It's all a red herring. Concocted to keep people from realizing that what SHOULD be removed is the word "LIBERTY." Unless of course, we keep it for the humor.
"I don't view the word "GOD" or a phrase "In GOD We Trust" (or similar phrases) to be promoting or establishing a national religion. If it said; "In Catholics We Trust" I could see where your concern might arise."
Give me another shot on this one. First, it doesn't have to be "establishing a national religion" -- the First Amendment is about RESPECTING the establishing of a religion. That's calling for neutrality, not promotion of a preference. So, it's RESPECTING not "ESTABLISHING A RELIGION" which is why the First Amendment protects us from far more than just a law clearly and directly mandating a national religion. Hopefully you don't really believe that all that Amendment does is stop the Government from officially claiming a National Religion. That would fly in the face of common sense and the facts. It's an effective separation of Church and State. That's not to say no politician can say God or be religious, that would be ridiculous -- but it is about RESPECTING, which means no promoting, coercing, indoctrinating, or preferring on the tax payer's dime to the exclusion of other religious beliefs. There is plenty of evidence that the Founders purposefully wanted all believers, even non-believers, to be just as represented and included without the policy or practices of Government saying otherwise. The Government sending out mail to everyone that says "Jesus saves" or "God is good" is against the Constitution even though it doesn't officially set up some National Religion.
"In God We Trust" is the equivalent to "Believe in and trust one God," and sending out printed billboards on money that all Americans, or we all should, or this Government wants you to "Believe in and trust one God" is a promotion of a religious stance that excludes millions. The Constitution forbids Government from RESPECTING an establishment of that or any religion. A belief in one God, a God we should trust, constitutes a religion It might not be the rulebook of a big Organized Religion, but it's religious, it's a religion, and it's putting forth one particular religious view: a one, trustworthy God. All Americans are not bound to, believe in, or support, a one, trustworthy God because they are not of that religious view.
"The Declaration of Independence is the PRIMARY document that gave birth to America. It is the mother document that created America at the precise moment it was issued to the King of England. That document is centered around GOD."
You are correct, and I should not have lumped the Declaration of Independence in. But I'm not talking about the Founders simply mentioning God, my point has been about what the Founders and the principles they enshrined said in regard to Government-sponsored or distributed religious material, instruction, condoning, or preference to the public. My point was about the System of Government that was made to bind us all in law -- The Declaration is not included obviously because it is not a binding System that was made to ensure that we stay free and protected from the time-proven tendencies of Government. I was really indicating the System documents we are bound to as a Nation -- our laws and principles that guide our Public Servants over us and give them the power we are supposed to be monitoring in our vigilant guard. I was really talking about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. At that day and age, it would have been BEYOND easy to include God -- not just on the money, but in the Constitution itself. It's disturbingly not there (well, disturbing to the Church at the time). Even in the Declaration notice how the use of God is especially generic and non-specific -- i.e. purposefully not Christian. The key point here is not to debate the use of language in the Declaration of Independence, which obviously reflects a respect to a higher power, but to point out to you that putting the public in a position of religious exclusion or coercion was purposefully avoided. Their debates and words clearly reflect that, as well as the final product and System of Government we are all supposed to be bound to -- the Constitution.
The bottom line for me is, God was purposefully left out of our System of Government and the framework the Founders created. In fact, not only was God left out, no religious test is allowed and no law even respecting an establishment of religion is allowed, as you know. So while we can talk about God being here and there, and this or that person's love of religion, the Bible, and God -- it's really not material to my point since my point is not that God was supposed to be absent from ALL things.
My point is that it was intended for Government to refrain from disseminating religious views or spins to the public using tax dollars. I believe this is clearly supported by a wide range of evidence, decisions, and arguments by the Founders as well as the timeless principles of freedom-protection. I believe sending out the message "Believe in and trust one God," which is exactly what "In God We Trust" does, qualifies as not only a concern, but an infringement of that unprecedented, revolutionary, and fortunate Leashing of Religion. It's simply unnecessary to have it, and unwise to tolerate it. That's how I feel.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Hi foundingfather. Thank you again for your follow ups. I appreciate your thoughts. You said; "Hopefully you don't really believe that all that Amendment does is stop the Government from officially claiming a National Religion..." I do believe it means this. In addition it means that the government may NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion; although it must exercised in a peaceable manner. Most importantly, the amendment makes no reference whatsoever to GOD and does not restrict or prohibit any individual, governmental or official action pertaining to GOD (only religion itself which is different).
