Posted on Aug 12, 2015
Are the words "In God We Trust" inappropriate to use?
29.9K
505
241
26
26
0
The words "In God We Trust" have been used on our currency since 1864 and was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956. Recently Police departments in several states have opted to put this slogan on their patrol cars, citing the numerous times the statement has been held as constitutional by the courts. Some disagree with it's use and express objections to it being used. In the areas where placing it on Patrol cars has happened it is being discussed as being inappropriate. All around us we see the growing movement to remove any reference to God from government property, in Wauwatosa Wisconsin the "Christian Cross" was replaced on their city seal, the city of Zion, IL has done the same thing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the removal of the 10 Commandments monument from the state capitol, is this trend going to continue to grow until these words are removed from our monies?
The words "In God We Trust" originated from the song, The Star Spangled Banner, it is there we find the words, "And this be our motto: "In God We Trust"" The words "In God We Trust" provide for me a certain amount of solace and are a source of pride in my Nation and Government. When I sing the Star Spangled Banner have at times been moved to tears thinking about the men who fought and lived to see "those broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight. O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming." We live in a imperfect world and no matter what is decided someone will be unhappy. I feel public recognition of God is important, to me it's not about a specific religion, it's about our national heritage.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/03/in-god-we-trust-stickers-on-police-cars-lead-to-dueling-protests-in-florida/
The words "In God We Trust" originated from the song, The Star Spangled Banner, it is there we find the words, "And this be our motto: "In God We Trust"" The words "In God We Trust" provide for me a certain amount of solace and are a source of pride in my Nation and Government. When I sing the Star Spangled Banner have at times been moved to tears thinking about the men who fought and lived to see "those broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight. O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming." We live in a imperfect world and no matter what is decided someone will be unhappy. I feel public recognition of God is important, to me it's not about a specific religion, it's about our national heritage.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/03/in-god-we-trust-stickers-on-police-cars-lead-to-dueling-protests-in-florida/
Religion
Constitution
God
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 81
7
7
0
It is never inappropriate; the atheists pushing this ban are the tail wagging the dog.
(7)
(0)
MSgt Darum Danford
You sure it's the atheists? I'm an atheist and I am not offended by it. I'm not offended that others exercise their right to practice their religion freely, which is why I and others served and the use of this phrase in particular is woven into the very fabric of this great nation.
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MSgt Darum Danford, good point. However, those pushing this PC nonsense have been atheists on the left, in my experience. Perhaps it is the left that is the operative factor.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
If it was good enough to put in the Constitution by our founding fathers, who are we to demand its removal?
(6)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - WOW! Do you really think so few people know the words of the Star Spangled banner? This is very sad and disappointing.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Kelli Mays - The last verse. Yep. The first verse. I'd say 75% could sing it cold.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Kelli Mays - I'd give even money 1 in 10 would sing America the Beautiful over the Star Spangled Banner.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Sgt Kelli Mays
MSgt Stephen Council Exactly. The problem with all of this none sense is all of these people who are complaining forget the other side has rights too, but those rights are shoved aside.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col John Tringali
It's a good phrase, just understand it wasn't originally part of the country founding and was added in the 50s, along with "under God" in the pledge.Â
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
It's what a person believes in. Our founding fathers believed in this enough to put these words everywhere within our government and symbols. People have the right not to protest against these words but we have the right to have them there. I truly believe that this country and world is in the shape we are in because we have fallen so far from God and have pushed him out of our lives. We need to get God back into our lives and family.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
Apparently some are offended by these words. If someone is offended by something today that means it has to go so therefore it must be inappropriate or no one would be offended by it. Then again you can say hi to a stranger on the street and they may be offended by it. I may offend someone for simply saying I don't find the phrase offensive. I'm going to put the phrase on a flag and fly it beneath my Confederate flag so I can just offend everybody equally (as if being white and Catholic isn't already enough to throw some people over the edge) :-)
(6)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
Great, I can protest that you are a Maj and I am only a M/Sgt. Crap, I must have been a white,catholic, dirt farmer from Kansas. way to go Maj.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I have said it before, and i say it again.
