Only 50 years of “In God We Trust”? Wow, there are those who would have us believe that the phrase was instituted by our Founding Father’s under the watchful guideance of God himself. Instead, just like “Under God”, it’s merely another Cold War left-over propagated to differentiate our Christian nation from those Godless Communist devils. I’m surprised it wasn’t “In McCarthy We Trust”

Actually the words, “In God We Trust”, have been around for One hundred and forty-three years on our coins. I was so used to seeing this, that when it appeared on currency in 1957 it was like it was always there. Our country is identified with Christianity all over the world. Probably one of the biggest reasons the World Trade Center was attacked twice. Everyone knows that America gives them freedom of religion, we don’t have to change our money to prove this. There are so many more important things to argue over and change that this just seems petty and stupid.

It is divisive. Some of us don’t believe there is a god, some think there is one but don’t trust it, some think there’s more than one and many or all of those who think there’s one don’t agree on what one.
And if it’s there because it’s the heritage of our country, not because it’s a claim, there should be a footnote.
“This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism,”
But, but there IS no ignominy of heathenism. It’s a proud tradition.

“In God we trust.” is a lie. I gave the reasons above after saying it’s divisive. It is divisive because many of us don’t believe in a god but our money claims we do. But it’s also false for the reasons above and no nation should want lies printed on its money, and “In God we trust.” is a lie.

Whether you are an atheist, a faithful Heir of Abraham, or anything else, the clause in the Pledge is lousy poetry, bashes the meter and meaning of the original, and seems somehow appropriate for the way it simply gets slammed into place.
The phrase has no real purpose or meaning on our money. However, is it not ironic that a culture that places so much emphasis on consumerism has that phrase there?
Perhaps it IS appropriate, a disguise for our real orientation!

the founding fathers were mostly Freemasons

I support the use of “In God We Trust” on our money, although it’s not something that really fires me up. I always thought the idea of including the motto on coins and currency was to say that we are supposed to put our trust in God, not in wealth or possessions. That is a message we need in these materialistic times.

“”In God we trust.” is a lie. I gave the reasons above after saying it’s divisive. It is divisive because many of us don’t believe in a god but our money claims we do. But it’s also false for the reasons above and no nation should want lies printed on its money, and “In God we trust.” is a lie.”
Agreed… I would challenge anyone (and, by the way, I’m an ordained minister, so I’m not coming at this from the viewpoint of a “godless heathen…”{And yes, I fully support the rights of anyone who chooses to be a “godless heathen…” Ain’t freedom great?}) Anyway, I would challenge anyone to explain how we, as a country, “Trust in God”… I believe one would be hard pressed to find a real example.
So, “In God We Trust” are simply words… words with no real meaning. As such, personally, I wouldn’t care one way or another if those words were removed from our currency. It would not be, as some would claim, “The beginning of the end of the USA being a Christian Country”. If the USA ever were, (and yes, I’m a citizen…) the beginning of the end came long ago…
And el, yes, they were… and those who weren’t specifically masons were deists, not theists. But even without debating that, it’s very clear that this country WAS founded, not ON religion, but on freedom OF religion… or the freedom to reject all religion…
Don

I’ve posted this before, but here I go again. “In God We Trust” is not just words to a huge amount of Americans. I’m not sure how anyone can call ‘In God We Trust’ a lie without saying it is a lie to themselves, at least. There may be some that read it and never think it matters one way or the other it’s just there to look good. To the people that feel in sincerity that “In God We Trust” means something to them we like seeing these words, but if they weren’t there to see it wouldn’t matter, because we carry this belief within and nothing will change this fact. I guess we’re not as insecure as people who don’t believe in God, since it bothers them so very much.

There is no God in which to trust. When anyone claims to trust in something that does not exist, that person is seen to be delusional. If it is considered to be the God of the Bible in which “we trust”, then it’s demostrable, through scripture, that that God is untrustworthy. See 2 Kings 23, among other instances. I support Newdow in his bid to relieve us of this onus of trust in something we, as a nation, obviously do not, in fact, trust.

