..........and the notion that the motto "In God We Trust" is religious in nature is laughable.
i was being totally serious and my intelligence is safe and stable. you evidentally don't have a firm understanding of the difference between a clearly spiritual statement----In God We Trust---- and a rigid system of worship----Religion. the motto we're discussing gives no endorsement or rule to anything or anyone, it simply lays out a plain spiritual precept.
When one has nothing of substance to say, they resort to using semantics in an argument, as you have.
hey Robert
sadly, your last statement only reinforces the fact that you don't have a firm grip on the understanding of the two words i used, spiritual and religion. that's OK i guess.
<< <i>You know what? Maybe our coins should be dateless. After all, isn't our measurement of date based on the BC/AD belief in the birth of Christ? Other religions have different calenders but it's the Christian belief that rules the dates on coins. Why isn't that offensive, or is it just that people want to tackle the motto first? >>
funny you said this Daddy-o, a friend of mine whom read this said the same exact thing....
Be Bop A Lula!! "Senorita HepKitty" "I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
I've always been partial to the mottos that adorn the fugios and continental dollars. They are without doubt the coolest, acknowledging reverence for all of creation while also expressing a profound awareness of the human condition -
"WE ARE ONE"
"MIND YOUR BUSINESS"
maybe we could update the third from "FUGIO" to the reasonable translation "TIME FLIES."
I think that about covers it; spiritual, intellectual, physical.
NO!!!!! The liberals already have this country screwed up enough, don't egg them on with this idea. Besure to vote Republian too, John F'n Kerry is a stinking Lib loser.
<< <i>No...the majority believe in a God..maybe someones posts already as didnt catch the last 6 pages >>
The test of legitimacy isn't whether the slogan represents the views of the majority. If that were the test of the slogan's legitimacy, then putting "Slavery For Country" on U.S. coins in 1860 would have been legitimate because the vast majority of Americans approved of slavery at the time. Slavery was a violation of the consitution. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the minority pushed the majority in line with the consititution with respect to slavery, but as a huge part of the country had an economic interest in slavery a war was required to make the change. No one is going to say that belief in God is a violation of the consititution, and I'm not sure the consititutional principle of separation of church and state is the issue here. To me, the principle is that the federal government isn't supposed to be spending tax dollars in preference of one religion over another. God does not mean Allah to Muslins, for example, so right away there's a problem if the U.S. Treasury is spending tax dollars to produce coins that make the false claim that "We" trust in God when in fact some of the hard working, tax paying, Allah worshiping "We" does not. And I use the Muslim religion only as an example, there are many others.
My prediction is that eventually the IGWT slogan will get left off the coins, not because anyone makes a big stink about it for constitutional reasons but because the slogan doesn't make sense in a nation that prides itself in making all its citizens feel equally well respected regardless of religion and equally represented as tax payers.
Atomic
Estragon: I can't go on like this. Vladimir: That's what you think. - Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot
The word "Allah" in arabic means "God" or "The God" (Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam Websters Dictionary). They have just not decided to translate the word into English.
<< <i>Slavery was a violation of the consitution >>
You need to reread the Constitution.
<< <i>Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners. >>
Many in the North, which had a larger population than the South, did not approve of slavery in 1860. However, that was not the reason of the Civil War. The Civil War was over the ability of a State to leave the Union, nothing more. In 1863, Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclomation to try to end the war and improve moral in the North. We are ticked at losing 500+ people in Iraq in 1 year of fighting, imagine the public outcry against tens of thousands in 3 years. But if you read the proclomation, it did not end slavery. If the Confederate States had surrended by a certain date, then they could have kept the slaves. The Civil War was not over slavery.
The test of legitimacy isn't whether the slogan represents the views of the majority. If that were the test of the slogan's legitimacy, then putting "Slavery For Country" on U.S. coins in 1860 would have been legitimate because the vast majority of Americans approved of slavery at the time. Slavery was a violation of the consitution.
