Don't we have bigger issues to worry about. Aren't we at war? Don't we have a looming energy crisis. Didn't New Orleans just get wiped out. Restructure bankruptcy laws.
Why don't those of you whom are bothered by this go be a help, instead of hinderance. That's the problem with this country, too much time is wasted on trivial BS. Ohh lets be politically correct, we might offend poor Billy, cause he is athiest. Or perhaps Bob, he's gay and worships 5 gods.
Lets be all inclusive, cause I didn't get picked until last at dodgeball in school.
It is funny though, most of the Katrina drives in my area are from Church's. It is those people who are helping out the downtroden and devasted. They seem to be good people. Why not just let things be as they are.
You know, I don't go to Church on Sunday. And I sure don't feel oppressed by a statement on currency. What's the bid deal.
Flame on.
If I say something in the woods, and my wife isn't around. Am I still wrong?
These types of debates typically wind up being who can shout louder and longer, and that might be too bad.
My take on IGWT on our coinage is that I don't care. However, I will mention a few things that seem to be either not widely known or that are conveniently forgotten. These are that while many of the earliest folks came to this country for religious freedom, they generally came for their religious freedom and this was not universally extended toward others. Similarly, Washington, Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were brilliant, pragmatic men who were truly a product of their time. In this regard, I don't think it logical or possible to extend literally everything they say or did. After all, these were the same men who largely limited the franchise to white males and who allowed the continuance of legal slavery throughout half the nation. Any debate as to the pious nature of these men and how we should follow their examples should acknowledge these facts.
What bothers me is that those who want to keep IGWT tie their opponents into atheism, which really has nothing to do with the issue. As to our Founding Fathers, most of them were theists, believers in some divinity but denying the existence of a personal god active in the lives of human beings. The issue really goes beyond Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or anything else.
IGWT isn't "offensive," but it was added to the currency only around the Civil War and in the throes of one of our periodic "Great Revivals.'' In other words, it was not deemed appropriate in the easlier decades of the nation's existence to put such sentiments on the coinage and, presumably it would not have been deemed as appropriate in the decades following, save for times of other particularly pressing religious fervor and/or national crisis. The same process occurred in the throes of anti-cmmunism during the 50's, when it was deemed particularly desireable to pronounce our nations as "under God" (in contrast with the godless commies).
The problem is that in times when we would have been less inclined to impose such sentiments on coins and in pledges because religious fervor, national crises and commie threats have all shifted and abated, these mottos and attestations nonetheless remain. Moreover, they now claim permanency and resist removal, because anyone who may contemplate returning our pledges and our coinage to what they were before these boomlets of fervor is himself/herself suspected of being godless, or at least mindless of the "religious foundations of our country."
Like others here, I'm not about to get into a big fight over it. But I do wonder how big our coins will have to become to accommodate all the religious and philosophical propositions we will accumulate over the centuries and can't get rid of, just because nobody wants to be offensive and remove them.
Re-read the first two paragraphs of Dpoole's post. Historically, he is dead on.
I think I can speak with some authority on my subject too -- I wrote my college thesis on the historical background and the church/state issues around In God We Trust. It would have been published were the laptop it was on not stolen (anyone want to retype an inch thick paper?)
In 1792, the Founders wanted a few simple things on coins. Here's the actual text, voted on and approved by a Congress that contained more ministers, patriots, and veterans than any we've known since:
SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That, upon the said coins respectively, there shall be the following devices and legends, namely: Upon one side of each of the said coins there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word Liberty, and the year of the coinage; an upon the reverse of each of the gold and silver coins there shall be the figure or representation of an eagle, with this inscription, "United States of America" and upon the reverse of each of the copper coins, there shall be an inscription which shall express the denomination of the piece, namely, cent or half cent, as the case may require.
That was it. That's all they thought was necessary.
When In God We Trust was added to coins, it was in a period of great turmoil. It was a good time to overlook the who-really-cares side of the wall of separation of church and state and ask for a little divine help when it was needed. Politically, those who were behind this were very conservative and highly religious. Salmon P. Chase and James Pollock were both members of the NRA -- the National Reform Association (of course!) which sought to add an amendment to the Constitution stating that we were a Christian nation. Needless to say, their attempts failed. But no one would oppose adding a prayer to coins when the very existence of the nation seemed at stake.
In 1955, at the height of the Cold War, similar political motivations were brought to bear to get "under God" placed into the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust put on paper money and officially adopted as the national motto. In a letter in the Matt Rothert archive (now at the ANA, where he served as president), Rothert wrote that adding the words to paper money would help the nation fight communists and homosexuals. It was his idea, brought to national attention by Ike's Commerce Secretary who served with Rothert on a trade organization of furniture retailers. Ike thought it was a nice idea (not to mention that it would look good for the political base in the 1956 election).
Teddy Roosevelt asked the best question -- why would you want to put the name of the Almighty on something as profane as a coin? What gets more disrespect than a penny, and why is it a good idea to have the Almighty's name thereupon, particularly when the New Testament speaks to this exact issue?