You said; "It's simply unnecessary to have it, and unwise to tolerate it. That's how I feel." While I don't agree, I absolutely support your right to feeling that way. America is a GREAT nation because it is diverse and provides opportunity for each of us to freely express ourselves. In the process perhaps we learn and grow. If every human being followed the Biblical principal of the "fruits of the Spirit," this would be a wonderful world indeed. The fruits of the Spirit are: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulnes, gentleness, and self-control" (Gal. 5: 22-23). There are no "laws" that can overcome the power of such things; and love is still the greatest of them all. Thank you again for the follow up foundingfather. matteproof
Hey Flamino. You said; "Removing IGWT is not meant as an attack on Christianity, nor as a dismissal of anyone's belief systems. Rather, it is righting a 140 year wrong; a phrase placed by a few men in the heat of civil war..." I hear your point Flamino. However, I don't think the motto was placed on our coinage as a response to the heat of the Civil War. Rather, I think it was a reaction to the American culture and sentiment both then and now. U.S. Secretary Salmon Chase was the first one to take action by virtue of his famous letter to James Pollock, the Director of the Mint at that time. He wrote to Pollock:
"Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in his defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing...this national recognition."
These words suggest that Chase was acting out of a deeply ingrained expression rather than a "whim" or temporary insight derived from the Civil War experience. It is meaningful too that the citizens resoundly embraced the motto "defacto" for nearly a century thereafter; before it was passed into law. This strongly suggests that the GOD sentiment was already deeply ingrained in the National psyche. Otherwise there would have been a public outcry against the motto. On the contrary, it received wide public support. It demonstrates also that the Motto "In GOD We Trust" was not an attempt to establish a religion (GOD and religion are different) and the actions of the populace demonstrate this must have been true then as it is now. Perhaps that is why the courts throughout the years have consistently held that the motto is NOT an effort to establish a national religion. Thank you Flamino. matteproof
Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "The numbers indicate otherwise. Do you have anything to support this statement other than blind hope?" At the present time, Christianity represents about 85% of America. I believe Christians will become stronger, MUCH stronger as we move into the future. While I don't base this on "blind hope," it is fair to say that I base it on a "not so blind faith" supported by the Bible.
You said; "NO credit card debt, other than just a monthly use and pay to keep the man happy and keep the credit score good. I would love to see any factual information you could provide on the fiscal responsibility of believers vs. non-believers." My previous post was not suggesting that Christians are more fiscally responsible than non-believers. On the contrary, the current Jeffersonian materialistic scourge that has struck debt-plagued America effects Christians and non-Christians alike. It is unquestionable that many Americans have been on a wild spending spree these past few years, most of it financed by the highest amounts of debt ever. Many of them are being crushed under the weight of their debt-serviced materialistic lust. Now, with new bankruptcy laws in place, escaping the debt scourge is not even possible. Slaves! Of course, if the debt-plauged followed the dictates set forth in the Bible as they should, they would not now find themselves in debt-slavery (Proverbs 22: 7). Thank you again gulliblenewb. matteproof
So then I have to assume you are in disagreement with all the Court rulings since the Founding that expressed a clear message that the religion component of the First Amendment is protection for more than just a blatant and direct establishing? Or do you not believe those Court cases decided against your assertion? The only other option I can think of besides those two is that you don't think "respecting an establishing" means "respecting an establishing" -- that is somehow means "officially forming an establishment." But that would immediately take me back to the Court rulings? Furthermore, it is my claim that both the Court rulings and the words of the Founders themselves on this topic supports my stance that the "respecting and establishment" means, and was intended to mean, Government-promoted, favored, indoctrinating, or coerced both directly and indirectly using tax dollars, on the public.
"In addition it means that the government may NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion; although it must exercised in a peaceable manner."
Right, but here we are talking about the free exercise of a chosen religion by People -- individuals, not Government sponsorship using tax dollars.
"Most importantly, the amendment makes no reference whatsoever to GOD and does not restrict or prohibit any individual, governmental or official action pertaining to GOD (only religion itself which is different)."
But it does prohibit some "Government action pertaining to God" -- namely, having laws, practices, or policies that respect the establishing of a religion. As the Court cases and Founders themselves would show, respecting something is also promoting, endorsing, or disseminating in a way as to establish it as a favored or official way.
"While I don't agree, I absolutely support your right to feeling that way. America is a GREAT nation because it is diverse and provides opportunity for each of us to freely express ourselves. In the process perhaps we learn and grow."
That's true, and that is part of the reason it is not necessary or appropriate to have God-spin on our money. In other words, Government neutrality promotes and facilitates the freedom to do what you just mentioned. Once Government starts favoring, spinning, or disseminating a particular religious view (in this case, "Believe and trust in monotheism" then that neutrality is lost and millions are excluded on something that Government is not supposed to be create divisiveness about and certainly not take sides on using tax dollars.
"If every human being followed the Biblical principal of the "fruits of the Spirit," this would be a wonderful world indeed."
If every human being still followed the morals and values in the Bible we would still have slavery and there would still be the "tyranny of the mind" the Founders accused Organized Religion of cementing. They considered Organize Religion (not personal) to be a chief foe to freedom and so when you imply everything would be great if we all followed the Bible (verses, let's say, a System based more on individual and religious freedom) you seem to be dismissing the historical facts on this matter, as well as the reality of the inherently anti-freedom nature of such worship. In short, the reason we have such a great America is because it put religion on an unprecedented Leash and use a more objective, natural, time-tested set of principles to protect freedom. For example, as nice as it would be to take a day off on the Sabbath, the longer version of that Commandment also calls for giving your slaves a break -- people often put into permanent servitude from being captured in battle, or as purchased foreign children never to see their parents again. There are positive and productive values to be drawn from observing a human social structure -- the Bible houses many of them, but they do not exist due to it, and they existed before it as well. There is no reason to use that as a guide for happiness since no one needs the ignorant or anti-freedom aspects of it, and American freedom would not have been possible without Leashing it.
