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.

In the UK it has long been recognised that the capitalized God is reserved to refer to the deity of Christians, being a proper noun i.e. a Name, while god is used for all other deities. (The Christian God is of course the same being as Allah and Jehovah.)

However it has been said that “a special Providence watches over children, drunkards, and the United States.”

Ahtman wrote:because you have had long conversations with the people in the groups mentioned on the subject

This one. From my experience, "In God We Trust" is not one of the factors by which Jews or Muslims feel excluded from public life in the US. Talking to college-age Hindus and Buddhists (haven't talked to either group since college), however, I've heard things similar to what you've said--basically, that they do not recognize anything about their religious experience in the religious trappings of American government.

Kilkrazy wrote:(The Christian God is of course the same being as Allah and Jehovah.)

I know that, but many Christians would disagree with the Muslims that it is the same, and that some Jews would would say that the Christians and Muslims are incorrect (the others wouldn't care). If you believe Jesus was the last prophet and/or Son of God you can't believe that Mohomed was the last prophet just as if you don't believe that Jesus was anything more than a rabbi you can't really be a Christian.

The disagreement is about the nature of Jesus Christ.

The Jews see him as a false prophet or Messiah. The Muslims see him as a true prophet but not the Son of God and not the greatest prophet.

This does not misidentify God Himself, though no doubt some people would claim that the Muslims were misled by the Devil posing as God or something like that.

We had probably better not consider the nature of the Holy Spirit.

The basic point is that in English when you refer to God you are referring specifically to the Christian God, so the only way to relieve the US motto of non-secularism is to assume as the Supreme Court have done that the phrase is so time-worn that no-one believes it literally.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

If the majority of the people in the country spoke Arabic, I think it would be fine. Since English is the predominant language though, using the Arabic word for God wouldn't make sense.

I see your point though. I just think that "In God We Trust" is as inclusive or exclusive as an individual chooses to make it.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:because you have had long conversations with the people in the groups mentioned on the subject

This one. From my experience, "In God We Trust" is not one of the factors by which Jews or Muslims feel excluded from public life in the US. Talking to college-age Hindus and Buddhists (haven't talked to either group since college), however, I've heard things similar to what you've said--basically, that they do not recognize anything about their religious experience in the religious trappings of American government.

I'm not saying they feel excluded per se or that they are pissed off, just that it really isn't their option and that it is easy to be non-chalant about it when your group was the one that made the choice. It isn't a big deal in the big scheme of things but if they were given an option they would probably be more specific. I also don't buy that God means a generic deity, which god does. God almost always refers to the Christian god. I'm just saying that it really isn't as simple as it means the same thing. It is an expression of monotheism, and one Jews, Christians, and Muslims sorta agree on, so that tends to be good enough but if you geared more toward Hindus I can guarantee you fits would be had i.e. the recognition of the possibility of multiple deities.

Plenty of non-Christians manage to live and be citizens in the USA without the phrase causing a problem.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talking of government messages printed on government issue stuff, did you know that every country in the world except one prints its name on its postage stamps?

Ahtman wrote:it is easy to be non-chalant about it when your group was the one that made the choice

Yeah, this a good point that bears empahsizing especially pertaining to religious matters--even (or perhaps esepcially) as between co-religionists.

To be fair, the motto was placed on coins in the Civil War. It was made an official motto of the United States in the 1950's.

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

From a grammatical standpoint, a god is only God when god appears at the beginning of a sentence. Come on people basic grammar! When we say 'God' with a capital g in the middle of a sentence we're using a proper noun which in this case is generally considered the proper name for the Christian God in the english language (at least the American version). We aren't talking about Zeus or Izanagi, or the Lord of Hats. We're talking the big guy

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:no catholic founders

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

Huh. I was not aware of him. Interesting story. Still, he didn't write any of our foundation documents.

Neither did John hancock. There are reasons why the Carrolls were conveniently forgotten.

I think most people don't care.

Some people just like to make a mountain out of a mole hill....

In the Great Speghetti Monster We Trust
?