When Madelaine Murray O'Hare sued for the removal of the motto, she got beat at every level of the court system, which uniformly pronounced the motto as an historical nicety and a harmless paean to a Great Other, far from declaring a state religion or avowing support for any particular faith. The court's language begs another question -- do we want something involving trust in God, something so vital and important to so many Americans, to be considered trivial? Or a meaningless nicety? Wouldn't it be better to have a declaration that actually meant something?
Personally I find it inoffensive, but its inoffensiveness is almost offensive (if that makes sense). I think it's a pity that a sentiment that is so central to so many Americans lives would be regarded as so trivial or be placed upon perhaps the most profane object in our culture -- a piece of money. I'd rather stand with Teddy Roosevelt on the subject than Mssrs. Chase, Pollock, Rothert, and Eisenhower.
John Kraljevich, Director of Numismatic Americana, Stack's Bowers Galleries
<< <i>If you ever experianced hostile fire, You know what I mean.
You have many things go thru your mind. One of which is GOD! >>
To diverge for a moment and indulge a pet peeve...
I have (And have lost a leg in combat). God was the last thing going through my mind at the time, in fact, after my final accident, the I the only thing I was praying for was to die. In retrospect, I'm fairly glad that God chooses not to answer prayers these days.
I find the whole "there are no atheists in fox holes" argument fairly funny. Having served in Bravo Company, 3rd Ranger Batt when I did and going through what I did, I knew many atheists.
<< <i>Atheists are perhaps the last group of people that can be openly ridiculed and discriminated against without question. Don't dismiss us because you don't agree with us. >>
I believe we should unquestionably keep the motto. GOD rules over our nation by HIS Mercy and Grace. The motto is merely a human gesture on the part of our nation to acknowledge that absolute truth. It also expresses the majority view of the nation.
I also agree with flamino's comment above. Although I disagree with atheist thought (I'm literally 100% on the other side of their belief), it is true that atheists are often treated with a mean spirited demeanor which is positively inappropriate for any true believer to do. I feel it is Christian duty to reach out to atheists with as much love and compassion as the LORD did to others who did not believe. Recall that we believers at one time did NOT believe too. Let us also not forget that the LORD's harshest criticism was directed at the religious rulers of his day; NOT at outward unbelievers. Today's atheist could be tomorrow's believer. Even if not, true believers have an obligation to treat all men with dignity and respect (1 Thess. 5: 14-15, Gal. 6: 10, 2 Tim. 2:24). matteproof
At the time the Founders were deciding what would be on our coins the question of whether this nation trusted in God wasn't questioned it was a given. There was no question of that trust since 90% of the population identified with some form of Christianity. Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation was an expression of that almost universal trust in God.
What seems to happen is that every generation or so that faith and trust seems to go by the wayside until some crises reminds us that maybe the Founders were right. Maybe, as Franklin said we need reminders that an empire does not raise or remain without His aid or "unless the Lord builds that house they that labor labor in vain". So in times of crises like the Civil War and WWII we go back to the acknowledgement that Washington stressed, that as a nation we have a duty to acknowledge and give thanks to God for our rights, freedom and prosperity.
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
Why don't those of you whom are bothered by this go be a help, instead of hinderance. That's the problem with this country, too much time is wasted on trivial BS. Ohh lets be politically correct, we might offend poor Billy, cause he is athiest. Or perhaps Bob, he's gay and worships 5 gods.
Lets be all inclusive, cause I didn't get picked until last at dodgeball in school.
It is funny though, most of the Katrina drives in my area are from Church's. It is those people who are helping out the downtroden and devasted. They seem to be good people. Why not just let things be as they are.
You know, I don't go to Church on Sunday. And I sure don't feel oppressed by a statement on currency. What's the bid deal.
Flame on.
My take on IGWT on our coinage is that I don't care. However, I will mention a few things that seem to be either not widely known or that are conveniently forgotten. These are that while many of the earliest folks came to this country for religious freedom, they generally came for their religious freedom and this was not universally extended toward others. Similarly, Washington, Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were brilliant, pragmatic men who were truly a product of their time. In this regard, I don't think it logical or possible to extend literally everything they say or did. After all, these were the same men who largely limited the franchise to white males and who allowed the continuance of legal slavery throughout half the nation. Any debate as to the pious nature of these men and how we should follow their examples should acknowledge these facts.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The problem is that in times when we would have been less inclined to impose such sentiments on coins and in pledges because religious fervor, national crises and commie threats have all shifted and abated, these mottos and attestations nonetheless remain. Moreover, they now claim permanency and resist removal, because anyone who may contemplate returning our pledges and our coinage to what they were before these boomlets of fervor is himself/herself suspected of being godless, or at least mindless of the "religious foundations of our country."
