Why does in god we trust not violate the constitution?

[Eko]

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.
"in god we trust" is obviously religious, people who don't believe in religions don't believe in god. How is this still a thing? I know what the 8th circuit ruled and it's wrong.

[Lithos]

1. Bad logic

Atheism is not a religion and thus the belief there is a god does not favor a religion.

[Eko]

3. It doesnt say "a" religion.

It says religion. "The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise."

[TheBeam19]

5. I think you're right to focus on each word.

How does the use of that phrase establish religion?

[Eko]

7. the process of starting or creating something,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/establishment

[TheBeam19]

8. So religion wasn't started or created

until that phrase became the national motto of the United States?

[Eko]

12. Of course I never said that at all.

[TheBeam19]

16. Okay.

How does the use of the phrase “in God we trust” establish religion?

[Eko]

17. Because to believe in god is to believe in religion.

Do you not agree with that?

[TheBeam19]

19. You were focused on the words of

the Amendment, and rightly so. Why the departure now?

Why not tell us how the use of the phrase has anything to do with the establishment of religion?

Also, in a subthread below, and in response to someone using a word you said isn’t in the Amendment, you said “if the law talks about God” but the Amendment doesn’t say anything about “talking about”; it specifically addresses establishment.

Again, I think you rightly focus on the wording of the Amendment. But it would help to be consistent about it.

[Eko]

20. Not sure what you are talking about.

Why not tell us how the use of the phrase has anything to do with the establishment of religion?
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.
Cause it says establishment.
Added, because if you make a law that talks about God which is religious then you are making a law about religion which is establishing religion.

Also, in a subthread below, and in response to someone using a word you said isn’t in the Amendment, you said “if the law talks about God” but the Amendment doesn’t say anything about “talking about”; it specifically addresses establishment.

No, I said "It doesn't say anything about trust," because they were bringing up that how does "trust" mean "worship" which the amendment doesn't say either. It specifically says "make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It doesnt say "trust" or "worship" anywhere at all. And if the law puts into writing , "in god we trust" that sure as anything is making a law establishing religion. I dont see any way it could be more clear at all. If it said "In Trump we trust" then it would without a doubt put into law that Trump is a major foundation of our government.
Eko.

Going to bed.

[TheBeam19]

23. That's why I asked

how the use of the phrase establishes a religion. You provided a definition. When I used the words you provided in that definition, you said you didn’t say that. But you did.

As for whether or not you said something about the law “talking about God”… you said “If the law talks about god then it is about religion.” Those are your words.

Again, I think it’s an interesting question but it seems like you are not being consistent about what you’re saying, and you’re also, on two occasions, outright denying you said something that you obviously said. So I’m not sure this will be very productive.

[Eko]

24. If the law talks about god,,,,

When I said that it was in response to "Because "trust" falls short of "worship"?" right? When I said "talks about god" that was meant to mean that the law actually talks about god which we cannot do according to the 1st amendment. If our law talks about god and says there is not one then it would be against the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. " because it would be making a law respecting an establishment of religion and possibly prohibiting it? Conversely if it says there is one then it does the same thing. Right? Or do you think a law putting "there is no god" on our money would not be against the 1st amendment? If there is a law that "talks about god" then it either is affirming or negating god. Period. And both are against the 1st amendment. I did reply to you "no", but if you read the rest of it it says "No", I said to the original poster "It doesn't say anything about trust," Because that was the subject of our conversation. Not say anything about god. You can say I misunderstood your question or you could say you misunderstood the point of the debate. As I have shown above, any law talking about god is violating the 1st amendment. I mean really what could you say? The most benign thing you could do is say, "God is both real and not real" and that still would violate the 1st. Why dont you give us a statement that you think wouldnt violate the 1st and I'll give the opposite and we will see if you agree.
Eko

[Eko]

18. Now you can show me religions that dont believe in Gods,

That's all well and good, but can you show me a definition where someone believes in god and its not a religion? Cause that's the real question.

[Eko]

6. Religion is a noun, let put other nouns in there to see if it works.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of hair or prohibiting its free exercise.
Is that referring to a type of hair or just hair in general?

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of Advertisement or prohibiting its free exercise.
Is that a type of Advertisement or in general?

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of Apple or prohibiting its free exercise
Is that a type of apple or in general?

I am choosing nouns that can work for the singular and plural cause that is what they did.
Eko.

[elleng]

2. It IS wrong, but it's long gone.

We DO/have made mistakes, like ignoring 'a well-regulated militia,' and that's a BIG, recently made mistake.