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you are right. (Ie I agree w you Sir)
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you are right. (Ie I agree w you Sir)
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
We are already changing too much, enough is enough. I don't even practice any organized religion and I can't even tell you for certain if I believe in God but I damn sure have zero problem with those words or people worshipping how they choose. Enough is enough.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes":In God We Trust" is appropriate because this nation was in its infancy when You consider other nations, countries had been in operation for thousands of years.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
"In God we trust" on police cars reminds of of the sign in the supply room: "In God we trust; all others must sign."
I don't see any relation to police work, and I'm wondering what the follow-on is... "In God we trust; all others are suspects"?
I don't see any relation to police work, and I'm wondering what the follow-on is... "In God we trust; all others are suspects"?
(5)
(0)
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht
50 years ago, I would agree. Now, yes all are suspects. Cant trust anybody any more. Your word is useless.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
LCDR (Join to see)
Based on recent posts admonishing some of the ground rules of RP, I've been thinking very hard on the best way to respond-here's what I came up with. Over the years, I've known and been friends with numerous people of other faiths, and those who elect to have no faith whatsoever. What I've found to be true of the majority is that are little different from me in the sense that they have principle, love their country, and are willing to compromise for the sake of getting along and getting the job done. That said, hopefully you can understand that just as they would have a problem affiliating with a statement such as, "In Jesus Christ we Trust"...I have a problem affiliating with, "In shiva...odin...gaia...etc. we Trust". That leaves only two choices; either we remove faith references all together, or find a way to recognize the importance of faith to so many Americans without placing one above the other. In my humble opinion, "In God we Trust" adequately accomplishes the latter. Why would I prefer that over the exclusion of faith in our national conscience? For those who consider "faith" a false and futile notion, please allow that just as "you" feel that you are being forced to endorse something that rejects your principles...I too feel that sense of coercion when these "traditions" are removed. I'm certain that Washington, Jefferson, Adams...and Eisenhower for that matter...were far wiser men than I. However, I am often astonished how ready we are to treat the legal compromises of men of the past with an almost "sacred" regard-it is entirely possible that they didn't get it "perfect" on the first go around. Staying with that concept, and accepting that as countrymen, we still have a large number among us for whom their faith is the preeminent compass of their lives, it seems more conciliatory to ask what benefits a slogan such as, "In God we Trust" provide, in contrast to any potential harm. Does being an atheist or agnostic limit one's opportunities in America? I don't know, but it seems many of our most successful people are. Does the fact that many believe in their notion of God in any way prevent an abstainer from maintaining their abstinence? I've seen very little evidence of that personally. However, this simple slogan, purposely devoid of specific reference to which god or faith one trusts in, allows the amalgam of faith and patriotism...a critical element in ensuring that we avoid the conflicts that so drastically divide other nations. With the deepest respect to those who disagree, what "we" fear is that once all of these notions are washed from the national fabric, faith may become incompatible with patriotism. That's pretty much all I can say, and so that's where I let it lie.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I am also an Atheist. I do not intend to offend, but I will be blunt with my thoughts on this. It wasn't originally written for LCDR (Join to see), but it fits nicely as a reply to his post...
"To those who wish it removed, let me ask this simple question that has no intended malice; What is the real problem you have with it? Is it that it excludes other religions? If so, I'd argue that a Jew, Muslim, Christian...even a follower of a "non Abrahamic" faith can agree it speaks to them. Is it because it excludes those without faith? A1C Santy-Wish I could shake your hand for your much appreciated view regarding that."
There is always a lot of talk about whether or not governments or organizations should make statements involving religion or use phrasing containing the word "god". About if that type of wording has any business in ceremonies and events.
The people who support religious phrases in official situations and the use of the word "god" by the government are, I believe, willfully ignoring that removing those statements and that wording is not in any way diminishing their beliefs or ability to practice, but merely not forcing others who do not share those beliefs to not have to endure them.
SFC Mark Merino posted a picture with the words "2015 The year America was offended by absolutely everything".
SSG Derek Scheller says "I have the words "In God We Trust" tattooed on my shoulder, it is my belief and has been in our country for a long time. I have to say that I am tired of people feeling like words offend them. "
Well, I for one, am not offended. I feel as if my government (indirectly) takes an official stand on something in which they have no business officially being involved, and that my time is being wasted when there is a prayer pause during a ceremony.
SSG (Join to see) said "We do not coerce people to believe in anything; however, there are some who believe that we must omit everything that relates to a creator because it either offends them or that they feel excluded."