What would be nice is if everyone stopped wanting their religious view spit out in public and would just be content with their private views and worship. We are having this discussion because, apparently, there are too many people that won't be satisfied with just private worship. They WANT everyone's money to signal "believe in one God and Trust it." Sorry, that goes against the grain of freedom as well as the spirit of the First Amendment. It's also selfish.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
I happen to know a lot about financial health and habits. How financially sound you are is not dependent upon how materialistic you are -- which is why there are lots of materialistic people who are financially solid and lots of people who are not materialistic that are financially shaky. The main reason people have financial problems has to do with a lack of good habits, lack of a Plan, and lack of education about it. How much you make, what religion you are, or materialism are all secondary at best and incidental to the broader aspects I mentioned. If you have poor savings and spending habits, it's not necessarily because you are too materialistic. If you have good habits and were taught about money from childhood, you probably can afford to be materialistic and enjoy. If you have bad habits and never engage your finances in a disciplined way, it easily doesn't matter how materialistic you are. In a bet based on averages, I'll take the person who has good habits and spent an adequate amount of time learning about this important aspect of their lives, verses the person who is simply not materialistic.
Indicating materialism as a chief cause of financial illness is as silly as indicating "entertainment" (TV, music, hanging out) as the chief cause of procrastination, laziness, or a lack of motivation. It's like blaming the gun for the criminal, blaming the beer for the crime, or blaming the breasts for the sex.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "The numbers indicate otherwise. Do you have anything to support this statement other than blind hope?" At the present time, Christianity represents about 85% of America. I believe Christians will become stronger, MUCH stronger as we move into the future. While I don't base this on "blind hope," it is fair to say that I base it on a "not so blind faith" supported by the Bible. >>
Again, the numbers I have provided show christianity at 76-77%. And shrinking. I repeat, America is not 85% Christian. Show me numbers to support this claim.
If America prospers, Christianity will continue to dwindle. Tough times would drive a bit of a return to the church.
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion: 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant. 24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish. 0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam. The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10 In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% when compared with 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%."
The ARIS is the "American Religious Identification Survey," by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
IMHO... all of you that think it should be removed.........grab a weapon and join Al-Quida .then have the best armed forces in the world explain to you why it shouldn't be removed. Of course another country is always an option too.
<< <i>IMHO... all of you that think it should be removed.........grab a weapon and join Al-Quida. >>
Nice. What about folk like eagle7, a devout Christian who wants it removed?
What about Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege." Was he an early al-Qaeda operative?
Why so much hate? I always thought Christianity was a religion of love.
It's amazing how people of Faith need so badly to either prove it is fact or to take it public and have it spread.
Off the web:
In God We Trust" got inscribed on the money only after a coalition of Protestant church groups failed to rewrite the Constitution to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." They failed in Congress and in the states, but amongst their supporters was a director of the U.S. Mint during the Civil War. After getting Congress to grant him the power to control the design of the coinage, he promptly Christianized America's cash.
Not all Christians approved. Theodore Roosevelt (certainly no fan of atheists) wrote that "to put such a motto on coins ... is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege." He sought to remove it when the currency was redesigned under his presidency, but he had to back down under political pressure from the church people.
Fugio cent mention:
As for "In God We Trust," I prefer what was written on the money back in 1787, when the Constitution was framed: "Mind Your Business."
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Theodore Roosevelt (certainly no fan of atheists) wrote that "to put such a motto on coins ... is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege." He sought to remove it when the currency was redesigned under his presidency, but he had to back down under political pressure from the church people. >>
This is exactly what will happen again if someone in power actually tried to do this again. It will not change in our lifetime, certainly not from this lawsuit, mostly because of "church people" would be upset, but also because it would be too expensive to change all the money.
<< <i> hate to agree with Condor, but if you think the majority has the right to force their religion on everyone else >>
That's quite an interesting statement...having "In God We Trust" on our coins forced you to become a Christian?
<< <i>There is NO seperatrion clause in the Constitution. There is a non-establishment clause. Learn it, know it, live it. If congress does not spefically create a United States Religion and madate all citizens to paractice that faith, its NOT unconstititional. >>
Exactamundo.
<< <i>This Liberal bullcrap about the majority vs the minority is just that, bullcrap. That position reaks of federalists bunk, who love to claim that the Constitution protects the minority from the majority beause thats what was in the Federalist Papers. Here is a clue, the Federalists Papers are not a controlling document in the United States, the Constitution is. >>
I thought the whole concept of "minority veto" died in April of 1865?
P.S. With the present composition of the Supreme Court, the motto will stay. If this person is really offended, let him simply not use currency or change. You can participate in any transaction without the use of cash, if you so desire (and in some cases are willing to spend more money for a similar product from a different retailer). Heck, even McDonald's takes cards!