[Eko]

4. Thanks!

[Zambero]

9. Because "trust" falls short of "worship"?

[Eko]

13. It doesnt say anyting about trust,

just about establishing a law about religion. The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. If the law talks about god then it is about religion.

[RockRaven]

10. Because god-botherers on the Supreme Court have said that up is down and right is left and

we've already been at war with Eastasia.

They're wrong, of course, but being wrong doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is power, and they've got it.

[Eko]

11. War is peace.

Keep on keeponing.
Eko.

[hedda_foil]

14. In God awe Trust was invented as a national motto in the fifties along with "uber God" in the pledge

Because the dirty Russian commies rejected religion. Capitalism is the bestest ism, isn't it?

[Eko]

15. Ya I know.

Thanks.

[3Hotdogs]

21. Religion, as an attempt to explain forces that control the universe and the afterlife...

Atheism, promoting that there is no conscious force or being(s) that controls or plans the outcome of the universe or our afterlife, is a religion.

Edited to add: This position would put atheism on equal legal status with people wearing silly hats, robes and such.

[Eko]

22. Wow really?

SMH, nope, there is not enough proof of god so I dont believe it. There is no doctrine, there is no atheist prayers, get a grip. Generally we dont believe things without proof, we disbelieve things without enough proof. Not a religion at all.,

[Major Nikon]

25. Sounds more like a belief than anything you can demonstrate with evidence

Atheism is the absence of belief which is true of all atheists. The promotion you are attributing to all atheists is your first error. Your second error is claiming that if any atheist anywhere does promote this idea, then this somehow makes it a religion by any definition other than your own.

Now you can certainly attempt to argue otherwise, but should you chose to focus on one of your errors and not both, that still leaves the bullshit call unanswered.

[edhopper]

32. This position might do that

If it had anything to do with actual atheism.

[Major Nikon]

26. It doesn't matter if they are wrong

America’s history of jurisprudence is littered with bad decisions. Ultimately what is constitutional or not is arbitrated by our courts and whether or not we agree with it is pretty much irrelevant unless we mount a successful legal challenge to change it.

While we certainly like to see our system of courts authoring decisions solely based on reason the hard truth is they are often swayed by their own biases. What is different today is you have shitstains posing as justices such as Alito who will openly lie during confirmation specifically to consciously employ those biases to a system intended to be free from them. When this breaks down you can be well assured we are all fucked and mottos making reference to hocus pocus will be the least of our problems.

[madamesilverspurs]

27. It's not the "God" reference that bothers me.

In this particular phrase, it's the "We" that is worrisome. It's a relatively small group that defines the parameters of "the We", who delineate the boundaries between the godly "us" and the ungodly "them", who is allowed in and those for whom the door is always locked. There is a long and bloody history of the highest and mightiest for whom "God" is the ever-convenient excuse, providing the facade behind which scripture is twisted into ransom notes. The abuses are legion.

On the flip side, the book they like to flaunt has a phrase that they tend to avoid quoting, probably because it describes in exquisite simplicity what "we" are to be about: A tree is known by its fruit. And in that, perhaps the better motto would be "Yes We Can."



.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. USSC decisions have it both ways:

1) IGWT is religious, but
2) It's symbolic, so it stays on money.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

29. As long as I define God as...

... the physical laws of the Universe, it doesn't annoy me.

In that case, my God is seemingly honest and consistent; doesn't answer prayers; doesn't stroke our massive egos by making us the center of everything; treats every living thing equally when they die (they're simply DEAD).

There's a multitude of religions and their Gods, so I'll just define my own based on available evidence.

Edit: My God won't be popular among right-wing snowflakes, who like to think they have special status in this world. It's not enough that they're comfortable with unfairness while alive -- they even want privileged status compared to others after they're dead.

[FBaggins]

30. Because the constitution was in no sense anti-religious

You can't read "no law establishing" without the "free exercise" part of the clause and then just imagine what you think it means.

So many people had come here because they couldn't worship as they desired in their home countries - because those countries had state religions and often persecuted anyone who was not part of those "established" religions. So the founders intentionally created a union designed to avoid establishing a national religion. But nowhere did they say that religion in general could not be part of public life. They were clearly asking themselves what would allow the most "free exercise" for a pluralistic country... and clearly settled on keeping the federal government from picking a winning church/denomination.

