Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And not only that, why are prayers held in congress?

Democratic principles being whittled down in the '50s is what it is....

"In God we trust" was meant to show that we only have faith in providence, not in a king. at the time, other nations put the sovereign on their currency and coin.

Prayers in congress probably would be illegal, except good luck finding somebody with standing that's willing to sue in federal court. Basically, you can only sue if you're an affected person, which is pretty much limited to congressmen and staff. it was actually upheld in the early 80's, but might be struck down if decided again today.

I think there's a valid argument to ask why you can't have a prayer at a high school graduation, but you can in the House of Representatives.

One key factor in congress's favor is that they are pretty ecumenical in who and how the prayers are made. You can argue that establishing religion as opposed to irreligion is still a violation of the constitution, but outside of the ACLU most constitutional thinkers understand the establishment clause to refer to forming a state religion, not just encouraging religion in general.

Also the founders of our country were very religous as well as many current americans.

Interstingly enough, our founders, while generally spritiual, were far less public pious in their worship than modern politicians. Part of that was the logistics of attending services compared to today, but in general they were enlightment figures who saw organized religion as a very mixed bag.

You also had no catholic founders, no evangelical founders, and certainly no non-Christians. You basically had a bunch of main stream protestant guys who had a very different view of the relationship between god and man than we do today.

Interesting, what view did they have towards god?

I have had limited information given to me but what I have been "told" is that the majority of our founding fathers did have a superiority complex.

Well, Franklin is on record in is diary's doubting the divinity of Jesus.

Most saw god as the divine clockmaker, influenced by Aristotle and even some of the Arian though that percolated up during the reformation and the enlightenment. They began to doubt that god influenced every aspect of life, but rather set up the world and left it to run. The advances in astronomy and physics allowed that, as phenomenon had empirical explanations, not divine ones.

There was a also a very strong humanist element to both protestant and enlightenment thought: the idea that people had value independent of god and state.

They were, in short, not particularly "mystical" in their religion.

Several of them were also pretty ecumenical, with Washington donating money to build a Synagogue and the like.

America's love affair with religion has always had ebbs and flows. There's a baseline higher than old europe to be sure, but there have been plenty of "great awakenings" throughout history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening

Henners91 wrote:And not only that, why are prayers held in congress?

Because the Representatives and Senators feel like it? I'm pretty sure they aren't mandatory.

"In God We Trust" is just something that people are used to, I suppose. I don't think people think about it too much. Also, do people still use cash? I use my debit card for everything. Hell, even toll booths take credit cards now!

almost every govt claims divine sanction in one form or another. having a prayer in congress every once in a while is pretty mild compared to the full blown claims of divine appointment by some earlier heads of state....

I dont think many none americans would class the usa as a secular state ?

Our founding fathers, or those who:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

were primarily Anglican followed by Presbyterian and then Congregationalist.

Now many people consider Founding Father to be the famous people of that time like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Their personal preferences have been dissected for centuries, and their religious affiliations have been pegged as wildly different philosophies from Unitarian to Deist (in Jefferson's case) to "I don't know" for people like George Washington who kept his religious affiliation and actual inclination close to the vest. However, some do consider him as a Deist or a theistic rationalist or some hybrid of believing in God and Jesus, but having a rational outlook about it.

A secular state is not the same as an atheist state. The point of a secular public space is to allow people of different religions to have a neutral ground on which they can get on with civil governance. Hence an atheist state won't be a secular state because it will officially endorse a lack of religion rather than being neutral with regard to legislating religious practice.

Actually, In God We Trust was added to the dollar bill during the Cold War, to differentiate ourselves from the "Godless Commies." Same goes for the line "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. So, it's basically left-over propaganda from McCarthyism. It's stupidly unconstitutional, but there's not enough support to get the problem fixed.

Well it doesn't say which god, does it..

In the words of the immortal bard: :Gold...you are my master...command me!!!"