<< <i>don't be surprised when the majority becomes muslim and does the same to you >>
P.S. I check the formatting of theses & dedications at a state university. Most of the students are Indians or Muslims, and in their Acknowledgements, 80% of them thank "God."
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Hi foundingfather. Thank you again for the follow up comments. You said; "So then I have to assume you are in disagreement with all the Court rulings since the Founding that expressed a clear message that the religion component of the First Amendment is protection for more than just a blatant and direct establishing?" I'm not sure which cases you are referring to. However, the legal precedent setting cases surrounding this issue took the exact opposite view that you suggest. For example, in Aronow v. United States (1970), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that, "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency, 'In God We Trust'--, has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." . (bold is mine). Other courts have also taken the same rational position in seperate cases. So, in addition to setting legal precedent concerning the motto, this court also expressly stated that the function of the amendment is connected to "the establishment of religion."
You said; "But it does prohibit some "Government action pertaining to God" -- namely, having laws, practices, or policies that respect the establishing of a religion...' Establishing a religion is not the same thing as invoking or embracing GOD. Establishing a religion by government is an entirely different thing than a government action pertaining to GOD. There are religions that do not even feature a "god" in their doctrine and government could not establish such a religion either. Most importantly, the amendment is completely silent on "GOD." It does not in any manner restrict, prohibit, or deny individuals or government in their official capacity or otherwise from invoking or utilizing GOD in any unfettered manner they wish. Thank you for the input foundingfather. matteproof
Hi gulliblenewb. You said; "Again, the numbers I have provided show christianity at 76-77%. And shrinking. I repeat, America is not 85% Christian. Show me numbers to support this claim..." Your number is derived from ARIS but you have not accurately represented the number. I assume you did this in error gulliblenewb. I enjoy having our dialogue but it would be kind of pointless if the information you provide is not more clear or focused. According to the "American Religious Identifcation Survey 2001," Christianity was at 86.2% in the last 1990 survey. In 2001, the same organization said it was 76.5% but it excluded Christians under the age of 18 (a massive number of Christians are under age 18). The survey also contains numerous attached "notes" to the 2001 figure (which you did not mention in your post) whereby an additional exclusion is listed for the substantial increase in the number of surveyed adults (over 18) who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference (a number which went from four million in 1990 to more than eleven million in 2001 - another 5% or so). This group is almost certainly made up of so-called "latterrain" and other "post-millenium" Christians who for doctrinal reasons do not reveal such data (the same ones who formerly identified themselves as "born again" or other but who no longer do). Indeed, the survey specifically states that there was a 6.8% increase in the number of Christians who identify themselves as "Christian - no denomination supplied." So, the data actually shows that the true number of Christians has increased (another thing that you did not mention when you quoted your number and which you explicitly stated was "shrinking"). Rather than "shrinking," the latest 2001 survey lists the number of Christians - even excluding those under 18 and the other aforementioned group(s) at: 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. So the numbers of Christians are increasing (not "shrinking" as you say) even if you exclude those under age 18 as this survey did. Thanks gulliblenewb. matteproof
You said you didn't know what court cases I was referring to when I was making my point about how the religion component of the First Amendment protects us from far more than just a blatant establishment of religion - so I've listed a sample. As you know I contend that it's as much about promoting, endorsing, excluding, and favoring, as it is some creation of a national religion. I'm really not sure why you think, for example, that the Government taxing Jews differently due to their religion wouldn't be a violation of the First Amendment, even though it is not "establishing a religion." The Founders words, common sense, and the "respecting" component of that Amendment are on my side I believe.
In any case, here are some court cases that demonstrate how the First Amendment is not just about making a national religion. Some deal directly with the existence of God and so feel free to apply it to the motto in discussion, and please take notice of how it doesn't take a new National religion formation to evoke the protection of the principles behind the First Amendment:
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 The U.S. Supreme Court in Everson reaffirmed Jefferson’s view when it said, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) - Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) - Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. Having someone say they merely believe in a God is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money, as if we all condone trusting in God or believing in monotheism?
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) - Court finds school prayer unconstitutional. A prayer is a violation but not a "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional
Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional. Merely participating in a reading is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) - Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional. A mere posting of the 10 Commandments, the very foundation you would say of our legal system, is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) - Court finds state law enforcing a moment of silence in schools had a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional. A moment of silence is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) - Court finds state law requiring equal treatment for creationism has a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 SCt. 2649 (1992) - Court finds prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
A controversial 2002 decision by the 9th Circuit in Newdow v. United States found the phrase "Under God" to violate all three modern establishment-clause tests. "Under God" but not "In God We Trust?"
Sandra Day O’Connor, who was widely regarded as the Court's leader in establishment-clause jurisprudence, said there were two ways the Government can encounter trouble: as through excessive entanglement with religious institutions and through government endorsement or disapproval of religion. “Endorsement sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community,” Justice O’Connor wrote.