I don't believe at ANY time in our history the vast majority or even the majority wanted slavery. Only a few Southern States did and wealthy planatation owners, who had enourmous economic power. To appease them, 3/5th wording was placed into the Consitution; which later resulted in a Civil War. In my opinion it was the major mistake of the Founding Fathers. However, it may have been politically impossible to take any other action at the time and retain the Union.
At the risk of being flamed, anyone who feels "threatened" by the IGWT on US Coins should stay in bed. It's a ridiculous idea to remove it!
Why don't you ask the men whose lives he saved if they think the same.
The question still remains: where was bushie during the Vietnam war? Dodgin' the draft in the National Guard and being A.W.O.L. form even those duties! While men were dying for this lost cause, bushie was convienietly missin' his medical exam and chuckin' all his flight training that the taxpayers paid for! Easy to be a "hawk" from his seat!!!
"In God We Trust"...fer sure; we can't trust the person(s) runnin' our country!!!
The question still remains: where was bushie during the Vietnam war? Dodgin' the draft in the National Guard and being A.W.O.L. form even those duties!
That's complete nonsense. Only the stupidly insane believe that.
No one has questioned Kerry's courage or service. Only his policies since Vietnam.
The only president that dodged the draft was Clinton. Amazing how the same people who had no trouble with that are claiming Bush did it. What a bunch of losers.
John F'n Kerry is partially responsible for well over a million lives lost as a result of his actions after the war. No one seems to care about these people.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>TSimmer - It was on our coins long before that. Who else could you trust anyway besides God???? >>
Oops! That's the currency collector in me speaking. The motto was added to the paper money during the 50's, I forgot that it was on coins even further back!
IMO, with today's paper currency so gaudy and bland, I'll take any embellishments such as the motto they can put on there that's not a security feature! The motto "In God we Trust" is well suited for paper money, and I think it would be a shame if it was removed. Paper currency used to be so elaborate and more than simply a medium of exchange.
Personally, it doesn't affect my life whether it's there or not. I honestly so no need to change it.
I find it interesting that "conservative" has come to mean "religious".
Added: I don't think IGWT trust should have been put on coins but as of now the statement has become secular. Let's not let it happen again. keep religion out of government.
"And calling the President of the United States AWOL w/o facts is NOT the same thing? Of course it is.
Enough. You're a classic Bush-hater. See YA!"
How 'bout the fact that not one but two of his commanding officers didn't ever recall him being present for duty?!? All the White House can come up with are pay and dental records?!? FACT: all this proves is that he got a dental exam (paid for by who else?!?), and seems to have been paid by the National Guard (footed by you-know-who once again) for helping one of daddy's cronies to get elected.
Enough. You're a classic Bush-brain-washed. See YA!
Well, we certainly can't trust in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al., now can we. I certainly woud not trust in Ralph Nader, and we don't know yet if we can trust in John Kerry. So I it would appear that the Lord is the best bet.
While we are on the topic of motto's how about using a translation of e pluribu unum. In case no one at the Mint or in Congress has noticed yet, most Americans don't speak Latin.
I would like to see Liberty Parent of Science and Industry added, and leave it at that.
God, I love this thread! And I don't even believe in God. Atomic
p.s. Reminds me of a monster thread that ensued on another forum in response to the seemly mundane question about the proper use of the words who and whom. It was ended weeks later by the board member who asked, "Whom cares?" All threads eventually turn into a contest about who is right and who is wrong. How else does Bill Clinton wind up in a thread about a quasi religious motto on US coins?
p.s.s. Everything really is Bill Clinton's fault.
Estragon: I can't go on like this. Vladimir: That's what you think. - Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot
Leave it on the coins, not because it is right, but because it would be too divisive to have a debate like this in our public forums at present. Inertia is a powerful thing. It's been there a long time, and I fear that if a proposal surfaced to remove it, the political and social debate would stifle any real reasoning, one way or the other.
Truly, this is not the historical time to be considering this.
The USA is also the only country to issue a major coin or crown with the word 'Peace' on it. I'd much rather have a debate in public about putting 'Peace' back on coins than about removing IGWT.