Hence the butchering in the '50s I referred to, I can't be specific because this is strictly me struggling to remember my history lessons, but I believe an amendment was added to the constitution at some point that added prayers and such to congress? Or was it just literally 'In God we Trust' like Laughing Man said? All I know is that for that amendment to have gotten through (if I am correct), then a helluva lot of politicians must have abandoned secularism as a concept

Well, it says "In God we Trust". The 'g' is capitalized, showing a proper name, which seems to imply a specific god. The Hebrew name is Y-hw-h, Muslims use Allah, Hindu's would say Vishna, Krishna, Kali, ect and so on. Every time I hear/see the argument "well it doesn't say which god" is coming from the religion that uses the term God. Strange.

Henners91 wrote:Hence the butchering in the '50s I referred to, I can't be specific because this is strictly me struggling to remember my history lessons, but I believe an amendment was added to the constitution at some point that added prayers and such to congress? Or was it just literally 'In God we Trust' like Laughing Man said? All I know is that for that amendment to have gotten through (if I am correct), then a helluva lot of politicians must have abandoned secularism as a concept

There's no actual amendment allowing prayers in congress. I'm not honestly sure if the opening prayer is actually mandated by law (doubtful, due to the Establishment Clause) or simply traditional (likely). More research required.

Well it doesn't say which god, does it..

Ah, but it still discriminates against religions/philosophies which don't have a god or have multiple gods, or atheism. Regardless, it's pretty much moot, as the appellate courts already ruled on it and the Supreme Court doesn't seem particularly interested.

Ahtman wrote:Well, it says "In God we Trust". The 'g' is capitalized, showing a proper name, which seems to imply a specific god. The Hebrew name is Y-hw-h, Muslims use Allah, Hindu's would say Vishna, Krishna, Kali, ect and so on. Every time I hear/see the argument "well it doesn't say which god" is coming from the religion that uses the term God. Strange.

You forgot M for Mammon. After all, its all about the Benjamins.

Polonius wrote:no catholic founders

You may find this guy and his cousin to be pretty interesting.

Ahtman wrote:Well, it says "In God we Trust". The 'g' is capitalized, showing a proper name, which seems to imply a specific god. The Hebrew name is Y-hw-h, Muslims use Allah, Hindu's would say Vishna, Krishna, Kali, ect and so on. Every time I hear/see the argument "well it doesn't say which god" is coming from the religion that uses the term God. Strange.

Allah is Arabic for "God."

And not to get into a biblical languages seminar, but the Tetragrammaton wasn't used too commonly after the 3rd Century BC, when the Hebrews started to use the word Elohim which means, you guessed it, "God."

Polytheism doesn't really have any bearing on this.

You are saying what it means, I'm saying what is commonly said. Muslims rarely say "God be praised", they say "Allah be praised". Also, saying it just means the same thing is an overly simplistic interpretation. The language of Islam is important because it is the language the Koran was passed to Mohamed in. It is why Muslim practitioners are encouraged to learn the book in Arabic. It isn't as simple as 'negro means black'.

Even Elohim isn't the same word as God, it is Elohim. More letters and everything. You're proving my point that the religion that uses the specific term, "God", is the one telling the others that their term can be used as a catchall for the specific religious expression.

Polytheism absolutely has something to do with this when we have citizens that practice a form of polytheism.

But Ahtman was your point that "In God We Trust" merely reflects the dominant language of the United States?

Ahtman wrote:Your saying what it means, I'm saying what is commonly said. Muslims rarely say "God be praised", they say "Allah be praised". Also saying it just means the same thing is an overly simplistic interpretation. Even Elohim isn't god, it is Elohim. Your proving my point that the religion that uses the specific term "God" is the one telling the others that don't that there term can be used as a catchall for the specific religious expression.

Nope, it's not overly simplistic at all. It's the same word in different languages.

If it said "America, we loves us some Freedom" it would mean the same thing if translated into Hebrew or Arabic. Same goes here.

Ahtman wrote:Polytheism absolutely has something to do with this when we have citizens that practice a form of polytheism.

So pick your favorite and go from there.