On page 10 of this thread, in a post where I boldface the relevant terms, I believe I made a short but good case for the inherent and implied "separation of Church and State" that the First Amendment was inspired by, meant to provide, and in fact, must provide as separating the two was widespread and clear from the Founders as absolutely necessary for protecting freedom.
Thanks for reading.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. You said; "Again, the numbers I have provided show christianity at 76-77%. And shrinking. I repeat, America is not 85% Christian. Show me numbers to support this claim..." Your number is derived from ARIS but you have not accurately represented the number. I assume you did this in error gulliblenewb. I enjoy having our dialogue but it would be kind of pointless if the information you provide is not more clear or focused. According to the "American Religious Identifcation Survey 2001," Christianity was at 86.2% in the last 1990 survey. In 2001, the same organization said it was 76.5% but it excluded Christians under the age of 18 (a massive number of Christians are under age 18). >>
Hello? EVERYONE under 18 was excluded, not just Christians. Or are you thinking everyone under 18 is a Christian?
<< <i>The survey also contains numerous attached "notes" to the 2001 figure (which you did not mention in your post) whereby an additional exclusion is listed for the substantial increase in the number of surveyed adults (over 18) who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference (a number which went from four million in 1990 to more than eleven million in 2001 - another 5% or so). This group is almost certainly made up of so-called "latterrain" and other "post-millenium" Christians who for doctrinal reasons do not reveal such data (the same ones who formerly identified themselves as "born again" or other but who no longer do). >>
Please back this up with evidence. There are plenty of folks not comfortable declaring their religious leanings.
<< <i> Indeed, the survey specifically states that there was a 6.8% increase in the number of Christians who identify themselves as "Christian - no denomination supplied." So, the data actually shows that the true number of Christians has increased (another thing that you did not mention when you quoted your number and which you explicitly stated was "shrinking"). Rather than "shrinking," the latest 2001 survey lists the number of Christians - even excluding those under 18 and the other aforementioned group(s) at: 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. So the numbers of Christians are increasing (not "shrinking" as you say) even if you exclude those under age 18 as this survey did. Thanks gulliblenewb. matteproof >>
Your TOTAL NUMBER is not shrinking. You are getting outbred. On a PERCENTILE BASIS, you are shrinking. My contention is that when you are small enough on a percentile basis, IGWT will be removed.
<< <i>Gull: perhaps 2-4% of the country is Christian. Religious surveys are utterly meaningless. >>
Please find something to back up that statement.
Not utterly, but of course sometimes it is difficult to pin people down on thier beliefs. Like matteproof noted in the poll, a larger number are declining to respond. He of course wants to claim them all as Christians. Simply because a whole lotta people believe something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. A lot of people are sheep. I believe I've seen the term "sheeple" on these boards, and I like it. Why do you think they call congregations "the flock"?
I looked up the numbers I was quoting because I was curious. I had heard and read that mainstream church attendance was dropping. In fact one article in the Mpls Star Tribune or St. Paul Pioneer Press made me laugh out loud. In it, a pastor bemoaned declining attendance, and said something like, "We have to get to them young, when they are 4 or 5, that's what makes a strong believer." It sounded kind of scary actually.
You said; "Hello? EVERYONE under 18 was excluded, not just Christians. Or are you thinking everyone under 18 is a Christian?". The number of under "18" Christians far outnumbers the number of under 18 "others." Therefore, by excluding under 18's, it skews the Christian numbers by greater weight.
You said; "Your TOTAL NUMBER is not shrinking. You are getting outbred. On a PERCENTILE BASIS, you are shrinking. My contention is that when you are small enough on a percentile basis, IGWT will be removed." Surely you jest. The actual number of Christians has INCREASED not decreased. As for the motto, "In GOD We Trust" will never be removed in America. GOD is simply too great a factor in the American mindset. Christians will always be the extreme majority in America and, there numbers will continue to rise even as the survey YOU quoted illustrates.
You said; "Please back this up with evidence. There are pleny of folks not comfortable declaring their religious leanings." The evidence is in the very survey that YOU quoted. Read the details admist the fluff that you quoted. You said the number of Christians was "shrinking" yet the very report you quoted as your evidence actually showed the exact opposite; the number of Christians is at 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. You didn't know that because you didn't actually read the survey that you quoted; you just quoted something that you read on the internet. Thanks gulliblenewb.
Hi foundingfather. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "In any case, here are some court cases that demonstrate how the First Amendment is not just about making a national religion..." This looks like an impressive list. I appreciate your posting it. I recall some of them from memory but I will look at them again.
You said; "Sandra Day O’Connor, who was widely regarded as the Court's leader in establishment-clause jurisprudence,.." I don't agree with O'Connor's concepts on this subject or an almost everything else she commented on. Her legal theories on other issues such as abortion were also horrible. Her final "wisdom" by providing "corporate manifest destiny" to corporate interests at the expense of the average property owner (in the recent Connecticut case) was an absolute shame. Thank you again for your input foundingfather. I much appreciate your thoughts. matteproof
<< <i>You said; "Hello? EVERYONE under 18 was excluded, not just Christians. Or are you thinking everyone under 18 is a Christian?". The number of under "18" Christians far outnumbers the number of under 18 "others." Therefore, by excluding under 18's, it skews the Christian numbers by greater weight.