Just in case you don't quite understand what you're looking at when you click the link, spiritual and religious are, in fact, one and the same according to Roget's Thesaurus. The only difference between the two is in the context in which they are used.
You see, the majority were in favor of slavery. Those opposed changed public opinion at the grassroots level and slavery was abolished, which was the part of my statement you conveniently left out. Actually, Frankie, the majority of people were still in favor of slavery when the law was changed. It did not change due to public opinion. After slavery was abolished (as well as before), blacks were treated very very poorly and the majority of people believed the law should not have changed.
how 'bout, " In Allah We Trust " with a portrait of Osama bin Ladin. then all the terrorist will believe we are their friends and leave us alone. Right !
Religion can be a positive and tolerant entity or, a radical and destructive influence.
This country was born because free-thinking minds realized the positive aspects of religion could be a focusing factor . The Judeo-Christian teachings, ie. the Ten Commandments, have been the backbone of American culture. It seems to have served us well. We are a peace-loving nation. How many Americans have blown up buses, resturaunts, and embassies ?
Our country's philosophy has always been to help those in need. Other nations use religion as a drug to incite the ignorant to kill.
Let's keep "In God We Trust" and continue to practice it's positive message. .
For investors: "In Plastic We Trust" For collectors: "In Me I Trust" Polititians: "This is Your God" Religious Sects: "In God We Trust" Microsoft Shareholders: "Bill is God"
We could go on and on..........
The Rede we live by: If it harms none, do what you will.
It is clear that the majority of people on this forum favor IGWT on our coins. It is fascinating that this evokes such strong feelings. I doubt that having such a pronouncement on a coin increases the belief in any God nor any more trust; but, what do I know; I am dubious of the value of multi-millon dollar deals to have a basketball player sell shoes.
let's use your link and click on "dictionary" instead of thesaurus. for fun, let's look up some words and list the primary definitions.
primary----First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal. thesaurus----A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms. synonym----A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language. spiritual----Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. (it's interesting to note that religion is mentioned only in the fourth definition of importance) religion----1A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
putting these together in an intelligent manner, it would seem that religion means nearly the same thing as spiritual, but it's only significant enough to be listed in the fourth definition, hardly primary. spiritual seems to be defined in vague terms, as it should be. the root word "spirit" needs no explanation, or does it?? maybe that dictionary or even thesaurus can help again, but not if you expect any type of link to religion!! but, religion seems to be defined in very specific terms, as it should be.
<< <i>Actually, Frankie, the majority of people were still in favor of slavery when the law was changed. It did not change due to public opinion. After slavery was abolished (as well as before), blacks were treated very very poorly and the majority of people believed the law should not have changed. >>
well, actually bobbie, the law was changed - not by magic - but by growing support.
The nebulous statement "the majority of people believe the law should not have been changed" is just that. A little tidbit plucked from the sky with no real foundation.
Keep flailing away however, the exercise will do you good.
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather did, as opposed to screaming in terror like his passengers."
Our national identity is embodied in three documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence is to some extent the foundational document in that it acknowledges that the rights we so love and cherish (outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights) are "inalienable rights" given to us by "our Creator." IGWT on our coinage is just another acknowledgement of where are rights and freedoms originate.
IGWT on our coinage is a symbol. Are symbols important? Only if there is some substance behind the symbol, in this case a believing by the majority of the people that what the Declaration of Independence declared is true, that our right are inalienable and not subject to the whim of any man or any government power. That's what the Founders believed, it's what I believe and based on the number of positive responses in this thread it's still what the majority of the American people believe.
My vote is to keep IGWT on our coinage.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
How would it affect your life, your happiness, your liberty... Something so mundane should not even be an issue. Living by the spirit has been a life long endeavor for me. I cannot see how this could affect my relationship with God, or my fellow man. So...I don't care what they do.