I thought I should perhaps be a bit more specific on the scriptural evidence of the untrustworthiness of the biblical God:
Jer 18:8 with 2 Chr 34:33, 2 Kng 23:3,5,8-15,21-22,25; 2Kng 23:26-27
Jer 18:8
“If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.”
But when Josiah (who was the king during Jeremiah’s prophetic career) and the nation of Israel did “turn from their evil”, God didn’t keep his promise to “repent of the evil” that he thought to do to them, because of something that had been done centuries earlier:
“And Josiah took away all the abominations out of the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the LORD their God. And all his days they departed not from following the LORD, the God of their fathers.”
“And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.”
“And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.”
“And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city.
Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren.
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathanmelech the chamberlain, which was in the suberbs, and burned the chariots of the sun with fire. And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and tha altars which manesseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.
And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Astoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Kemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
And he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and filled their places with the bones of men.
Moreover the altar that was built at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and burned the grove.”
“And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant.
Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah;”
“And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.”
2 kngs 23:26-27
“Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.
And the LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

If you don’t trust it don’t read it. Are we supposed to do away with everything that someone doesn’t trust or want to see that others do? If you won your way with this, will you start on Churches, too? What do you do when you pass them on the streets picture eliminating them?

“”In God We Trust” is not just words to a huge amount of Americans.”
No doubt, but it’s false to a lot of Americans, too. The nearest thing that would be true is “Lots of us trust one God or another.” and I wouldn’t object nearly as much to that. Why not put “We are hygienic.”? That’s a good thing and, while not true of all Americans it’s something we may all aspire to. Then there’s “We are human beings.” That would be true of all Americans!
“If you don’t trust it don’t read it. Are we supposed to do away with everything that someone doesn’t trust or want to see that others do? If you won your way with this, will you start on Churches, too?”
Henrietta, you know better than this. It’s a national motto; it implicitly applies to all of us. And our children see it and may think we all should. And of course they are expected to say every day the US is “under God”. How would you like it if the pledge said something like “acknowledging there is no god”? Or even “under Allah”? What you do in your church, within certain limits you and I probably agree on, is no one else’s business.

The people who insist they want the word God in the pledge and on our money, insist they want the ten commandments in every public building, want prayer returned to schools, insist that creation be taught in science class, want public money for private religious schools, want giant crosses adorning our horizons ….
Wait, is there a pattern here?
Yes, there is an agenda here. The believers have scriptures that demand they “spread the gospel”. Accordingly, they are not content to leave the public square neutral because they have a “mission”. They must desperately seek converts because they realize if they don’t have fresh converts to keep the pews filled, there will be less and less of them burdened more and more with the maintenance of their slowly crumbling edifices.
Here is what non-believers want. Have your religion if it comforts you and you find happiness believing. It is yours, you pay for it and don’t foist it on the rest of us. You have tried burning non-believers at the stake, burning books, torturing non-believers and drowning them. I guess we should be happy that these days it just comes down to arguing law in the courts. It’s progress.
Maybe we can strike a bargain. If non-believers agreed to stop protesting God on our money would you be willing to forgo, say, demands for teaching creationism in school? If not, what would you stop demanding? Public money for religious education? What would satisfy you? Anything. Can you not understand what makes you all so unpopular with non-believers?

DonH.
We are of like mind and vocation!
Henrietta,
We agree in so many ways on many topics, but here we part ways. I side with RCollins who says it is simly a request to honor that not everyone belives the same way.
The last thrust to emblazon everything with this motto was in the 50′s when we were all taught to fear the Godless Soviets. As with all things, their era passed and we continue to tattoo everything we can find with a bland credo that mean very little to many people. At best, it is simly one way to hinder would-be countereiters. But I am sure there are better ways.
BY the way, now that we are discussing money – what do people think of the presidential dollars. I think they are the lousiest coin art yet! It all seems like an after thought. The new nickles are marvelous works of bass-relief sculpture. The dollar coin of the same person is almost embarassing for its amaturishness. This whole thing seems like a quick idea to ride on the coattails of the states quarters’ success (most of which are well done). They continue to have problems minting the presidential dollar coins, and guess what is the most common mistake – they forget the motto along the edge. Maybe that mistake is more Freudian slip than mechanical error.