You said; "Your TOTAL NUMBER is not shrinking. You are getting outbred. On a PERCENTILE BASIS, you are shrinking. My contention is that when you are small enough on a percentile basis, IGWT will be removed." Surely you jest. The actual number of Christians has INCREASED not decreased. As for the motto, "In GOD We Trust" will never be removed in America. GOD is simply too great a factor in the American mindset. Christians will always be the extreme majority in America and, there numbers will continue to rise even as the survey YOU quoted illustrates.
You said; "Please back this up with evidence. There are pleny of folks not comfortable declaring their religious leanings." The evidence is in the very survey that YOU quoted. Read the details admist the fluff that you quoted. You said the number of Christians was "shrinking" yet the very report you quoted as your evidence actually showed the exact opposite; the number of Christians is at 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. You didn't know that because you didn't actually read the survey that you quoted; you just quoted something that you read on the internet. Thanks gulliblenewb. >>
Egad, you are really trying my patience. Do you understand the difference between total numbers, and percentages of a whole? I'M TALKING ABOUT BLOODY PERCENTAGES. And please give me some hard evidence on, "The number of under '18' Christians far outnumbers the number of under 18 'others.'" I really doubt this.
"The reason I focus on the percentages is because at some point when Christianity is not the majority, IGWT will go away." Okay, we are now beating around the bush. You've already said this and I've already answered it. The fact is you said Christians were "shrinking" in America and you are just plain wrong. The very survey that you quoted shows the number of Christians is at 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. That is an increase not a "shrinking." The numbers speak for themself. Thanks gulliblenewb
Total numbers can be quite meanigless, especially when trying to determine growth of a segment in a population. You can't say that the grey paint got darker because you added two times as much black, as if you doesn't matter that you increased the white paint amount by 10 times over the same time period. It's misleading and inaccurate. You can't tell if the number of Christians are sinking on a population-percentage basis just by looking at the total amount of Christians at two different points. You have to look at the two different points in terms of the percentage of Christians in the population. If a town has 10% Italians (100 out of 1000 people) in 1990, but that same town has 5% Italians in 2000 (200 out of 4000 people), the total number of Italians has gone up but the population has gone up much faster, effectively showing a shrinkage of Italian representation. So yes, total numbers have gone up -- but that is not a GROWING SEGMENT. It's SHRINKING.
Money example: it's like claiming your net worth has gone up because your income has increased by 5%, but don't want to consider that your spending increase was 10% -- total income dollars aren't very meaningful by themselves. Context context context.
You need to consider the population totals before judging whether or not a segment has truly shrunk or grown overall, don't you agree?
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Please find something to back up that statement. >>
Well. let's see. For starters you could ask the "Christian" respondants if they actually go to church regularly (three or more times per month). Then ask if they actually believe in the basic tenents of the faith, such as God's existence and sovereignty, creation, the virgin birth, Jesus' perfection, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' ascention, heaven and hell, etc. Then further narrow it down by excluding people who are living lifestyles of sin. To be sure, we ALL sin, but when a person repeatedly, day in and day out, defies God without making any attempt at all at repentence (such as homosexuals or people who have sex outside of marriage, or who live together outside marriage). Then ask how many of the remaining people are just going through the motions, or how many really feel they have a relationship with God.
Just because a few lunatics who drive a plane into a building claim to be Muslims doesn't mean they really are. A senator that claims to be a liberal but consistently votes with the conservative viewpoint is certainly not a liberal--his/her actions refute his/her statements. In the same way, someone who goes to church twice a year and has a vague belief in a "higher power" is not necessarily a Christian, either.
Food for thought: in the above cited polls, Hitler would have listed himself as Christian (he always considered himself to be, since he was brought up as a Catholic). Think about that one.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Hi foundingfather. Thank you for the comments. You said; "You need to consider the population totals before judging whether or not a segment has truly shrunk or grown overall, don't you agree?" This is a valid point. However, the survey does not provide population totals and even dismisses ones known to exist. In a sense, population totals themselves are tricky because there are HUGE segments of our society - most of them who would identify as Christian - who are not counted in population totals (for example; illegal aliens). In addition, many "legal" Americans do not even participate in the government census so total populations are even more skewed. Ultimately, it's an unknowable number.
The ARIS survey did not count "under 18's" which skews the numbers of Christians more than other groups in the survey because; Christians are the largest segment of the population by far and their number of children are cumulatively higher by virtue of their sheer size in comparison to other groups. Since most Christians marry in traditional male/female marriages and have children, the number of "under 18" Christians is magnified all the more. Christians as a group are far less likely than other groups to practice baby killing abortion too; which would skew the numbers even more in favor of Christians. In addition, a good number of Evangelical and strict Catholic Christians tend to have very large numbers of children (5 and more) as a matter of doctrinal practice (i.e. Gen. 1:28 "be frutiful and multiply and fill the earth," and Psa. 127:2-5 "children are a blessing from the Lord"). There are massive numbers of young and teenage Christians; so huge that entire industries specifically target them as a marketing group. As a result, it is very clear that by discounting the under 18's in the survey, the true number of Christians appears to be less than it actually is. I think this is significant.