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
The issue isn't really how the removal of the symbol will affect you or me personally. If the decision is made to remove the symbol it will say something about what has already happened with respect to the attitude of the people regarding one of the fundamental principles I mentioned in my earlier post. The real issue isn't the removal of the symbol but the motivation behind the push to have the symbol removed.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
The issue isn't really how the removal of the symbol will affect you or me personally. If the decision is made to remove the symbol it will say something about what has already happened with respect to the attitude of the people regarding one of the fundamental principles I mentioned in my earlier post. The real issue isn't the removal of the symbol but the motivation behind the push to have the symbol removed. >>
Well, motives have to be changed in the laws, not the effect of the laws. How many of us are willing to tackle it at the root? Some people may have an agenda. In some cases it's obvious, in others, it's not until too late. The thing is, not all u.s. citizens trust in god, and they are so sick of holy rollers, they get a little charge in fighting this fight. In so many ways, Christians are the worst enemy of Christianity there is. Too damn pushy, insulting, thinking they are better than people. The list goes on and on. Regardless of the possible outcomes of all these attacks against religious references in the government, we have to maintain our spirituality. The Government and the ACLU are powerless to the omnipotence of God. That is the realiazion required to transcend this debate within our own being and the benefit of humanity.
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
I don't doubt that there are those that don't believe in God who feel like any discussion of religion is an attempt to shove God down their throats. I also don't doubt that some religious folks (Christian, Muslim, etc., etc.) may in fact try to shove their religion down someone elses throat.
On the other hand there are Christians that feel that some in our society are shoving their brand of religion (atheism) down their throats and in the process denying the religious heritage of our country and ignoring one of the foundational principles on which our rights and freedoms are based.
Did the Founders have it wrong in claiming that our fundamental rights and freedoms are granted to us by God and that He is the Supreme Judge who we will answer to regarding our use and/or abuse of those rights and freedoms?
The motto IGWT is an acknowledgement of a belief that the Founders got it right. If the majority of the people believe the Founders got it wrong then let the motto be removed. Let's continue to have the debate.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
""•There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. •The previous point makes it clear the motto should not be on our coins.""
WRONG!!!!! Get your facts straight!!! Nowhere, anywhere, is there anything that states there must be any seperation of church and state!!!
Read SLOWLY so one comprehends..... "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion." Placing a motto on a coin with the word GOD in it is NOT MAKING A LAW nor is it establishing a religion!
<< <i>""•There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. •The previous point makes it clear the motto should not be on our coins."" WRONG!!!!! Get your facts straight!!! Nowhere, anywhere, is there anything that states there must be any seperation of church and state!!! Read SLOWLY so one comprehends..... "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion." Placing a motto on a coin with the word GOD in it is NOT MAKING A LAW nor is it establishing a religion! >>
Thank you for stating this.
It really burns me up when I hear "separation of church and state". It's mearly many people that haven't even researched the constitution, repeating what one person got wrong a long time ago.
I'm still struggling to understand why the Church isn't enough for those who worship God. Is it really neccessary for them to inflict God on me from every conceivable venue? I realize that we atheists "don't have a prayer," but if I had one, I would pray for surcease from the endless emnity, proselytization and judgment of those who have swallowed doctrine and dogma that I haven't. Am I as a "Godless atheist" (I'm always amused by that expression......aren't atheists by definition 'Godless?') really a threat to believers just by my presence in this country? I am a disabled, decorated combat veteran, my father and grandfather were also decorated combat veterans, and my uncle died in WWII. Atheists one and all. I'm old enough to remember when "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, and all it created was confusion. Why can't you smug, self-righteous Christians be content with the knowledge that I'm going to Hell, instead of constantly bringing Hell to my daily life? But hey, you're really missing the boat! You should be hard at work making certain that the name of God is added to every flag and postage stamp in this "free" country.
If I had a nickel for every nickel I have, would I have twice as many nickels, or the same damned mess I started with?
"I'm still struggling to understand why the Church isn't enough for those who worship God."
