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.
28% Yes |
72% No |
21% Yes |
63% No |
5% Yes, but do not waste money removing existing references |
7% 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 |
See how support for each position on “First Amendment” has changed over time for 7.4m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “First Amendment” has changed over time for 7.4m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@93GDF232yrs2Y
No but tax religous temples
@9C377CN11mos11MO
No but tax religious temples
@4PSDH2X3yrs3Y
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...."
@9CB5RHC11mos11MO
No, but a dharmic religious perspective should become an important aspect of our country's history.
@4PYRMNQ3yrs3Y
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.
@5CTPHXM3yrs3Y
Yes, religion is the root of all evil. It is a vessel for power and control.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “First Amendment” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH1 day1D
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a Black Lives Matter activist to be sued by a Louisiana police officer injured during a protest, opens new tab in 2016 in a case that could make it riskier to engage in public demonstrations, a hallmark of American democracy.The decision could make it easier to sue protest organizers for the illegal conduct of an attendee, according to the report.In declining to hear DeRay Mckesson's appeal, the justices left in place a lower court's decision reviving a lawsuit by the Baton Rouge police officer, John Ford, who accused him of negligence after being struck by a rock during a protest sparked by the fatal police shooting of a Black man, Alton Sterling.The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023 rejected, opens new tab Mckesson's defense that his rights to free speech and assembly under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protect him from the negligence claim.Mckesson was represented by lawyers including from the American Civil Liberties Union.The Baton Rouge protest was one of numerous demonstrations in the United States in 2015 and 2016 arising from incidents involving police and Black individuals. These predated the massive racial justice protests that flared in various cities in the United States and abroad following the 2020 murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in Minneapolis.The 5th Circuit's decision to allow Ford's lawsuit could make it easier to sue protest leaders for the illegal conduct of an attendee - an outcome that, according to some legal scholars, could stifle activism seeking political or societal change.Sterling was shot by a Baton Rouge police officer on July 5, 2016, after a struggle outside a convenience store where he was selling homemade CDs. The death inflamed racial tensions in the city. The protest four days later demanding accountability took place in the area in front of police headquarters.
@DelegateDolphin5 days5D
Catherine Herridge, who had spent nearly five years at the network after being hired away from Fox News, was among 20 CBS News staffers let go as part of a larger purge of 800 employees by Paramount.“When my records were seized I felt it was a journalistic rape,” Herridge testified at the…
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
In a significant development in the ongoing legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump, a Georgia judge has rejected Trump's motion to dismiss the 2020 election interference charges against him on First Amendment grounds. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the case, underscoring the judiciary's stance on the limits of free speech in the context of election interference allegations. The case, which has garnered national attention, centers on accusations of Trump's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.The judge's ruling emphasizes that the First Amendment does not provide blanket protection for actions that are alleged to have undermined the integrity of the electoral process. This decision sets a precedent for how similar cases might be approached in the future, particularly those involving claims of election interference or manipulation. Trump and his co-defendants, who have pleaded not guilty, are now poised to face the charges in a legal battle that could have far-reaching implications for American politics and the principle of free speech.Legal experts have weighed in on the judge's decision, noting its significance in delineating the boundaries of protected speech, especially in the context of democratic processes. The ruling also signals the judiciary's commitment to holding individuals accountable for actions that could potentially harm the electoral system, regardless of their political stature. As the case progresses, it will undoubtedly continue to spark debates on the balance between free speech and the protection of democratic integrity.The outcome of this case could also influence public perception and legal strategies in future instances of alleged election interference. With the 2024 presidential election on the horizon, the implications of this legal battle extend beyond the courtroom, potentially affecting electoral strategies and the broader political landscape in the United States.As the legal proceedings unfold, all eyes will be on Georgia, where the decision not to dismiss the charges against Trump and his co-defendants sets the stage for a trial that could have historic implications for American democracy and the rule of law.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Active 5 days ago@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Active 2 days agoDiversity training is any program designed to facilitate positive intergroup interaction, reduce prejudice and discrimination, and generally teach individuals who are different from others how to work together effectively. On April 22, 2022, Florida Governor DeSantis signed into law the “Individual…
@ISIDEWITH1wk1W
Active 1hr agoHigh density housing refers to housing developments with a higher population density than average. For example, high rise apartments are considered high density, especially in comparison to single-family homes or condominiums. High density real estate can also be developed from empty or abandoned buildings.…
