atheists going too far?

[Alan]

What the other's said. I think that if they can revamp the entire tax laws and all the forms and booklets every few years, they can find the time to simply remove the stamp in the US Mint that reads "In God We Trust" from the stamping machine. As far as religious emblems on govmint buildings and Seals,,, well... alot of those have some historic or symbolic representaion rather than religious (i.e. the courts use of the Roman Godess "Lady Justice" holding the Scales of Justice) so I guess it would have to debated. I know in Calif we had a very heated debate about the cross on our state emblem. Many argued that it was a religious symbol of Christianity, other's argued that it was a historic symbol depicting the Missionary Heritage of Calif. I don't remember what the outcome was but I don't see the cross on the Seal any longer. I also think that Chaplains aren't needed if there is another source for spiritual guidance nearby. However, out in the field in the military, I think that having a neutral religious advisor (i.e. not adhereing to any particular belief but educated enough to give comfort and advice to people of varying faiths) is needed. I think it's especially important for burial rites for those who die in the field and who's bodies can't be brought back. I know that my religious belief was one of the first things they put on my dog tags when I joined the service - right under my blood type - so having someone qualified to perform those rituals of ALL religions is very important.

When you see "In God We Trust" do you see a Christian God or a Universal God? Also, is it possible to separate religion from specific faiths?

[Spartana]

When you see "In God We Trust" do you see a Christian God or a Universal God? Also, is it possible to separate religion from specific faiths?

I guess what I see is a religious ideology that doesn't reflect everyone's personal beliefs (including atheists, agnostics, and other's who may have a god-less spiritual belief). I see it as a govmint sanctioned belief in a creator or spritual being on what I feel should not be in the realm of government. Again, I just don't see why government needs to have a religious saying on something that should be purely secular and representative of ALL the people IMHO.

[Zigzagman]

I have always viewed the purpose of religion is control of the masses. Government uses that to it's advantage as much as possible as do almost all religions.

Peace

[peggy]

I guess what I see is a religious ideology that doesn't reflect everyone's personal beliefs (including atheists, agnostics, and other's who may have a god-less spiritual belief). I see it as a govmint sanctioned belief in a creator or spritual being on what I feel should not be in the realm of government. Again, I just don't see why government needs to have a religious saying on something that should be purely secular and representative of ALL the people IMHO.

+1

[creaker]

When you see "In God We Trust" do you see a Christian God or a Universal God? Also, is it possible to separate religion from specific faiths?

Well, the Chaplains for the House and Senate since the positions were created have all been Christians.

[Alan]

Well, the Chaplains for the House and Senate since the positions were created have all been Christians.

I'll take your word for that as it seems likely. Although I'm thinking more along the lines of the popular argument regarding the separation of church and state. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? My belief is that it would not as long as it did not use it's power to force the citizens to make the same acknowledgment.

I'm also of the opinion that if the government allows proponents of a particular religion access to the public square in order to profess their faith, they are not violating the concept either as long as they allow all faiths the same access. What we're seeing these days is an effort to remove a universal god from the public square through the mis-application of the concept.

[benhyr]

I'll take your word for that as it seems likely. Although I'm thinking more along the lines of the popular argument regarding the separation of church and state. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? My belief is that it would not as long as it did not use it's power to force the citizens to make the same acknowledgment.

1. What benefit does it bring for the government to do so? What are the downsides of it failing to do so?

2. How does doing so represent that government's atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu constituents? That is, if the government takes a stance of acknowledging a universal god, then who is it choosing to exclude in it's populace?

3. I don't know that many are saying the government must block religion from public places but, rather, that the government must not sponsor religion. That is, Westboro Baptist is free to proselytize in the town square but the federal government is not free to install a cross.

It'd have to be such a watered down "hey, love is good, man" sort of message as to be pointless. What would the benefits be? I assume that it would at least pay lip service to the majority still. Is that worth it?

eta: I can see the senate bill now, though... something along the lines of "Joint Resolution to Acknowledge a Non-Denominational Universal Theistic Entity". I, honestly, can't imagine any group, in aggregate, that wouldn't be up in arms over such a measure.

