[dcolton]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126257,00.html

OCEANSIDE, Calif. — "In God We Trust" (search) is the national motto, and now one California town plans to make it part of its official seal.

Oceanside's city seal will have the words "In God We Trust" below its logo. "Liberty" will be written out above it.

The measure was voted down twice last year, but earlier this month during a spirited council meeting in which more than 100 residents spoke out -- mostly in favor of the idea -- the Oceanside (search) City Council passed unanimously a plan to add the words to its logo, where it can be seen, among other places, on the council chamber's wall.

But not all Oceanside residents are pleased with the plan. They are accusing the council of playing politics, and point out that all five City Council members are up for re-election this year.

"I find that people who press their faith for political advantage are really subverting their own beliefs. And it's upsetting to me because this is my city hall chambers, and I'm not comfortable going in there once that plaque goes up," said Oceanside resident Nadine Scott.

The American Civil Liberties Union (search) is said to have been contacted by opponents who want to file suit against the town, but the organization has yet to decide whether to take the case.

[Invictus]

Topic: Another Attack on God

I think God can handle it but we appreciate your concern.

[BRussell]

A town changes their logo to "In God we trust" and that's an attack on God? Sounds like another win for God to me.

[itistoday]

I now know not to touch this with a 10-foot pole... but it is tempting..

[BlackGriffen]

Isn't the national motto supposed to be "E Pluribus Unum"?

D'oh! Freaking religious whack-o's and zealots switched it on us around the same time they added "Under god" to the pledge of allegiance.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I now know not to touch this with a 10-foot pole... but it is tempting..

Why the opposition to In God We Trust?

I don't get it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Isn't the national motto supposed to be "E Pluribus Unum"?

D'oh! Freaking religious whack-o's and zealots switched it on us around the same time they added "Under god" to the pledge of allegiance.

BlackGriffen

Religious wackos, eh. I suppose we should burn our money next because it carries the phrase "In God We Trust" Huh?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Religious wackos, eh. I suppose we should burn our money next because it carries the phrase "In God We Trust" Huh?

in your world, is everyone christian and republican?
Do people skip in fields of daisies, arm in arm...
what is the color of the sky in your world?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
[B]Isn't the national motto supposed to be "E Pluribus Unum"?

D'oh! Freaking religious whack-o's and zealots switched it on us around the same time they added "Under god" to the pledge of allegiance.

Actually, this seems to have been done much earlier than that. I don't claim to know exactly when it was done, but The Star-Spangled Banner mentions it as the motto, and that predates the Pledge change by many years.

[lil'babykitten]

Doesn't it worry y'all that the dollar bills still have 'In God We Trust' printed on them, yet everything else in the public realm is supposed to be strictly separate from God?!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, this seems to have been done much earlier than that. I don't claim to know exactly when it was done, but The Star-Spangled Banner mentions it as the motto, and that predates the Pledge change by many years.

That's a poem by F. Scott Key, not an official government document.

Note also that the section generally sung does not include that bit, and that it wasn't adopted as the anthem until America was embarrassed into adopting one (I believe by the Olympics somewhere in the early 20th century).

BlackGriffen

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

Why the opposition to In God We Trust?

I don't get it.

If the motto was "There is no God" or "In Satan we trust" would you oppose it? If so, that's why the opposition. If not, why do you care if people oppose it?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Invictus:
Topic: Another Attack on God

I think God can handle it but we appreciate your concern.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That's a poem by F. Scott Key, not an official government document.

Indeed not, but why would it mention "In God We Trust" (paraphrased as "In God Is Our Trust" in the song) as the motto if it weren't actually the motto at that time?

My only reasoning for mentioning the song at all is that it can serve as a piece of evidence that the motto was changed much earlier than the Pledge's change. I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm only trying to nail down a time frame.

Note also that the section generally sung does not include that bit, and that it wasn't adopted as the anthem until America was embarrassed into adopting one (I believe by the Olympics somewhere in the early 20th century).

Again, all true. I am not trying to use the song as anything but a piece of historical evidence.

[f1000]

Many American cities have Christianity-inspired names:

Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Jose
San Diego
St. Louis
San Antonio
St. Petersburg
Corpus Christi
Shiloh
Bethlehem
Newark

The Constitution never forbid naming cities after religious ideals.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Religious wackos, eh. I suppose we should burn our money next because it carries the phrase "In God We Trust" Huh?

No, but you can ocassionaly find an old note without that printed on it. It was added pretty recently, in 1955, as a reaction to our fear of spreading communism. I came across an early 50s bill a few weeks ago that didn't have it on it, it was pretty interesting. IMO it doesn't really belong there, but we have bigger things to worry about at the moment.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by f1000:
The Constitution never forbid naming cities after religious ideals.