It's not officially coercing people, but doesn't religious phrasing on the sides of law enforcement vehicles and posted on courthouse walls alienate the people who don't adhere do those beliefs...who are just as validly members of this society?
In the comment referred to by LCDR Gillespie A1C (Join to see) says he gets uncomfortable during award ceremonies during the prayer portion but that he is ok with it happening. I am not comfortable with that level of acceptance of the status quo. Personally, I think the whole thing should just be skipped, but, in the place of prayer or invocations there could be a moment of silence, for example, to allow people to reflect on what is important to them, to think about some aspect of what has been said, or to pray if they so choose. But, when that moment is filled with the invocation of the chaplain, well, that's the opposite situation for someone who doesn't believe. Without trying to diminish the importance of these events for the people who believe, I don't feel it's any different than if the ceremony were to pause to air several minutes of commercials. It becomes an official waste of time.
A1C (Join to see) also says, "They [the words "In God We Trust" on police cars and the Pledge of Allegiance] mean a lot to those who believe, and are just words on a car or a piece of currency. it shouldn't be more than that and people need to stop living like the only thing that matters is their feelings, and other peoples beliefs should come behind the fews feelings."
I think they should be removed for the same reasons that I imagine the Christian people supporting the phrases being there would have a different view if the phrase were Jewish, Scientologist, Hindu, Islamic, or Pastafarian. Not because people shouldn't be able to believe whatever they believe...but because the government of the U.S.A. and subordinate state and local governments should not be seen or presented as "in support of" or adherent to any particular religion, or any religion for that matter. In the same vein, they should officially make no statement and hold no belief on the existence or lack of any god. Phrasing which refers to a god implies knowledge or belief that there is one, and that's not something that the government should be implying.
"Where it could get sketchy is where you have those who aren't "believers" in "God", or any other supreme being. Another argument would be the separation of church and state hence why America has never endorsed any official religion over another. It was what made and IS making us great as a nation." - SSG Warren Swan
I agree with the sentiment of this quote, but disagree with the notion that "America has never endorsed any official religion over another". The fact that that is in question is why this conversation is taking place.
Drawing attention for your comments: SPC Joshua Heath, TSgt Scott Bailey, SSG John Thornton
"To those who wish it removed, let me ask this simple question that has no intended malice; What is the real problem you have with it? Is it that it excludes other religions? If so, I'd argue that a Jew, Muslim, Christian...even a follower of a "non Abrahamic" faith can agree it speaks to them. Is it because it excludes those without faith? A1C Santy-Wish I could shake your hand for your much appreciated view regarding that."
There is always a lot of talk about whether or not governments or organizations should make statements involving religion or use phrasing containing the word "god". About if that type of wording has any business in ceremonies and events.
The people who support religious phrases in official situations and the use of the word "god" by the government are, I believe, willfully ignoring that removing those statements and that wording is not in any way diminishing their beliefs or ability to practice, but merely not forcing others who do not share those beliefs to not have to endure them.
SFC Mark Merino posted a picture with the words "2015 The year America was offended by absolutely everything".
SSG Derek Scheller says "I have the words "In God We Trust" tattooed on my shoulder, it is my belief and has been in our country for a long time. I have to say that I am tired of people feeling like words offend them. "
Well, I for one, am not offended. I feel as if my government (indirectly) takes an official stand on something in which they have no business officially being involved, and that my time is being wasted when there is a prayer pause during a ceremony.
SSG (Join to see) said "We do not coerce people to believe in anything; however, there are some who believe that we must omit everything that relates to a creator because it either offends them or that they feel excluded."
It's not officially coercing people, but doesn't religious phrasing on the sides of law enforcement vehicles and posted on courthouse walls alienate the people who don't adhere do those beliefs...who are just as validly members of this society?
In the comment referred to by LCDR Gillespie A1C (Join to see) says he gets uncomfortable during award ceremonies during the prayer portion but that he is ok with it happening. I am not comfortable with that level of acceptance of the status quo. Personally, I think the whole thing should just be skipped, but, in the place of prayer or invocations there could be a moment of silence, for example, to allow people to reflect on what is important to them, to think about some aspect of what has been said, or to pray if they so choose. But, when that moment is filled with the invocation of the chaplain, well, that's the opposite situation for someone who doesn't believe. Without trying to diminish the importance of these events for the people who believe, I don't feel it's any different than if the ceremony were to pause to air several minutes of commercials. It becomes an official waste of time.