A God is still a God, regardless of how many of them there are or what you call it.

Manchu wrote:But Ahtman was your point that "In God We Trust" merely reflects the dominant language of the United States?

No, my point, in response to Frazz saying that "God" can mean any religion, is that no, it doesn't. Kali isn't a generic term for god, it is a proper noun, such as Elohim, Y-hw-h, Allah, ect.

@MonsterRain: Words have connotative value that does not translate directly. This is why, for example, Christians do not (or only very rarelt) refer to God as Elohim.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:But Ahtman was your point that "In God We Trust" merely reflects the dominant language of the United States?

No, my point, in response to Frazz saying that "God" can mean any religion, is that no, it doesn't. Kali isn't a generic term for god, it is a proper noun, such as Elohim, Y-hw-h, Allah, ect.

Elohim and Allah are the equivalent of capitalizing the "G" in God.

Manchu wrote:@MonsterRain: Words have connotative value that does not translate directly. This is why, for example, Christians do not (or only very rarelt) refer to God as Elohim.

And if they do refer to God by the older name does it change anything?

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:But Ahtman was your point that "In God We Trust" merely reflects the dominant language of the United States?

No, my point, in response to Frazz saying that "God" can mean any religion, is that no, it doesn't. Kali isn't a generic term for god, it is a proper noun, such as Elohim, Y-hw-h, Allah, ect.

I think that Jews, Christians, and Muslims and other monotheists living in the United States can all recognize in the capitalized word "God" a reference to their concept of deity. Following MonsterRain's point (and your own to a degree), I think this is less possible for polytheists.

Monster Rain wrote:Nope, it's not overly simplistic at all. It's the same word in different languages.

No it isn't. It is a proper noun, not a noun. There is a difference between human and Eric Idle. If Eric Idle comes to the USA for a visit we don't constantly call him 'human', we call him by his proper name. Allah is a proper noun, it is a name, not a generic term for deity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:But Ahtman was your point that "In God We Trust" merely reflects the dominant language of the United States?

No, my point, in response to Frazz saying that "God" can mean any religion, is that no, it doesn't. Kali isn't a generic term for god, it is a proper noun, such as Elohim, Y-hw-h, Allah, ect.

I think that Jews, Christians, and Muslims and other monotheists living in the United States can all recognize in the capitalized word "God" a reference to their concept of deity. Following MonsterRain's point (and your own to a degree), I think this is less possible for polytheists.

Are saying you don't think they would care because you are in one of the groups mentioned, because you have had long conversations with the people in the groups mentioned on the subject, or because you just kind of think that? It sounds like someone on the outside telling someone on the inside how they should feel about being on the inside. It is like a white person telling a black person what it means to be black.

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Nope, it's not overly simplistic at all. It's the same word in different languages.

No it isn't. It is a proper noun, not a noun.

Allah is still used as the name for God in some Christian and Jewish sects.

It's not exclusive to Islam, but it's an Arabic word. For God.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:But Ahtman was your point that "In God We Trust" merely reflects the dominant language of the United States?

No, my point, in response to Frazz saying that "God" can mean any religion, is that no, it doesn't. Kali isn't a generic term for god, it is a proper noun, such as Elohim, Y-hw-h, Allah, ect.

I didn't say that actually. I said that it didn't say who. I nominated Mammon. Although Gozer would be cool too.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Nope, it's not overly simplistic at all. It's the same word in different languages.

No it isn't. It is a proper noun, not a noun.

Allah is still used as the name for God in some Christian and Jewish sects.

It's not exclusive to Islam, but it's an Arabic word. For God.

So your saying it would be ok to change it to "In Allah we Trust" and no one would have a problem with it?

I understand intellectually they can be different, but you seem to forget that words actually are more than just their literal meanings, they have connotations and baggage. If you can understand why people wouldn't like "In Allah We Trust" than you can understand the opposite. We don't live in a cold world where absolute reason rules. 'Boy' on it's own is a harmless word, but have a white guy call a black guy that and you are going to have some issues.