Umm... so?

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Isn't the national motto supposed to be "E Pluribus Unum"?

Yep, as envisioned by Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. E Pluribus Unum which means "From Many, One" has a much nicer atmosphere to it in my opinion... it shows the great diversity of our country. Not that anyone speaks Latin anymore

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Religious wackos, eh. I suppose we should burn our money next because it carries the phrase "In God We Trust" Huh?

No, but the phrase should be removed from the bills, as it should never have appeared on them to begin with. The separation between church and state is written into the Consititution. There is a Constitutional right for all legislators, indeed, all citizens, to speak of their religious beliefs as they see fit, even if they use those beliefs to gain the favor of voters. However, no such right exists for those legislators to speak on behalf of their constituents (the American people) when it comes to matters of religion. God does not need to be legislated. If you happen to believe in him, or it, I'm sure you can agree that god does not need to be endorsed by a nation.

The "we" in the phrase is supposed to represent all of the American people. Yet "in God we trust" does not represent me nor millions of other Americans who deny the existence of god. This nation was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty. Who among us would take issue with the motto "in freedom we trust"?

[f1000]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
Umm... so?

So people who attack the name "In God We Trust" as being a violation of the separation of church and state are out of line.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why the opposition to In God We Trust?

I don't get it.

Not all Americans (and by extension, I assume not all citizens of Oceanside) trust, or believe, in the Christian god. Some trust in the gods of their own religion or none at all.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by f1000:
So people who attack the name "In God We Trust" as being a violation of the separation of church and state are out of line.

No. Not out of line in the least bit. Many of the cities you listed were founded and named by explorers with certain religious beliefs long before they were part of the United States of America. Besides, the name given to a city in a particular state in a particular area of the country is a totally separate entity from a FEDERALLY endorsed or legislated phrase/image/name/etc. that takes the existence (or non-existence) of god as granted.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
No. Not out of line in the least bit. Many of the cities you listed were founded and named by explorers with certain religious beliefs long before they were part of the United States of America. Besides, the name given to a city in a particular state in a particular area of the country is a totally separate entity from a FEDERALLY endorsed or legislated phrase/image/name/etc. that takes the existence (or non-existence) of god as granted.

What he said. I don't know how the name someone gave a city and a federal law to place something on the currency is in any way related.

[f1000]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
No. Not out of line in the least bit. Many of the cities you listed were founded and named by explorers with certain religious beliefs long before they were part of the United States of America. Besides, the name given to a city in a particular state in a particular area of the country is a totally separate entity from a FEDERALLY endorsed or legislated phrase/image/name/etc. that takes the existence (or non-existence) of god as granted.

Oops, I thought we were talking about a town that was renaming itself to "In God We Trust."

It's the old age.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by f1000:
Oops, I thought we were talking about a town that was renaming itself to "In God We Trust."

It's the old age.

Must be. A younger person's more adroit use of the internet might have turned up this:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

[f1000]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
Must be. A younger person's more adroit use of the internet might have turned up this:

I don't understand the purpose of your quote. Translate for me, please.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by f1000:
I don't understand the purpose of your quote. Translate for me, please.

Sorry, we can't help you. Please step to the back of the line.

[f1000]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
Sorry, we can't help you. Please step to the back of the line.

No, seriously. How does Article I forbid a town from naming itself New Bethlehem?

Sorry, guys, I don't mean to drag this thread off topic.

[zigzag]

Make it "In Allah we trust" and see how fast dcolton calls the ACLU.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Make it "In Allah we trust" and see how fast dcolton calls the ACLU.

LOL

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Make it "In Allah we trust" and see how fast dcolton calls the ACLU.

ROFL!

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Make it "In Allah we trust" and see how fast dcolton calls the ACLU.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Indeed not, but why would it mention "In God We Trust" (paraphrased as "In God Is Our Trust" in the song) as the motto if it weren't actually the motto at that time?

My only reasoning for mentioning the song at all is that it can serve as a piece of evidence that the motto was changed much earlier than the Pledge's change. I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm only trying to nail down a time frame.

Again, all true. I am not trying to use the song as anything but a piece of historical evidence.

From the link in my first post in the thread:

The original national motto: "E Pluribus Unum"

The original motto of the United States was secular. "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts." It refers to the welding of a single federal state from a group of individual political units -- originally colonies and now states.