Like others here, I'm not about to get into a big fight over it. But I do wonder how big our coins will have to become to accommodate all the religious and philosophical propositions we will accumulate over the centuries and can't get rid of, just because nobody wants to be offensive and remove them.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I think I can speak with some authority on my subject too -- I wrote my college thesis on the historical background and the church/state issues around In God We Trust. It would have been published were the laptop it was on not stolen (anyone want to retype an inch thick paper?)
In 1792, the Founders wanted a few simple things on coins. Here's the actual text, voted on and approved by a Congress that contained more ministers, patriots, and veterans than any we've known since:
SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That, upon the said coins respectively, there shall be the following devices and legends, namely: Upon one side of each of the said coins there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word Liberty, and the year of the coinage; an upon the reverse of each of the gold and silver coins there shall be the figure or representation of an eagle, with this inscription, "United States of America" and upon the reverse of each of the copper coins, there shall be an inscription which shall express the denomination of the piece, namely, cent or half cent, as the case may require.
That was it. That's all they thought was necessary.
When In God We Trust was added to coins, it was in a period of great turmoil. It was a good time to overlook the who-really-cares side of the wall of separation of church and state and ask for a little divine help when it was needed. Politically, those who were behind this were very conservative and highly religious. Salmon P. Chase and James Pollock were both members of the NRA -- the National Reform Association (of course!) which sought to add an amendment to the Constitution stating that we were a Christian nation. Needless to say, their attempts failed. But no one would oppose adding a prayer to coins when the very existence of the nation seemed at stake.
In 1955, at the height of the Cold War, similar political motivations were brought to bear to get "under God" placed into the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust put on paper money and officially adopted as the national motto. In a letter in the Matt Rothert archive (now at the ANA, where he served as president), Rothert wrote that adding the words to paper money would help the nation fight communists and homosexuals. It was his idea, brought to national attention by Ike's Commerce Secretary who served with Rothert on a trade organization of furniture retailers. Ike thought it was a nice idea (not to mention that it would look good for the political base in the 1956 election).
Teddy Roosevelt asked the best question -- why would you want to put the name of the Almighty on something as profane as a coin? What gets more disrespect than a penny, and why is it a good idea to have the Almighty's name thereupon, particularly when the New Testament speaks to this exact issue?
When Madelaine Murray O'Hare sued for the removal of the motto, she got beat at every level of the court system, which uniformly pronounced the motto as an historical nicety and a harmless paean to a Great Other, far from declaring a state religion or avowing support for any particular faith. The court's language begs another question -- do we want something involving trust in God, something so vital and important to so many Americans, to be considered trivial? Or a meaningless nicety? Wouldn't it be better to have a declaration that actually meant something?
Personally I find it inoffensive, but its inoffensiveness is almost offensive (if that makes sense). I think it's a pity that a sentiment that is so central to so many Americans lives would be regarded as so trivial or be placed upon perhaps the most profane object in our culture -- a piece of money. I'd rather stand with Teddy Roosevelt on the subject than Mssrs. Chase, Pollock, Rothert, and Eisenhower.
<< <i>If you ever experianced hostile fire, You know what I mean.
You have many things go thru your mind. One of which is GOD! >>
To diverge for a moment and indulge a pet peeve...
I have (And have lost a leg in combat). God was the last thing going through my mind at the time, in fact, after my final accident, the I the only thing I was praying for was to die.
I find the whole "there are no atheists in fox holes" argument fairly funny. Having served in Bravo Company, 3rd Ranger Batt when I did and going through what I did, I knew many atheists.
With that said, I was not one of the atheists.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
<< <i>Just to be clear.....Is "I EAT PARROTS!" part of the Walt Whitman quote?
I believe Walt Whitman would have ate Parrots.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
<< <i>Atheists are perhaps the last group of people that can be openly ridiculed and discriminated against without question. Don't dismiss us because you don't agree with us. >>
I believe we should unquestionably keep the motto. GOD rules over our nation by HIS Mercy and Grace. The motto is merely a human gesture on the part of our nation to acknowledge that absolute truth. It also expresses the majority view of the nation.
I also agree with flamino's comment above. Although I disagree with atheist thought (I'm literally 100% on the other side of their belief), it is true that atheists are often treated with a mean spirited demeanor which is positively inappropriate for any true believer to do. I feel it is Christian duty to reach out to atheists with as much love and compassion as the LORD did to others who did not believe. Recall that we believers at one time did NOT believe too. Let us also not forget that the LORD's harshest criticism was directed at the religious rulers of his day; NOT at outward unbelievers. Today's atheist could be tomorrow's believer. Even if not, true believers have an obligation to treat all men with dignity and respect (1 Thess. 5: 14-15, Gal. 6: 10, 2 Tim. 2:24).
What seems to happen is that every generation or so that faith and trust seems to go by the wayside until some crises reminds us that maybe the Founders were right. Maybe, as Franklin said we need reminders that an empire does not raise or remain without His aid or "unless the Lord builds that house they that labor labor in vain". So in times of crises like the Civil War and WWII we go back to the acknowledgement that Washington stressed, that as a nation we have a duty to acknowledge and give thanks to God for our rights, freedom and prosperity.