Tuesday, February 17, 2009

In god we trust?

There is a poll on the MSNBC website asking whether "In god we trust" should be removed from U.S. currency. The two options to answer this question are:

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. (Currently at 15%)

Or

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
(Currently at 85%)

Full disclosure, I am an atheist and I have a rather strict interpretation of the constitution. So, of course I am going to answer a resounding YES!! to the above. But even if you believe in god, you may want to say yes to the survey. Why?

In order to answer NO to the survey you have to ask yourself one question. According to the 1st amendment, does the U.S. government have the right to place this motto on our currency:

"In NO god we trust"

If you answered no, the government has no right to place that motto on our currency, then what gives government the power to place "In god we trust" on our currency now? Often there is a retort to this question like:

Well, over 90% of the people who live here (The U.S.) believe in a god.

At one time the majority of citizens in the U.S. also thought it was wrong for women and minorities to vote. A majority agreeing with a proposition does not make that proposition right. But let's say that there was an atheist majority in this country. Would it be right for the government to put "In no god we trust"? Of course it would NOT. The first amendment is there to guarantee government neutrality when it comes to matters of religion. You may worship or not, and the government cannot promote that you do either.

The founding fathers had some wonderful ideas, and the 1st amendment is probably one of the greatest socio-political ideas ever. The constitution was framed the way it was because the founding fathers had seen what happens when:

Governments limit speech, press, assembly, the right to bear arms and the ability of it's citizens to petition their government.

They also had seen what happens to governments who become intertwined with religion (For good examples of why theocracies are bad, look at the Middle East!!). They easily become theocracies which are the worst kinds of totalitarian governments. Religious belief is said to be personal, a matter which is a private and private, is how religious belief should remain.

D

Thanks to Ali for getting us to think today!

P.S. Ali has the comments turned off on her site (as she doesn't want what will be a very sticky debate going on). You may feel free to air your rantings here. All I ask is that everyone stay away from the ad homs. (the name calling and whatnot). If you can't follow this rule then you will be booted!!

5 comments:

  1. Ha, thanks Dave. I am so not into debating, I figured you would be more open to it =) I know if I am going to poke sticks I should be more willing for the debate possibility, but I really suck at it! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's all good. This subject is really a can of worms anyway. Often, those on both sides of the issue get a little carried away. That is why I put up my one rule.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "IN GOD WE TRUST"? A CONTROVERSY? This is an AMEBA when dealing with the government. A simple example - TAX LAW - complete social engineering! Single people pay higher tax rates - Gays can't marry - thus gay or straight if you are not married you pay higher tax rates. So to pay less taxes we marry - as long as we are not gay. So does this "MOTTO" take money out of your pocket? NO!

    My support or non support of the "Motto" is not the issue BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T CARE! OBVIOUSLY MSNBC NEEDS TO IMPROVE THEIR STAFF OF JOURNALISTS! I guess there are no other problems AT ALL! So we have to worry about the "MOTTO".

    ReplyDelete
  4. PLEASE EXCUSE MY LEWIS BLACK LIKE RANT. But it seems to me there are much larger stones to turn over for a news org like MSNBC. I think the poll should have a third response - WHO CARES? Which would have had a zero response. DAMN LEWIS BLACK AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I must say that I agree that there are more important issues to take care of first. You know, stuff like world hunger, HIV, vaccinations, fair trade, disposing of nukes, and so on.

    ReplyDelete