001-03-26T04:06:55Z")
**DavidB** responded to my “How?” with this (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > We have a government that is supposed to be neutral when it comes to matters of religion. That government decides to state that “We” trust in God. There are citizens of that government who do not even believe in God, let alone trust in Him. _These citizens are now being told that they are not really represented by the government_, because the government trusts in God. Thus, they are second-class citizens. I understand you until the line I italicized. Again I’ll switch it around … if on every coin I saw the phrase “In Man We Trust”, it would irritate me and that’s about it. How does this phrase, or “In God We Trust”, or “In IRA’s We Trust”, or ANY such phrase, say that people who disagree are ‘not really represented by the government?’ Unless something drastic has changed DB, you can still vote. You still have a representative and two Senators in Congress. It sounds to me that you are saying that some people who don’t believe in God _FEEL_ like second class citizens because of this phrase. Okay, granted that’s not a pleasant feeling, but how did it take a single right away from you? You have the right to _protest_ the phrase and _tell_ people publically that you feel like a second class citizen because of it. I still don’t see a single right being taken away. All I see is that some people who disagree with the phrase might have a bad feeling because of it. > [@](#): > > Freedom of religion is, by necessity, also freedom from religion. I disagree, but see my comments on MGibson’s reply later as to why, who explained it better than I did. **Polycarp** … don’t worry. I agree with the phrase “You, I, David, and everybody else has the right to believe precisely whatever we choose, as regards matters religious. Including nothing at all.” MGibson explained better what I was getting at (to be quoted here in a sec). **MGibson** said: > [@](#): > > It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to not be exposed to religion. EXACTLY. That was my point. The application DB seems to be making is that he should be able to be free from being exposed to religion on a coin or a school building. DB, if by ‘freedom from religion’ you simply mean ‘freedom to not be religious’, I agree 100%. I know you responded to MG about this later, I’ll get to that in a sec. Also: > [@](#): > > But then just because a minority is offended doesn’t mean it really matters. Exactly. Being offended is being offended … no rights have been violated. Back to **DavidB** , who responded (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean it’s untrue. When we’ve had presidents saying that atheists are not real Americans (hint: the father of our current pres.), yes, it does make one kind of _feel_ second-class. When we’ve had politicians pushing their religious viewpoint on us from all sides, yes, it does rather _seem_ that our rights are protected less. Again, all I’m hearing so far is it ‘feels’ a certain way, ‘seems’ a certain way. No rights violated. **MGibson** later said: > [@](#): > > Well gee, it seems that folks from every walk of life are trying to push their viewpoints on the rest of us. Why should I be more afraid of religious viewpoints then other viewpoints? Exactly. Do you realize that _many_ Christians feel like _tons_ of viewpoints are being pushed on _us_ constantly? The pro-choice thing, the gay-is-ok thing, the sexual-revolution thing, etc. Viewpoints are _always_ being pushed out there. If you disagree, do something about it, and push your _own_ view out there! There is a battle of ideas constantly brewing out there in society, both religious and non-religious. Every law passed is _someone’s_ view of what the law should be, imposed on those who _don’t_ think it should be the law. That’s the way life is. Again, MGibson said it even better: > [@](#): > > And if they’re not religious beliefs is it still tyranny? See I get annoyed when religious and non religious folks try to pass laws based on their own values which don’t coincide with mine. So while there may be a legal basis for distinction between the two I don’t notice the results being any different. Either way someone is forcing their beliefs down my throat. The fact that it might not have religious origins doesn’t make me feel better. Exactly. _All_ laws will feel like something’s being ‘forced down your throat’ if you disagree with the law, regardless of it’s origin. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415/39 "2001-03-26T05:48:20Z")
MEBuckner wrote: > [@](#): > > How about if we adopted as our national motto, and printed on our money, and put up in all the schools, “White people are superior”? That wouldn’t violate anyone’s rights, now would it? Not if “White people are superior” appeared in one of the seldom-sung verses of _The Star-Spangled Banner_, it wouldn’t. :rolleyes: (Seriously. That’s the logic the Supreme Court used when they decided that “In God We Trust” doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause: because the words “In God is our trust” happen to appear in verse 4 of _The Star-Spangled Banner_, which happened to have been voted our National Anthem in 1931. No one in 1931 thought to challenge the new National Anthem as being in violation of the Establishment Clause at the time. Therefore, we can have “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Under that logic, it should be Unconstitutional to ban fireworks!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mississippi-forces-in-god-we-trust-on-schools/59415.md?page=1)