On 1776-JUL-4, Congress appointed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. The first design, submitted to Congress on 1776-AUG-10 used the motto "E Pluribus Unum." It was rejected. Five other designs also failed to meet with Congress' approval during the next five years. In 1782, Congress asked Mr. Thomson, Secretary of Congress, to complete the project. Thomson, along with a friend named Barton, produced a design that was accepted by Congress on 1782-JUN-10. It included an eagle with a heart-shaped shield, holding arrows and an olive branch in its claws. The motto "E Pluribus Unum" appeared on a scroll held in its beak. The seal was first used on 1782-SEP-16. It was first used on some federal coins in 1795.

The replacement motto: "In God We Trust:"

Almost a century and a half ago, 11 Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Rev. M.R. Watkinson of Ridleyville PA was the first of many to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase in 1861 to promote this concept. Watkinson suggested the words "God, Liberty, Law." In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on Union coins used during the Civil War. Pollock suggested "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase picked to have "In God We Trust" used on some of the coins._ The phrase was a subtle reminder that the Union was on the side of God regarding slavery. Congress passed legislation. Since a 1837 Act of Congress specified the mottos and devices that were to be placed on U.S. coins, it was necessary to pass another Act to enable the motto to be added. This was done on 1886-APR-22. "The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since" 1908-JUL-1.

Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." The president signed the resolution into law on 1956-JUL-30._ The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism._The new motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it was added to the one-dollar silver certificate. By 1966, "In God we Trust" was added to all paper money, from $1 to $100 denominations.

I've removed the reference numbers (or, tried to, anyway), but you'll find that the originating article is properly referenced.

Please note, also, that you can still find the original motto, "E PLURIBUS UNUM," on the back of the old coins (I don't know about the new state quarters). I believe that you can also find it on the $1 and all of the bills of that format. The Jesus freaks seem to have removed it from the newer bills.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no valid motto but the original one. It's a shame that it's been this long and that cold war excess still hasn't been corrected.

BlackGriffen

[cpt kangarooski]

f1000--

No, seriously. How does Article I forbid a town from naming itself New Bethlehem?

The first amendment and its parallels prevent governments from action intended to promote or inhibit religion. Under the right circumstances that could include to the name for a town, though it's unlikely IMO.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Make it "In Allah we trust" and see how fast dcolton calls the ACLU.

Nah, I would blow up innocent civillians in the name of Allah and call it a holy war. When everyone complains...I will simply ask them to looka at the infamous 'root cause' of the situation.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Doesn't it worry y'all that the dollar bills still have 'In God We Trust' printed on them, yet everything else in the public realm is supposed to be strictly separate from God?!

Actually I think that is meant ironically, saying really that noone trusts in God anymore, but more so in the money the saying is printed on. Or is it saying that the money is the new god?

Taliesin

[f1000]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
[B]The first amendment and its parallels prevent governments from action intended to promote or inhibit religion. Under the right circumstances that could include to the name for a town, though it's unlikely IMO.

That's not a technical argument as to why a town couldn't call itself New Bethlehem. Are there judicial precedents in California forbidding the naming of places using religious terms?


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 4.


a) Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.

Does naming a city "New Mecca" curtail the religious freedoms of non-Muslim residents?


b) This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State.

Is a place name such as "Jesusville" licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the States?


c) The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Are place names laws? If so, what happens if a place is named by a popular referendum instead of by a legislature?

[undotwa]

Although I prefer 'E Pluribus Unum' (after all, Latin mottos are better ), In God We Trust does not go against the idea of seperation of Church and State. The seperation of Church and State refers to actual refusal to align the government with a particular denomination or religion (such as Britain has the Anglican church as its established religion). In God We Trust does not align the state with any particular church or religion.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by f1000:
That's not a technical argument as to why a town couldn't call itself New Bethlehem. Are there judicial precedents in California forbidding the naming of places using religious terms?

If I recall correctly, there actually is a city with that name.

Does naming a city "New Mecca" curtail the religious freedoms of non-Muslim residents?

No, but that may not be the best of examples. "Mecca" has entered the general English vocabulary, to mean "a place where many people of a certain group gather". For example, Silicon Valley has been described as a mecca for programmers.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Although I prefer 'E Pluribus Unum' (after all, Latin mottos are better ), In God We Trust does not go against the idea of seperation of Church and State. The seperation of Church and State refers to actual refusal to align the government with a particular denomination or religion (such as Britain has the Anglican church as its established religion). In God We Trust does not align the state with any particular church or religion.

Yes it does.

It aligns the state with a monotheistic belief structure, which is actually a minor detail.

The problem is that it endorses a religious belief structure at all. This excludes polytheistic and naturalistic religions and world views, not to mention - God forbid! - atheism.