[creaker]

"Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? " Exclusively? Yes. Monotheism covers a lot of religions - but it also leaves many out, and is in direct conflict with many - as well as being in direct conflict with atheism. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to disavow a universal god? I think it would. The whole point of separation of church and state is that state not be promoting any particular religion, I think that also applies if the state is promoting religion in such a way that leaves a large group of religions and others out.

As far as giving religions access to the public square, I agree as long as they have the same access. In Boston I see it all the time - from those carrying "repent or else" placards on the street to Jehovah Witnesses handing out their pamphlets to the Falun Gong in the Commons displaying how they are persecuted in China to Hare Krishna's dancing in Copley Square on Fridays. But the only way government is involved here is staying out of it.

[peggy]

I'll take your word for that as it seems likely. Although I'm thinking more along the lines of the popular argument regarding the separation of church and state. Do you think it would violate the concept for the government to acknowledge a universal god? My belief is that it would not as long as it did not use it's power to force the citizens to make the same acknowledgment.

I'm also of the opinion that if the government allows proponents of a particular religion access to the public square in order to profess their faith, they are not violating the concept either as long as they allow all faiths the same access. What we're seeing these days is an effort to remove a universal god from the public square through the mis-application of the concept.

We ARE the government, and the government is us. And we are many religions, and no religions. We aren't declaring a universal god because plenty of us don't believe in one. At all. Now if you are asking if a certain religion which is heavily represented by congress persons should be able to speak for us all in acknowledging a universal god, then no. They may not speak for me and lots of other citizens.
Again I ask, why is it so important that we acknowledge a universal god? Why are you and your christian friends pushing this? Cause it's only the Christians who are pushing this, in schools and public meetings across the country. The only reason I can see is not so they can acknowledge their god, which of course they can do, but to force the rest of us to acknowledge their god. If their faith is so tenuous that they need the rest of us to recognize it in order for it to be 'real' then their problem isn't the rest of the world but within their own hearts. My knowledge that their isn't a god isn't threatened by your belief in one, and I certainly don't expect we the government to erect signs declaring there is no god.
How about on some of the coins it says 'In God We Trust' and on others it says 'There Is No God' Would that work?

[Alan]

Again I ask, why is it so important that we acknowledge a universal god? Why are you and your christian friends pushing this? Cause it's only the Christians who are pushing this, in schools and public meetings across the country. The only reason I can see is not so they can acknowledge their god, which of course they can do, but to force the rest of us to acknowledge their god. If their faith is so tenuous that they need the rest of us to recognize it in order for it to be 'real' then their problem isn't the rest of the world but within their own hearts. My knowledge that their isn't a god isn't threatened by your belief in one, and I certainly don't expect we the government to erect signs declaring there is no god.
How about on some of the coins it says 'In God We Trust' and on others it says 'There Is No God' Would that work?

I don't think it is important to acknowledge a universal god and I'm not pushing it on you or anyone else. Just asking questions to spark discussion and maybe challange a few mis-conceptions.

My entire interest in this discussion has to do with the supposed "separation of church and state", which I believe is mis-understood by more and more folks these days. I really don't care what words are displayed on our money as long as it spends, and I don't understand why anyone else would either.

It's been brought out in various discussions on this site over the years that our founders were not Christians per se, but rather that they were predominately Deists, which of course still requires a belief in creation and a creator. Their vision of individual rights were based upon certain inalienable rights granted by a creator and which therefore could not be taken away by man. They were right to construct a system of government that would not allow a theocracy but they never intended to remove what they considered to be each individuals responsibility to that creator. I think the original intent of our form of representative democracy within a republican governmental structure would leave the founders dumbfounded at the lengths we've come to take god out of the public square.

If people don't believe in god or feel that their preferred religion is not represented fully within that system of governance, then I say, So What? No one is forcing you to believe a certain way or worship against your will.