Sorry I shocked you Nnmns, and Jestrfyl, but I’ve looked at the words “In God We Trust” on my coins for 75 yrs., in fact, I even sold my baby bottle for a nickel, with that on it!, a story my Dad liked to repeat, and laugh at. It just represented America to me, and I sort of like the word God. So excuse me, but Allah wasn’t that known one hundred and forty some years ago, I guess in America. God was for the entire world. It is a small concession to make to people who feel as I do. I agree with everyone having to have their say in whatever belief they have, actually I’m a very easy person to get along with, and I’ve already mentioned I don’t have to see the words “In God We Trust”, because I do and have and will as long as I breathe.

What is so good about the past that we have to be slaves to history? The point about God on coins 75 years ago is no argument for retaining the practice now. How about dealing with the facts of the present. We had slavery 75 years ago. Should we be slave holders today? As Richard Dawkins writes, the zeitgeist has moved on. Religion is an individual matter. Scrupulously, observing that principle is what helps to keep these useless petty arguments from endlessly wasting our time.
None of the believers in this discussion have answered my challenge. What demand are you willing to stop making?

Hey, Richard C, will you be my new best friend? You said it so well…
A former colleague complained to me a while back about Newdow and his attempt to remove “In God We Trust” from coins, saying, (her words), “It sounds like the minority trying to lead the majority.”
I remained mum because in general I like her and did not want to start a contentious discussion, but what I really wanted to say in response was, “Yes, so? What’s your point?” Isn’t that one of the bases of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority from oppressing the minority? She’s Catholic; I’m Jewish. I don’t wish to be “led” by her, by other Christians, by Orthodox Jews, for that matter, or by anyone else.
Henrietta, your words disappointed me. It’s so cavalier to say, “If you don’t like it, don’t read it.” That is SO not the point, and you’re usually much more on the mark than that.

Eastcoastlady, I can’t please people all the time, if I did I would be boring, and boring I’ve never been. If all of you younger generation want to have in God We Trust out of your face perhaps we should have a vote by everyone in the United States as to if it stays or if it goes. Would that satisfy all of the nay sayers for “In God We Trust”?

Majority rule = mob rule, Henrietta22.
It is completely and utterly true that Christians are the majority in our country. It is also true that they are the ones clamoring for total control over all aspects of our lives. Everyone knows if the decision to create a theocracy came to a vote, Christians would be running the country in a flash.
But would you really like to live with the result? Would you like your legislators haggling over endless verses of the bible and trying to reconcile all the mindless ignorant dogma of competing religions and sects? That is what would happen if Christians got their way and actually managed to create the theocracy they all so desperately think would solve every social and economic problem in the world.
Would you like to see American women beaten with sticks in public because they wore a skirt with a hem that was not long enough to suit the morality police? Would you like to see homosexuals stoned to death? How about people that commit adultery? Stone them also? Do you really, really want to watch religious broadcasting 24 hours a day. It makes my ears bleed to even think about it. But, that is what it could come to if we ever exchanged our democracy for a theocracy.
“A 2003 Gallup Poll found that 90 percent of Americans approve of the inscription “In God We Trust” on U.S. coin”.
I would give you even money that the same 90 percent are in favor of Christians running the country.

Henrietta, No, the last thing I want is to leave it up to the “majority vote”. Ugh. It sends chills down my spine.
Look what the majority vote put into office of the president.
Oh, wait, the majority did not win even there. Sorry, bad example…
Anyway, I’m not as young as you might think – I’m 45. And I’m the child of Holocaust survivors. And I believe deeply in God. And I wouldn’t care one whit if “In God We Trust” was removed from currency; it wouldn’t affect my faith at all.
The “majority” wants creches everywhere I go and wants “Merry Christmas” to be screeched at all of us when I make a purchase from November through the end of December.
In this country, it’s one’s right to believe and practice as they see fit. It is NOT, however, one’s right to impose those views on another, despite the rampant misinterpretation of those uneducated in the Constitution or the goals of the founding fathers.