A1C (Join to see) also says, "They [the words "In God We Trust" on police cars and the Pledge of Allegiance] mean a lot to those who believe, and are just words on a car or a piece of currency. it shouldn't be more than that and people need to stop living like the only thing that matters is their feelings, and other peoples beliefs should come behind the fews feelings."
I think they should be removed for the same reasons that I imagine the Christian people supporting the phrases being there would have a different view if the phrase were Jewish, Scientologist, Hindu, Islamic, or Pastafarian. Not because people shouldn't be able to believe whatever they believe...but because the government of the U.S.A. and subordinate state and local governments should not be seen or presented as "in support of" or adherent to any particular religion, or any religion for that matter. In the same vein, they should officially make no statement and hold no belief on the existence or lack of any god. Phrasing which refers to a god implies knowledge or belief that there is one, and that's not something that the government should be implying.
"Where it could get sketchy is where you have those who aren't "believers" in "God", or any other supreme being. Another argument would be the separation of church and state hence why America has never endorsed any official religion over another. It was what made and IS making us great as a nation." - SSG Warren Swan
I agree with the sentiment of this quote, but disagree with the notion that "America has never endorsed any official religion over another". The fact that that is in question is why this conversation is taking place.
Drawing attention for your comments: SPC Joshua Heath, TSgt Scott Bailey, SSG John Thornton
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) Thank you for posting your views. I enjoy a well written argument pro or con.
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SSG Andrews-Very well written counterpoint. I think to truly get at the heart of this issue, we do have to be honest with each other-Your commentary speaks to that without the rhetoric that clouds the issue on both sides. However, I'll try to frame my personal opinions and concerns as concisely, respectfully, and accurately as possible.
I think it's only fair to compare the impact of these symbols and references on society: Since it's inception in the 1830's, presence on coinage pursuant to Congressional action in 1864, and subsequent inclusions in 1908 and 1956, has the presence of "In God we Trust" increased the effect of religious ideology...or not? By contrast, what has been the overall effect of agnostic or atheistic philosophy on society in the same time frame? Is the existing condition one in which religion suppresses the emergence of other views...or are religious views gradually losing influence in the face of emerging secular ideology? If the latter is true, then what is the desired end state; one in which religious views no longer govern policy...or one in which policy seeks to constrain them as was done to secular ideology in the past?
"In God we Trust" is not a statement that reflects where we are as nation. Current legislation stands as evidence to this fact. My concern, and one which I feel confident is shared by many, is that this rather ambiguous and apparently dessicated motto is one of a few last remaining "life-lines" religious Americans can hold on to in the face of a rapidly evolving society. Removal would force a question to be asked...are we affirming the rights of the secular, or asking the religious to affirm a secular basis of government above their own beliefs?
Are we twenty, ten or five years away from adopting terminology that will require the disavowal of religious principle towards ensuring "equality", and if so...who does this have more impact upon; the secular citizen believing there is no God to be renounced, or the citizen for which this would constitute a conflict between loyalty to God and nation?
I think it's only fair to compare the impact of these symbols and references on society: Since it's inception in the 1830's, presence on coinage pursuant to Congressional action in 1864, and subsequent inclusions in 1908 and 1956, has the presence of "In God we Trust" increased the effect of religious ideology...or not? By contrast, what has been the overall effect of agnostic or atheistic philosophy on society in the same time frame? Is the existing condition one in which religion suppresses the emergence of other views...or are religious views gradually losing influence in the face of emerging secular ideology? If the latter is true, then what is the desired end state; one in which religious views no longer govern policy...or one in which policy seeks to constrain them as was done to secular ideology in the past?
"In God we Trust" is not a statement that reflects where we are as nation. Current legislation stands as evidence to this fact. My concern, and one which I feel confident is shared by many, is that this rather ambiguous and apparently dessicated motto is one of a few last remaining "life-lines" religious Americans can hold on to in the face of a rapidly evolving society. Removal would force a question to be asked...are we affirming the rights of the secular, or asking the religious to affirm a secular basis of government above their own beliefs?
Are we twenty, ten or five years away from adopting terminology that will require the disavowal of religious principle towards ensuring "equality", and if so...who does this have more impact upon; the secular citizen believing there is no God to be renounced, or the citizen for which this would constitute a conflict between loyalty to God and nation?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google