Note that, at the time, they had no trouble with state religions. Nor did they have trouble with even federal statements of religiousness. Your reading of their intent cannot be correct or else the men who wrote it would not have allowed prayer in opening congressional sessions. You're faced with asking yourself "why didn't someone stand up at that first prayer and say 'um... guys? Didn't we just say that we couldn't do that???"

[Major Nikon]

31. They had all sorts of problems with state religions

People like Jefferson and numerous others spoke about the dangers of entanglements with religion and state. I know by "state" you mean individual states formed the union, but it's really the same thing especially in respect to how the founding fathers viewed the subject. The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states for almost another hundred years so your idea of them doing nothing about the state question implies apathy on the subject doesn't make much sense from a historical perspective.

As far as allowing prayer in opening congressional sessions go, this was protested from the very beginning and has never been without controversy or challenge. The SCOTUS ultimately ruled the framers viewed it as a toleration of the religious views of the membership and not an official sponsorship.

The OP is not suggesting our government should be anti-religious. Only that there should be a line between toleration and entanglement which shouldn't be crossed. This is an idea that was well established from the very beginning.

[Igel]

34. You misunderstand "state".

You try, but it fails. This was strictly a restriction on the supra-state *federal* government. My *state* had an official religion.

They're not the same thing, states vs the federal government. Some had issues, but they were also hands-off.

Note that the status of Thanksgiving is seldom protested--but that was the very topic that begat the "wall of separation" lingo at whose altar so many worship. A proclamation of a day of thanksgiving would violate that "wall" and be doubly unconstitutional, without authorization for a president to proclaim and without authorization for Congress to grant authority to the prez. Yet what's up in 3 weeks? Something that few say is anathema to the Constitution.

We have federal holidays like Xmas and Easter. But "in g-d we trust" gets the ire. T-day, and the others get us days off or double-time pay.

I'm okay with my personal and sick days going to my religion's holidays. I'm not okay with having to take off as forced down-time to honor others' religious holidays *and* use my days off for my religion. Yet meaningless phrases torment some.

[Major Nikon]

35. You must not have read past my first sentence

You focus on the semantics of that first sentence while completely ignoring the context and how the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the states almost 100 years after you think it did. I suppose if I wanted to make such irrational arguments I could point out how Easter is not a federal holiday and proclaim victory by pointing a finger at your obvious error and ignoring everything else you wrote. Instead I'll simply point out the ridiculousness of implying that because someone takes offense to the national motto they must be totally fine with every other official observance that has some tangential relationship to religion.

[enki23]

33. Because the courts ruled that it's a meaningless phrase

Last edited Mon Nov 7, 2022, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

.

[Major Nikon]

36. Kinda makes you just a bit proud knowing we have complete gibberish for a national motto

[Eko]

38. Great one, missed this somehow.

Gibberish.

[Iggo]

37. Because, as usual, default Americans looked at it and agreed among themselves...

…that including it was harmless, but that removing it was tantamount to religious persecution.

Another example (or as I like to call it, the same exact thing):
Encourage belief in Santa Claus? Harmless.
Discourage belief in Santa Claus? Child abuse

See how that works?

Welcome to America.

[Eko]

39. I like to challenge myself and others, and you presented a challege to me

that helped me learn something that I did not know. I agree with your comment for the whole, I cant argue with the opinion in it as I agree with it 100%. I think that any nefariousness with it with was with a few people, some congress people and legislators but for the whole Americans just sat back there as said that it was cool. And exactly like you said people think that wanting to remove it is religious persecution. How many became my question. I just thought that I would do a google search for it like "Polls on in god we trust" and you know what I found? Zero. No worries, Then I tried "how popular is in god we trust" and the most recent poll was from 2019 and had support of 53%, but it went from 90% in 2003 to 53% in 2019. 16 years a difference of 37%, 37% divided by 16 = 2.13 decrease every year. 3x2.13= 6.39 decrease since then and we have 46%. And while I realize my math really doesn't say much if we look at the percentage of people who attended a church in pretty much the same timeline we get "Americans' membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup's eight-decade trend. In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque, down from 50% in 2018 and 70% in 1999." We had a 3% drop from 2020 to 2018, close to the 2% drop a year for in god we trust. From 1999 to 2020 we had a 23% drop for those 20 years, far short of the 2% drop a year but still showing a trend. I might put an excel file together to see if it is exponential like I think it is.Regardless I would like to see some recent polls, I believe most people don't care about it or don't like but of course I am biased. Regardless your statement made me go down a rabbit hole and learn more than I would of,
Thanks,
Eko