I think your misunderstand is in thinking that religion is something that should be confined to a particular building, time or occassion. As far as Christianity is concerned "religion" can't be compartmentized and should affect every aspect of life and society. That doesn't mean anyone should be force to worship God in one particular way or that they should be force to acknowledge God on a personal level.
I could also ask the question another way, is the fact that the money you carry in your pocket bare the motto IGWT particularly bothersome to you?
I really think the question comes down to does this country have a rich religious heritage, are the basis of our laws and government in part a product of that heritage and should that heritiage continue to be acknowledged? Another fundamental question is whether it is important to acknowledge that our rights and freedom are granted to us by our Creator or is this just a convenient way to demogog the idea that all men regardless of race, education, social status, etc., etc. should enjoy those rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
Give it time. The liberals will find a way.
Midus
i was being totally serious and my intelligence is safe and stable. you evidentally don't have a firm understanding of the difference between a clearly spiritual statement----In God We Trust---- and a rigid system of worship----Religion. the motto we're discussing gives no endorsement or rule to anything or anyone, it simply lays out a plain spiritual precept.
When one has nothing of substance to say, they resort to using semantics in an argument, as you have.
hey Robert
sadly, your last statement only reinforces the fact that you don't have a firm grip on the understanding of the two words i used, spiritual and religion. that's OK i guess.
al h.
<< <i>You know what? Maybe our coins should be dateless. After all, isn't our measurement of date based on the BC/AD belief in the
birth of Christ? Other religions have different calenders but it's the Christian belief that rules the dates on coins. Why isn't that
offensive, or is it just that people want to tackle the motto first?
>>
funny you said this Daddy-o, a friend of mine whom read this said the same exact thing....
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
"WE ARE ONE"
"MIND YOUR BUSINESS"
maybe we could update the third from "FUGIO" to the reasonable translation "TIME FLIES."
I think that about covers it; spiritual, intellectual, physical.
That Frankie, he was a smart cookie....
doesn't "e pluribus unum" translate as out of one, many??
al h.
<< <i>No...the majority believe in a God..maybe someones posts already as didnt catch the last 6 pages
The test of legitimacy isn't whether the slogan represents the views of the majority. If that were the test of the slogan's legitimacy, then putting "Slavery For Country" on U.S. coins in 1860 would have been legitimate because the vast majority of Americans approved of slavery at the time. Slavery was a violation of the consitution. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the minority pushed the majority in line with the consititution with respect to slavery, but as a huge part of the country had an economic interest in slavery a war was required to make the change. No one is going to say that belief in God is a violation of the consititution, and I'm not sure the consititutional principle of separation of church and state is the issue here. To me, the principle is that the federal government isn't supposed to be spending tax dollars in preference of one religion over another. God does not mean Allah to Muslins, for example, so right away there's a problem if the U.S. Treasury is spending tax dollars to produce coins that make the false claim that "We" trust in God when in fact some of the hard working, tax paying, Allah worshiping "We" does not. And I use the Muslim religion only as an example, there are many others.
My prediction is that eventually the IGWT slogan will get left off the coins, not because anyone makes a big stink about it for constitutional reasons but because the slogan doesn't make sense in a nation that prides itself in making all its citizens feel equally well respected regardless of religion and equally represented as tax payers.
Atomic
Vladimir: That's what you think.
- Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot
<< <i>God does not mean Allah to Muslins >>
atomic,
The word "Allah" in arabic means "God" or "The God" (Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam Websters Dictionary). They have just not decided to translate the word into English.
<< <i>Slavery was a violation of the consitution >>
You need to reread the Constitution.
<< <i>Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners. >>
Site
Many in the North, which had a larger population than the South, did not approve of slavery in 1860. However, that was not the reason of the Civil War. The Civil War was over the ability of a State to leave the Union, nothing more. In 1863, Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclomation to try to end the war and improve moral in the North. We are ticked at losing 500+ people in Iraq in 1 year of fighting, imagine the public outcry against tens of thousands in 3 years. But if you read the proclomation, it did not end slavery. If the Confederate States had surrended by a certain date, then they could have kept the slaves. The Civil War was not over slavery.