There is more about the survey that is open for debate but it hardly matters and has little to do with our discussion about "the motto" so I won't elaborate further. Thank you for the follow up foundingfather. matteproof
<< <i>Please find something to back up that statement. >>
Well. let's see. For starters you could ask the "Christian" respondants if they actually go to church regularly (three or more times per month). Then ask if they actually believe in the basic tenents of the faith, such as God's existence and sovereignty, creation, the virgin birth, Jesus' perfection, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' ascention, heaven and hell, etc. Then further narrow it down by excluding people who are living lifestyles of sin. To be sure, we ALL sin, but when a person repeatedly, day in and day out, defies God without making any attempt at all at repentence (such as homosexuals or people who have sex outside of marriage, or who live together outside marriage). Then ask how many of the remaining people are just going through the motions, or how many really feel they have a relationship with God.
Just because a few lunatics who drive a plane into a building claim to be Muslims doesn't mean they really are. A senator that claims to be a liberal but consistently votes with the conservative viewpoint is certainly not a liberal--his/her actions refute his/her statements. In the same way, someone who goes to church twice a year and has a vague belief in a "higher power" is not necessarily a Christian, either.
Food for thought: in the above cited polls, Hitler would have listed himself as Christian (he always considered himself to be, since he was brought up as a Catholic). Think about that one. >>
You're ABSOLUTELY correct, I think I took the tone of your post completely wrong, my bad. I was pretty wrapped up in my brazen attempt to teach matteproof simple percentages. What you have written above mirrors what many of the poll numbers indicate, especially with regards to "how religious" people would describe themselves.
I also forget, are you on the "leave it on" or "take it off" side? What you have written above seems to indicate a good reason to remove it.
<< <i>The ARIS survey did not count "under 18's" which skews the numbers of Christians more than other groups in the survey because; Christians are the largest segment of the population by far and their number of children are cumulatively higher by virtue of their sheer size in comparison to other groups. Since most Christians marry in traditional male/female marriages and have children, the number of "under 18" Christians is magnified all the more. Christians as a group are far less likely than other groups to practice baby killing abortion too; which would skew the numbers even more in favor of Christians. In addition, a good number of Evangelical and strict Catholic Christians tend to have very large numbers of children (5 and more) as a matter of doctrinal practice (i.e. Gen. 1:28 "be frutiful and multiply and fill the earth," and Psa. 127:2-5 "children are a blessing from the Lord"). There are massive numbers of young and teenage Christians; so huge that entire industries specifically target them as a marketing group. As a result, it is very clear that by discounting the under 18's in the survey, the true number of Christians appears to be less than it actually is. I think this is significant. >>
The NUMBER of children will be higher, not the PERCENTAGE. All of the articles I have read lately talk about many young people drifting away from the church, there are simply too many other distractions. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that adding the children back in will skew the percentages back up.
And this all has to do with the motto because the brunt of your argument seemed to be, "Look at how many of us there are, we must be right!"
Look all you want, you'll find if current trends continue, you will NOT be a majority. Of course perhaps not in your life, I don't know how old you are.
Hi ddink. You said; "For starters you could ask the "Christian" respondants if they actually go to church regularly (three or more times per month)..." One does not need to "go to church" in order to be a true and devout Christian. There is not a single verse in the Bible - not one - that requires church attendance. Rather, true Christian faith is typically evidenced by a humble spirit before GOD, kindness and compassion to our fellow man (the "fruits of the spirit - Gal. 5: 22-23), and an avid desire to study and learn the glorious truths found in the pages of the Bible. Not all Christians agree with this assessment, but a very large segment do.
You said; "Then ask if they actually believe in the basic tenents of the faith, such as God's existence and sovereignty, creation, the virgin birth, Jesus' perfection, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' ascention, heaven and hell, etc." This is a valid point. There are those who identify as Christian who do not believe in some of these key ingredients of the faith. My own personal sense is that indiviuals come to deeper truth as they learn and grow. For me, if someone "identifies" as Christian, then I count them as "in" even if they have not arrived to fuller truth as yet. I concede that more dogmatic Christians would disagree with me; and that would be fine.
You said; "Then ask how many of the remaining people are just going through the motions, or how many really feel they have a relationship with God..." Another good point. However, I've learned many years ago that no human being can claim to know the heart and mind of another person. Only GOD knows what is going on in our hearts. The person who appears to have no relationship with GOD may very well have a very strong relationship with him. The guy who seems to be "holier than thou" may be a devil in sheeps clothing. Only GOD knows a man's heart. There is a fantastic example of this very thing found in Luke 18: 9-14.