Basically it comes down to which God or god you worship. Christians use God to refer to the God of the Bible, the God of the Hebrews, also known as the One true God. He has many names in the Bible, El(God-mighty strong and prominent), Elohim(God-Plural version), El Shaddai(God Almighty), Adonai(Master/Lord),El Elyon(Most High), Jehovah(Yahweh) called Lord in the King James. There are others but that's a short list. The point being that all of those names are used to describe God.

Any other god that is not the God of the Bible is given a small "g" for example Baal, Ishtar,Ashtoreth, Adremelech,Anat,Molech,Chemosh,etc,etc. are considered false gods of the Old testament books. Christians would consider modern false gods to be Allah of Islam, and the many false gods from Hinduism.

It's basically a sign of reverence to give the One True God a capital letter and the other false ones a liitle "g".

GG

generalgrog wrote:Christians would consider modern false gods to be Allah of Islam

nah

Because separation of church and state is an ideology espoused by Hitler. And by god we aren't going to have none of that Nazi talk in AMERICA!

Someone did complain about they prayers. But they said it would no affect adults and that it is tradition.
And i myself think that the first amendment was to make sure there was no state spinsered religion. not religion in the states at all.

avantgarde wrote:Because separation of church and state is an ideology espoused by Hitler. And by god we aren't going to have none of that Nazi talk in AMERICA!

I suppose it had to come up sooner or later.

avantgarde wrote:Because separation of church and state is an ideology espoused by Hitler. And by god we aren't going to have none of that Nazi talk in AMERICA!

better get rid of your military then..., oh and fords


on some side notes, no one really cares about it cause it doesn't matter, it's about principles, the government printing this on currency is just wrong.

on a funnier one has anyone read what the pope was saying about rampant militant atheism in the uk, you know a country which has a state religion and a defender of the faith (the ruling monarch), we're kinda lazy militants eh?

You can say that again - some of us don't even bother to capitalise at the start of sentences!

Albatross wrote:You can say that again - some of us don't even bother to capitalise at the start of sentences!

It's madness! Madness I tell you!

I had a similar agruement in one of my high school classes. It did not bode well.

What is the big deal about a phrase on the money, exactly?

Who actually sits around worrying about this?

In a secular state, why is "In God we trust" written on a dollar?

God, we trust.
Bankers? Meh!

hth

Monster Rain wrote:What is the big deal about a phrase on the money, exactly?

Who actually sits around worrying about this?

Exactly. It's almost as if this thread was started to just provoke a flame-war...

Albatross wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What is the big deal about a phrase on the money, exactly?

Who actually sits around worrying about this?

Exactly. It's almost as if this thread was started to just provoke a flame-war...

Come on, now. Someone flame-baiting in the Dakka OT forum?

I find the very idea of that offensive!

The question seems valid.
It goes right back to the heart of the philosophy and beliefs of the American Republic.
(I assume the Dollar bill had the same legend when the first notes were issued.)

There are reasons for the whole symbolism of images in the design. Some of which are Masonic.

would refer the OP to Joseph Campbell but am sure there will be other sources, that just happens to be the one I know of,

Well, the framers were more than a little scared of organized religion, but they were deists to a man. Being an atheist prevented a person from testifying in open court until the 20th century. While the government was never allowed to mandate or prohibit any practice of religion, I think most people assumed a generally monotheistic belief would be nearly universal.

that's certainly no longer true, and given the much more overt efforts by some groups to increase the role of Christianity in government, I think it's a fair question to at least point it out.

OTOH, I agree with the SCOTUS that as a phrase, it's pretty devoid of much religious meaning. I wouldn't be bummed if we changed it, hell I'd support changing it, but I think that non-Christians have bigger fish to fry than worrying about a pretty innocuous phrase.

Monster Rain wrote:What is the big deal about a phrase on the money, exactly?

Who actually sits around worrying about this?

The real worry is that (as shown in this very thread) most people don't know that the phrase was added to US currency in the 50's.
Many Christians use this very phrase on our money as valid reason that the Founders wanted the country to be Christian, even though it's not true.