Richard Collins,
It is my hope that no clear thinking Christian would seek to develop a theocracy. If you’ll permit a bit of a stretch, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Christ’s mission was, and never will be, to create a governing body on Earth. However, as we seek to perfect a system of governance is would be a gross oversight to exclude the MAJORITY of the values that Christianity stands for. In a nation where the majority of people are professed Christians, or at least beleivers in “God/god” it seems ridiculous to think that our representative system would not be heavily swayed by Christian principles. Your assertion that majority rule=mob rule is only a issue of semantics. Natural selection, a major arguing point of the “non-christian minority”, would argue that majority rule is the only path. We will never see a system where might-doesn’t-make-right. Even if we are able to advance our civilization to a point where rulers no longer maintain order through fear, even if we can enlighten all of the ignorant, we will still be left with the choice of making the decision of what is best for the majority of individuals. You are seeking to villanize the Christian majority by labeling them a mob. The only sound issue in your arguement is that you have perceived Christianity, or at least Christian individuals, as being ignorant. I would not argue with you. However to make this assumption about the entirety of Christianity is no better than saying all Muslims are evil because a few radicals are making life hard for all of us.
In fact, a Christian theocracy that followed the truest spirit of God’s word, were it to exist (ha), would be an ideal society. The arguments you make against stoning, etc. stem from some very extreme examples of history. I certainly do not agree with stoning any individual. Those who cast the stones in your examples were of the Jewish faith and were acting according to their own tenets of accountability to people of their own faith. This is not to say that Christianity as a whole is blameless. Many atrocities have been committed falsely in the name of Christ. If these zealots would have taken a moment to truly reflect upon scripture we would have been spared a great deal of suffering. It seems to me that those who argue against the Christian life are unable to accept the idea that they are not the ultimate authority on their own life and behavior. To deny a higher power is to say that you, the individual, are the pinnacle of existence. Or at the very least that your actions have no consequence beyond the law of the land. That, in my humble opinion, seems very short sighted, and very very sad. Christian values, as demonstrated by Christ not by any other flawed man, are incredibly fair, compassionate, economic, and thouroughly incorruptable. Don’t knock the idea of a perfected Christian theocracy.
As far as creches and Merry Christmas, what would you rather hear? To my knowledge no one is going around THROWING the creches, or adding a open hand slap to every Christmas greeting. If so then I could understand you being upset. Again, if the majority of people in the US profess Christ then it stands to reason that CEOs of companies and many of the various employees are Christians. God is very explicit about proper business practice and it makes perfect sense that Christian businesses would give credit and spread joy during those times of year. If I were to enter a Jewish deli during Hannakah I would expect to be told, “Happy Hannakah” or some equivalent phrase. Why is it wrong to celebrate along with each other the things that bring us great joy?
As long as this nation professes itself to be in the Christian majority there will be many voices seeking to glorify God in its government. Honestly the issue should not be so large. While the constitution does not explicitly list a Christian diety it does refer to a creator, thereby establishing a society in which theistic faith is a major factor. The coin does not say “In YHWH We Trust”, or “In Jehovah We Trust”, or even “In Allah We Trust.” It is simply a statement that We, as a nation, are strong in faith.
All citizens are able to read and understand the constiution and can draw the conclusion that faith will always be a major factor in our society. Citizenship is open to all regardless of faith or lack thereof nonetheless. We all have the choice to challenge the system if we see fit, and if we are completely unable to reconcile ourselves to the foundations of our government we have the right to emigrate.
That’s that I suppose.