I don't believe at ANY time in our history the vast majority or even the majority wanted slavery. Only a few Southern States did and wealthy planatation owners, who had enourmous economic power. To appease them, 3/5th wording was placed into the Consitution; which later resulted in a Civil War. In my opinion it was the major mistake of the Founding Fathers. However, it may have been politically impossible to take any other action at the time and retain the Union.
At the risk of being flamed, anyone who feels "threatened" by the IGWT on US Coins should stay in bed. It's a ridiculous idea to remove it!
Free Trial
Why don't you ask the men whose lives he saved if they think the same.
The question still remains: where was bushie during the Vietnam war? Dodgin' the draft in the National Guard and being A.W.O.L. form even those duties! While men were dying for this lost cause, bushie was convienietly missin' his medical exam and chuckin' all his flight training that the taxpayers paid for! Easy to be a "hawk" from his seat!!!
"In God We Trust"...fer sure; we can't trust the person(s) runnin' our country!!!
Don
We now return to our regulaly scheduled argument.
That's complete nonsense. Only the stupidly insane believe that.
No one has questioned Kerry's courage or service. Only his policies since Vietnam.
Free Trial
John F'n Kerry is partially responsible for well over a million lives lost as a result of his actions after the war. No one seems to care about these people.
A resort to name callin' in lieu of facts!
Hey, let's not let the facts get in the way, huh?
<< <i>TSimmer - It was on our coins long before that. Who else could you trust anyway besides God???? >>
Oops! That's the currency collector in me speaking. The motto was added to the paper money during the 50's, I forgot that it was on coins even further back!
IMO, with today's paper currency so gaudy and bland, I'll take any embellishments such as the motto they can put on there that's not a security feature! The motto "In God we Trust" is well suited for paper money, and I think it would be a shame if it was removed. Paper currency used to be so elaborate and more than simply a medium of exchange.
Personally, it doesn't affect my life whether it's there or not. I honestly so no need to change it.
Only the terminally naive believe that!
<< <i>Give it time. The liberals will find a way. >>
Don't blame it on the liberals. I am decidedly not a "liberal", yet I would welcome the removal of IGWT from the USA's money.
How did this move from the national motto on coinage to slavery & military service records of politicians?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Added: I don't think IGWT trust should have been put on coins but as of now the statement has become secular. Let's not let it happen again. keep religion out of government.
And calling the President of the United States AWOL w/o facts is NOT the same thing? Of course it is.
Enough. You're a classic Bush-hater. See YA!
Free Trial
Enough. You're a classic Bush-hater. See YA!"
How 'bout the fact that not one but two of his commanding officers didn't ever recall him being present for duty?!?
All the White House can come up with are pay and dental records?!?
FACT: all this proves is that he got a dental exam (paid for by who else?!?), and seems to have been paid by the National Guard (footed by you-know-who once again) for helping one of daddy's cronies to get elected.
Enough. You're a classic Bush-brain-washed. See YA!
<< <i>hey Zenny
doesn't "e pluribus unum" translate as out of one, many??
al h.
as i would prefer the english translation of fugio, so would i prefer the more concise "we are one."
Joe.
E Pluribus Unum.
That's the only motto we need.
-Jay
e-mail me here
WINNER:
POTD 8-30-05 (awarded by dthigpen)
POTD 9-8-05 (awarded by gsaguy)
GSAGUY Slam 12-10-04
e-mail me here
WINNER:
POTD 8-30-05 (awarded by dthigpen)
POTD 9-8-05 (awarded by gsaguy)
GSAGUY Slam 12-10-04
While we are on the topic of motto's how about using a translation of e pluribu unum. In case no one at the Mint or in Congress has noticed yet, most Americans don't speak Latin.
I would like to see Liberty Parent of Science and Industry added, and leave it at that.
CG
Atomic
p.s. Reminds me of a monster thread that ensued on another forum in response to the seemly mundane question about the proper use of the words who and whom. It was ended weeks later by the board member who asked, "Whom cares?" All threads eventually turn into a contest about who is right and who is wrong. How else does Bill Clinton wind up in a thread about a quasi religious motto on US coins?
p.s.s. Everything really is Bill Clinton's fault.