And *that* is unconstitutional.

-s*

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes it does.

It aligns the state with a monotheistic belief structure, which is actually a minor detail.

The problem is that it endorses a religious belief structure at all. This excludes polytheistic and naturalistic religions and world views, not to mention - God forbid! - atheism.

And *that* is unconstitutional.

-s*

Exactly correct.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes it does.

It aligns the state with a monotheistic belief structure, which is actually a minor detail.

The problem is that it endorses a religious belief structure at all. This excludes polytheistic and naturalistic religions and world views, not to mention - God forbid! - atheism.

And *that* is unconstitutional.

-s*

Of course, there will be some here who will argue incessantly that it does, just because they say it does, over and over.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nah, I would blow up innocent civillians in the name of Allah and call it a holy war. When everyone complains...I will simply ask them to looka at the infamous 'root cause' of the situation.

First of all, I commend you for avoiding the topic you started with this thread.

Secondly, I think many of us would appreciate it if you would change the topic to "Another attack on people with different religious beliefs." I'm sure you'll heed the call right soon.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nah, I would blow up innocent civillians in the name of Allah and call it a holy war. When everyone complains...I will simply ask them to looka at the infamous 'root cause' of the situation.

"After being forced to take yet another break, I can say that I finally get it and I apologize for my part in derailing topics and starting flame wars. I have been particpating in a different forum and I see the difference in substantial debate versus all out flame wars. So I apologize and look forward to participating in better discussions . . . I am still an a$$hole, that will never change...and my opinions will not differ, but I will make an effort to positively contribute to this forum versus what I did in the past."

[cpt kangarooski]

f1000--

That's not a technical argument as to why a town couldn't call itself New Bethlehem. Are there judicial precedents in California forbidding the naming of places using religious terms?

That is a good argument, actually. The first amendment applies to the states (and portions of the states such as municipalities) via the fourteenth amendment. One Supreme Court case interpreting the first amendment's establishment clause is Lemon, and one of the three independent prongs for finding state action unconstitutional is that it is intended to promote or inhibit religion.

So if you named a town with the intent to promote religion, you'd be acting unconstitutionally.

[Logic]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Make it "In Allah we trust" and see how fast dcolton calls the ACLU.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
So if you named a town with the intent to promote religion, you'd be acting unconstitutionally.

The problem, of course, is proving intent. In a case like the hypothetical "New Bethlehem", there's plausible deniability: the US has a long tradition of naming cities after one another, and the town of Bethlehem is indeed a historical place. You'd have a much harder time doing this with Jesusville, but naming a place after another place can quite easily be interpreted multiple ways, and so there is no way to prove intent.

As for cities whose names predate the Constitution, such as Los Angeles, it is doubtful that you could force a name change. The Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, and so it is reasonable to assume that it cannot itself be applied ex post facto. The name, essentially, gets grandfathered in, because the city was named well before the Constitution was written and therefore it cannot be considered illegal to have that name.

[cpt kangarooski]

Millennium--

The problem, of course, is proving intent.

True, but you'd be amazed at how stupid legislators can be in blatantly giving it away when they feel cocksure about what they're doing.

As for cities whose names predate the Constitution, such as Los Angeles, it is doubtful that you could force a name change.

I agree; but the reaosn is probably because it would be of such minimal importance after having stood for so long. That's not really the best reason ever where there is religious intent (assuming it can be shown) but I think that's the realistic outcome.

The Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, and so it is reasonable to assume that it cannot itself be applied ex post facto. The name, essentially, gets grandfathered in, because the city was named well before the Constitution was written and therefore it cannot be considered illegal to have that name.

Gah? The Constitution prohibits ex post facto CRIMINAL laws, and anyway since the name is still the same, it's continuing. You're basically saying that if I start burning someone with a flamethrower, and it's legal when I start, and made illegal whilst I'm doing it, I can keep on going because I started early.

The name would be prone to be grandfathered in out of pragmatism, but little else.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"After being forced to take yet another break, I can say that I finally get it and I apologize for my part in derailing topics and starting flame wars. I have been particpating in a different forum and I see the difference in substantial debate versus all out flame wars. So I apologize and look forward to participating in better discussions . . . I am still an a$$hole, that will never change...and my opinions will not differ, but I will make an effort to positively contribute to this forum versus what I did in the past."

Yeah, yeah, yeah...tit for tat zig. But I suppose your comment was acceptable.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually I think that is meant ironically, saying really that noone trusts in God anymore, but more so in the money the saying is printed on. Or is it saying that the money is the new god?

Taliesin

BG