If you were to walk into a deli during Chanukah, chances are all you’d hear is “Whaddaya want?” and “Thank you.” (Sorry, that’s the New York in me.)
When I walk into a retail store and make a purchase, no matter what time of year, all I want to hear, again, is “Thank you.” In case you’re not aware, there’s been quite a lot of declaiming going on the past two or so years by those claiming to be Christian that they won’t even shop at a store if the employees don’t wish them a Merry Christmas.
Nothing is wrong with celebrating with each other and the thought of celebrating together is quite attractive. When someone invites me to their house to celebrate the holidays with them, it’s quite lovely.
It’s not so lovely, however, when a presumption is made about my religion or the motivation for my shopping. Maybe I just need a new pair of shoes, you know? I don’t know of too many Christians who would feel the love when, during the eight days of Chanukah, they are wished “Happy Chanukah”. Same for blanketly wishing people L’Shana Tova during Rosh Hashanah, or zeisen Pesach during Passover. Need I go on?
And, what, pray tell, do you suggest with the point about “throwing chreches”? That one “threw” me for a loop, pardon the pun. I also don’t get your point about the open hand slap. No one suggested anything like that.
It’s no one group’s exclusive right to say “there are more of us than you and therefore we get to set the rules.” The Consitution is pretty explicit about its goal to protect the minority folk.

Interesting post nsbmusican. “The truest spirit of God’s word” is the key. It will never happen in this world, only the next. People, even on this post can’t seem to seperate how entirely different Christians view their beliefs from the same Bible. If this administration did one thing it should show how divisive the extreme fundamentalists have split our Christian believers. I’m hoping and praying that we can return to a happier Country when the Democrats are the leaders in America again.

New Yorker, I was brought up in Monmouth County, N.J., and also lived in Long Island during my growing up years. Our beautiful Red Bank was a town of stores that were owned and operated by Jewish merchants. We were a unique town in the 30′s and 40′s, and we were a mixing pot of lst generation and 2nd generation immigrants from the Holyland, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Holland, Norway, Ireland and Scotland. We were Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jewish, and we were white, and black. We all respected each other. The Jewish merchants loved Christmas, it was a great selling season. They wished us a Merry Christmas, and we wished the same back. In other words it was an exchange of love. We visited with them on their holydays, and they with us. They played Christmas music, in their stores, all kinds. I never heard of anyone feeling put upon like the people that grew up after us.

Henrietta,
Monmouth County is indeed great and beautiful.
I have no problem wishing people Merry Christmas and I do it all the time during the season.
What bothers me is those people who insist it’s their right to have everyone observe as they do without giving the same respect in return.
Maybe people are not as nice or respectful now as they were then…

I am perhaps the worst sort of person to comment on some of these matters. I am a middle aged white guy, middle class, with an expanding middle (which I am sure has to be someone else’s fault). In addition I am a minister serving a middle sized congregation, members of a once-mainline denomination (we have to be honest, even if our rhetoric is not). I grew up in a suburb and have no interesting or exotic family history. With all that in mind – I would be glad if not every store employee were not compelled to wish me Merry Christmas, especially for the 6 weeks befor ethe holiday. I would be happy if there was a starting “gun” (actually fireworks would be very cool), so that no holiday sales or decorations were up until Dec. 1 or the weekend 10 days after thanksgiving. The meaning of the day has become so diluted in the weeks of holiday cheer that there is almost nothing left ot it. The cheerfulness itself has dissolved by the time the actual day arrives! Of course, I realize this is not going to happen – so Humbug!
Now, the same seems to be true of the little motto on our money. Given the dilution of the dollar’s value, the motrto seems to ring even more flse. And why on our money, anyway? That is Caesar Bush’s realm, and I certainly do not think it is an approrpiate neighborhood for even the tiniest bit of theology. It serves as neither a reminder nor a propaganda device. Why not something more approrpiate, like “We the People” or “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” or “Go Red Sox” (Oops, a regional bit there, but you get the idea). There is enough problems with religion today without having to argue about jingoism.