Vladimir: That's what you think.
- Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot
Ok, here is a line of reasoning on this.
Leave it on the coins, not because it is right, but because it would be too divisive to have a debate like this in our public forums at present. Inertia is a powerful thing. It's been there a long time, and I fear that if a proposal surfaced to remove it, the political and social debate would stifle any real reasoning, one way or the other.
Truly, this is not the historical time to be considering this.
The USA is also the only country to issue a major coin or crown with the word 'Peace' on it.
I'd much rather have a debate in public about putting 'Peace' back on coins than about removing IGWT.
Just in case you don't quite understand what you're looking at when you click the link, spiritual and religious are, in fact, one and the same according to Roget's Thesaurus. The only difference between the two is in the context in which they are used.
You see, the majority were in favor of slavery. Those opposed changed public opinion at the grassroots level and slavery was abolished, which was the part of my statement you conveniently left out.
Actually, Frankie, the majority of people were still in favor of slavery when the law was changed. It did not change due to public opinion. After slavery was abolished (as well as before), blacks were treated very very poorly and the majority of people believed the law should not have changed.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
then all the terrorist will believe we are their friends and leave us alone. Right !
Religion can be a positive and tolerant entity or,
a radical and destructive influence.
This country was born because free-thinking minds realized the positive
aspects of religion could be a focusing factor .
The Judeo-Christian teachings, ie. the Ten Commandments, have been
the backbone of American culture.
It seems to have served us well. We are a peace-loving nation.
How many Americans have blown up buses, resturaunts, and embassies ?
Our country's philosophy has always been to help those in need.
Other nations use religion as a drug to incite the ignorant to kill.
Let's keep "In God We Trust" and continue to practice it's positive message.
.
For collectors: "In Me I Trust"
Polititians: "This is Your God"
Religious Sects: "In God We Trust"
Microsoft Shareholders: "Bill is God"
We could go on and on..........
It is fascinating that this evokes such strong feelings.
I doubt that having such a pronouncement on a coin increases the belief in any God nor any more trust; but, what do I know; I am dubious of the value of multi-millon dollar deals to have a basketball player sell shoes.
let's use your link and click on "dictionary" instead of thesaurus. for fun, let's look up some words and list the primary definitions.
primary----First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
thesaurus----A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms.
synonym----A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
spiritual----Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. (it's interesting to note that religion is mentioned only in the fourth definition of importance)
religion----1A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
putting these together in an intelligent manner, it would seem that religion means nearly the same thing as spiritual, but it's only significant enough to be listed in the fourth definition, hardly primary. spiritual seems to be defined in vague terms, as it should be. the root word "spirit" needs no explanation, or does it?? maybe that dictionary or even thesaurus can help again, but not if you expect any type of link to religion!! but, religion seems to be defined in very specific terms, as it should be.
got any other links we can have fun with??
al h.
<< <i>Actually, Frankie, the majority of people were still in favor of slavery when the law was changed. It did not change due to public opinion. After slavery was abolished (as well as before), blacks were treated very very poorly and the majority of people believed the law should not have changed. >>
well, actually bobbie, the law was changed - not by magic - but by growing support.
The nebulous statement "the majority of people believe the law should not have been changed" is just that. A little tidbit plucked from the sky with no real foundation.
Keep flailing away however, the exercise will do you good.
IGWT on our coinage is a symbol. Are symbols important? Only if there is some substance behind the symbol, in this case a believing by the majority of the people that what the Declaration of Independence declared is true, that our right are inalienable and not subject to the whim of any man or any government power. That's what the Founders believed, it's what I believe and based on the number of positive responses in this thread it's still what the majority of the American people believe.
My vote is to keep IGWT on our coinage.
Something so mundane should not even be an issue.
Living by the spirit has been a life long endeavor for me.
