In 1956, Congress passed a resolution declaring “IN GOD WE TRUST” as the national motto of the United States. President Eisenhower signed the law and the motto was added to paper money beginning in 1957. Opponents argue that the motto violates the U.S. Constitution since it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Proponents argue that it does not prefer one religious denomination over another.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Response rates from 21.2k Collin voters.
23% Yes |
77% No |
17% Yes |
68% No |
5% Yes, but do not waste money removing existing references |
6% No, as long as it does not reference a specific religion |
1% Yes, it creates a bias against religions that do not believe in God |
3% No, religion is an important aspect of our country’s history |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 21.2k Collin voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 21.2k Collin voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Collin voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@93GDF233yrs3Y
No but tax religous temples
@9C377CN2yrs2Y
No but tax religious temples
@4PSDH2X4yrs4Y
Our rights are God-given. George Washington would have considered such a proposal to be very destructive: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens..."
@5CTPHXM4yrs4Y
Yes, religion is the root of all evil. It is a vessel for power and control.
@9CB5RHC2yrs2Y
No, but a dharmic religious perspective should become an important aspect of our country's history.
@4PYRMNQ4yrs4Y
If you're going to nit pick division of church and state then say out of the bible when denying gays the right to marriage; women the right to an abortion or birth control - you can't pick and choose.
@4X8J7BX4yrs4Y
The first amendment is about protecting citizens from government interference in their religious practices, not about removing the influence of religion from the public arena, including government activities. I fail to see how references to God on money and monuments equate to the establishment of religion. Removing references to God, just as surely, arguably support the establishment of secular humanism as a religion. These things were done at a time in history when religion took a more central role in our culture and in government affairs. No, don't remove such historic religious references. It's a waste of time and money and represents "sanitation" of the history of our nation. It's important that we, as a nation, remember the past from which we came.
@9D84HDR2yrs2Y
Yes, but do not waste money removing existing references and hell dose not exist and is a hateful concept
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “First Amendment” news articles, updated frequently.
Explore and engage in the most popular conversations.
@EmptyIndepend3nt3MO
That's a weird takeaway from this article. TikTok isn't being banned because American companies can't compete - it's about national security concerns. Also, ByteDance is actually majority-owned by international investors including American firms like BlackRock.
@BicameralPlover3MO
Those copycats are garbage and everyone knows it. That's why kids still use TikTok despite all this fear mongering. Silicon Valley is just mad they didn't think of it first and can't buy it.
@EmptyIndepend3nt3MO
Have you actually read about ByteDance's ties to the CCP? Or how TikTok's algorithm works? This isn't about "fear mongering" - there are legitimate concerns about data collection and content manipulation. But I guess it's easier to just blame "big tech monopolies" than understand the actual issues.
@BicameralPlover
is winning the debate
DeSantis orders Universities to deactivate their "Students for Justice in Palestine" groups.
@Ind3p3ndentFrankie1Y
This is about as blatantly unconstitutional an attack on free speech as you'll find. Throughout US history, it's wars that are exploited to increase authoritarian state power. This time, it's not even a US war but a foreign country's war as the weapon.
@RadiantV0lunteer1Y
That is not what they are doing.
They are organized groups, not individuals, propagandizing genocidal antisemitic propaganda at the behest of a terrorist organization.
That goes beyond merely I support Palestine or whatever cover story we have now.
@Ind3p3ndentFrankie1Y
You're allowed in the United States not only to express your political opinions but also to organize in order to achieve those changes that you seek through peaceful means.
St. Louis School District Allows Muslim Students To Opt Out Of LGBT curriculum
@P4rtisanDunbird1Y
That's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Any religion for any reason has to have the right to opt out.
@SalamiSophia1Y
It does when it comes to Constitutional rights, but glad to know there's even more parental rights protections. Thanks.
@P4rtisanDunbird1Y
Good point. I see I was miscommunicating a bit. Certainly, constitutional rights are superior here. I was just trying to show that all can opt out simply for disagreeing with the curriculum. Thanks
@Ind3p3ndentSummer1Y
This makes me sad, because I had a vaguely positive impression of her until hearing that exchange
@AffectedJ0intComm1ttee1Y
Same here. I always thought she asked good questions in oral argument.
@AffectedJ0intComm1ttee
is winning the debate
@UniqueFalcon1Y
No, that wasn't what she was arguing. She was arguing that the "threatening circumstance," her hypothetical being a danger to the society, not specifically the government. Her example was, as usual, endangering children. It's the same argument as the excuse to ban Trump or Alex Jones from social media via coercion by government actors. The defintion of going around the 1st amendement.
@ParrotStella1Y
You are correct, but when government actors talk about threats to "society" that they need special powers to combat, you know it actually means threats to the government itself.
@UniqueFalcon1Y
Of course, or to be more inclusive, threats to the oligarchs and various corp donors who have bought the government. Her argument is bald-face ignorance about the purpose of the first amendment. Kind of embarrassing.
@UniqueFalcon
is winning the debate
Join in on the most popular conversations.