Jestrfyl, that’s very good, “We The People”,”Land of the Free, and the Brave”, but not Go Red Sox. I could get used to one of them.

nsbmuscian wrote:
“It seems to me that those who argue against the Christian life are unable to accept the idea that they are not the ultimate authority on their own life and behavior. To deny a higher power is to say that you, the individual, are the pinnacle of existence.”
This is what really torques non-believers. The breezy self assurance of believers. What you say may indeed be true for you, but to insist that everyone else must participate in your belief or else they are “sad” is demeaning and insulting and this attitude is one of the reasons the simple matter of “in god we trust” on our common money becomes impossible to amicably reconcile.
If you cannot see how you sound, let me put it to you this way:
Those who are unable to rely on themselves instead of relying on a supernatural help desk is to say that they are weak, lacking confidence in themselves and I consider them “sad”.
On your discussion about evolution, I fail to understand the relatioship you tried to draw between majority rule and natural selection. Would you care to explain this further. It sounds to me like a complete non sequitur.
Thanks,
How do you like your thoughts fed back to you?

BobP
With your concept in mind, I see too many ways to argue about this. I’ve had another thought…Let’s open this up to corporate sponsorship, as they do in NASCAR. Little corporate logos tucked into the blank spaces. It will help defray the cost of each coin or bill (the more they pay to sponsor the bigger the bill – or maybe reverse that, so the more they pay the more likely their bills would be circulated), and we all know who the real god of the filthy lucre would be.

Some people who oppose IGWT on paper bills are taking a marker and crossing it out. But just a while ago I read a variation of this strategy. Instead of blacking the words out, the idea is to edit the motto so it becomes something everyone can get behind. Now, this is the true spirit of compromise that helped build our fabulous republic. The famous third way of politics.
Here is how to do the edit.
Take a marker and insert a proofreaders mark between the “o” and the “d”.
Write the letter “l” where the proofreaders insertion mark points.
Now the new and improved motto reads:
In Gold We Trust
Shall we have a vote on this proposition?

nsbmusican wrote:
“It seems to me that those who argue against the Christian life are unable to accept the idea that they are not the ultimate authority on their own life and behavior. To deny a higher power is to say that you, the individual, are the pinnacle of existence.”
No, nsbmusican, we are not arguing against “the Christian life”, whatever that may be. We are arguing against a motto that falsely claims that ALL Americans trust in the God that Christians worship (and that is obviously the God who is intended). We are arguing that the government has no right to tell us what our religious beliefs should be. Some of us trust in different god(s) and some in no god at all. Thus, “In God We Trust” (where “we” means ALL Americans) is not true. As someone suggested, it would be true to say “In God most of us trust,” but that doesn’t make a very good motto.
In your quote, you use the term “higher power”. Believing in a “higher power” is not the same as believing in “the specific God that I worship”. You appear to be trying to sound all-inclusive (except for atheists), but I doubt that you would be satisfied with “In a higher power we trust”.
In any case, “In God we trust” clearly refers to the God that Christians worship, and not to some generic “higher power”.

nsbmusican writes: “While the constitution does not explicitly list a Christian diety it does refer to a creator, …”
You are probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which does indeed refer to a Creator, but (as you point out) not the Christian diety specifically. The Constitution does not mention God or any creator at all, unless you count the very end where it says “in the Year of our Lord” as part of the date when it was signed.

In God we trust,
The rest are dust,
We’ll acknowledge if we must,
But we think they’re all bust.
That is what is implied by those first four words. Personally, I blame it all onthe COuncil of Nicea. Christianity just hasn’t been the same, or as much fun, since then. Luther tired, but he got tangled in his own intricacies. Maybe it is time for a New Council – the Lighten Up, Sing Loud, Laugh Often Ecumenical Council and Drinking Society!

This has been discussed throughly and completely. I just want to add (before this falls off the bottom of the list), in Whose god do we trust? And why do we need to see it everytime we spend the shrinking American dollar? (or the lesser bits of money)