I cannot see how this could affect my relationship with God, or my fellow man.
So...I don't care what they do.
How many people have become religous because of the "In God We Trust" on our money"?
The issue isn't really how the removal of the symbol will affect you or me personally. If the decision is made to remove the symbol it will say something about what has already happened with respect to the attitude of the people regarding one of the fundamental principles I mentioned in my earlier post. The real issue isn't the removal of the symbol but the motivation behind the push to have the symbol removed.
smack dab on the old noggin!!! i wonder if it can be said any clearer?
al h.
<< <i>Madmonk
The issue isn't really how the removal of the symbol will affect you or me personally. If the decision is made to remove the symbol it will say something about what has already happened with respect to the attitude of the people regarding one of the fundamental principles I mentioned in my earlier post. The real issue isn't the removal of the symbol but the motivation behind the push to have the symbol removed. >>
Well, motives have to be changed in the laws, not the effect of the laws. How many of us are willing to tackle it at the root? Some people may have an agenda. In some cases it's obvious, in others, it's not until too late. The thing is, not all u.s. citizens trust in god, and they are so sick of holy rollers, they get a little charge in fighting this fight. In so many ways, Christians are the worst enemy of Christianity there is. Too damn pushy, insulting, thinking they are better than people. The list goes on and on. Regardless of the possible outcomes of all these attacks against religious references in the government, we have to maintain our spirituality. The Government and the ACLU are powerless to the omnipotence of God. That is the realiazion required to transcend this debate within our own being and the benefit of humanity.
I don't doubt that there are those that don't believe in God who feel like any discussion of religion is an attempt to shove God down their throats. I also don't doubt that some religious folks (Christian, Muslim, etc., etc.) may in fact try to shove their religion down someone elses throat.
On the other hand there are Christians that feel that some in our society are shoving their brand of religion (atheism) down their throats and in the process denying the religious heritage of our country and ignoring one of the foundational principles on which our rights and freedoms are based.
Did the Founders have it wrong in claiming that our fundamental rights and freedoms are granted to us by God and that He is the Supreme Judge who we will answer to regarding our use and/or abuse of those rights and freedoms?
The motto IGWT is an acknowledgement of a belief that the Founders got it right. If the majority of the people believe the Founders got it wrong then let the motto be removed. Let's continue to have the debate.
•The previous point makes it clear the motto should not be on our coins.""
WRONG!!!!! Get your facts straight!!! Nowhere, anywhere, is there anything that states there must be any seperation of church and state!!!
Read SLOWLY so one comprehends..... "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion." Placing a motto on a coin with the word GOD in it is NOT MAKING A LAW nor is it establishing a religion!
09/07/2006
<< <i>""•There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. •The previous point makes it clear the motto should not be on our coins."" WRONG!!!!! Get your facts straight!!! Nowhere, anywhere, is there anything that states there must be any seperation of church and state!!! Read SLOWLY so one comprehends..... "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion." Placing a motto on a coin with the word GOD in it is NOT MAKING A LAW nor is it establishing a religion! >>
Thank you for stating this.
It really burns me up when I hear "separation of church and state". It's mearly many people that haven't even researched the constitution, repeating what one person got wrong a long time ago.
"I'm still struggling to understand why the Church isn't enough for those who worship God."
I think your misunderstand is in thinking that religion is something that should be confined to a particular building, time or occassion. As far as Christianity is concerned "religion" can't be compartmentized and should affect every aspect of life and society. That doesn't mean anyone should be force to worship God in one particular way or that they should be force to acknowledge God on a personal level.
I could also ask the question another way, is the fact that the money you carry in your pocket bare the motto IGWT particularly bothersome to you?
I really think the question comes down to does this country have a rich religious heritage, are the basis of our laws and government in part a product of that heritage and should that heritiage continue to be acknowledged? Another fundamental question is whether it is important to acknowledge that our rights and freedom are granted to us by our Creator or is this just a convenient way to demogog the idea that all men regardless of race, education, social status, etc., etc. should enjoy those rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?