You said; "Food for thought: in the above cited polls, Hitler would have listed himself as Christian (he always considered himself to be, since he was brought up as a Catholic). Think about that one..." Hitler did not identify as a Catholic (although it is reported he was raised as one). He dismissed the church as meaningless and he specifically rejected the Catholic church as an adult. He described himself as "a complete pagan." Hitler is quoted as saying; "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together..." He also said many other extremely anti-Christian statements. For example, he is reported to have said; "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." So, Hitler was what he was - an angry man unhappy with his own self, angry at his nation for surrendering to the Allies after WW1 (the Weimar Republic), and rather than trying to fix himself decided to destroy others and ultimately himself. matteproof
Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "All of the articles I have read lately talk about many young people drifting away from the church, there are simply too many other distractions..." This is a valid point. Children today do have many distractions; far more than many of us had in our youth. However, the Internet (a key distractor for youth and the rest of us as well) has much potential to attract children to the faith too. So, in the end, it will be up to the families to direct their children in the way that they should go. Most will remain Christians, and a relative few of course may not.
You said; "And this all has to do with the motto because the brunt of your argument seemed to be, "Look at how many of us there are, we must be right!"" To an extent this is true. However, I believe the "motto" is right simply because it IS right. It would be right even if the number of Christians were in the minority; which thankfully they are in the EXTREME majority. In the meantime, the nation's identity itself is highly connected to GOD and therefore the motto will continue against all odds.
You said; "Look all you want, you'll find if current trends continue, you will NOT be a majority. Of course perhaps not in your life, I don't know how old you are.." I don't need to look much at all. The facts are the facts. Christians are the extreme majority in America and will continue to be so in the future. Not in my lifetime, your lifetime or your great great great great grandchildrens lifetime will it ever be different. A thousand generations from now and nothing will change; Christians will always shine over America as the GREAT and mighty ones that they are. It would not be America otherwise. Thank you for the follow up gulliblenewb. matteproof
<< <i>i think in an effort to be all inclusive, once the state quarters series is done we should do a "motto series" to be all inclusive.
1st month: IGWT 2: IN Allah we trust 3: In Yahweh we trust 4: In satan we trust 5: In elvis we trust 6: We trust ourselves 7: We trust nobody 8: In Flying spaghetti monster we trust .....
>>
9. In fiat we trust 10. In cold hard gold we trust
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "All of the articles I have read lately talk about many young people drifting away from the church, there are simply too many other distractions..." This is a valid point. Children today do have many distractions; far more than many of us had in our youth. However, the Internet (a key distractor for youth and the rest of us as well) has much potential to attract children to the faith too. So, in the end, it will be up to the families to direct their children in the way that they should go. Most will remain Christians, and a relative few of course may not.
You said; "And this all has to do with the motto because the brunt of your argument seemed to be, "Look at how many of us there are, we must be right!"" To an extent this is true. However, I believe the "motto" is right simply because it IS right. It would be right even if the number of Christians were in the minority; which thankfully they are in the EXTREME majority. In the meantime, the nation's identity itself is highly connected to GOD and therefore the motto will continue against all odds.
You said; "Look all you want, you'll find if current trends continue, you will NOT be a majority. Of course perhaps not in your life, I don't know how old you are.." I don't need to look much at all. The facts are the facts. Christians are the extreme majority in America and will continue to be so in the future. Not in my lifetime, your lifetime or your great great great great grandchildrens lifetime will it ever be different. A thousand generations from now and nothing will change; Christians will always shine over America as the GREAT and mighty ones that they are. It would not be America otherwise. Thank you for the follow up gulliblenewb. matteproof >>
Here-in lies the simple solution to this issue; If 85% of Americans are Christians and most of them want the motto then simply issue about 75% with the motto. Issue a few with no motto and some with the other dieties which people worship. Christians can be content that most of their money has the motto and if they don't like the others then they don't have to use them.
This has the added benefit of providing some truly rare coins in circulation again. I mean how many of the Druid "In Tree We Trust" are going to be issued?
<< <i>That is because the American National conscience, empowered by GOD, rejected the quasi-atheistic French inspired “intellectual” philosophy that tainted Jefferson; the same French theory that is paralyzing modern day France today. >>
What's paralyzing France today isn't atheism - which by the way is not a philosophy - it is moral Subjectivism, Post-modernism, and Socialism.
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>This is a perfect money making opportunity for the Mint! Make both motto and no-motto coins. Think about it, atheist collectors will still buy the motto coins and religious collectors will still buy no-motto. I can see it now... rolls, bags, special sets, double mint sets, double proof sets...... >>
I like that idea. The cost to US tax payers would be minimal (after all, you can make the coins for 6 months with a die w/out the motto, then retool the die). Instant doubling of varieties! the Mint would love that.
I also thing that the obligation to have IGWT limits the artistic creativity.
Another option would be to allow private entity to coin their own money, with their own chosen design. Those would most likely be minted in a gold standard (the G.Gram?), and would free us from government fiat money.
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
Jdelage. Evolution is a proven fact. That is in human affairs. And of course it works backwards. We have now evolved ourselves back into pagan times, where we kill our children by sacrificing them to the "god of sex". And it is perfectly OK with me if you wish your ancestors to have been apes. Most likely they were. But you can rest assured, my ancestors were not apes nor monkeys. We still have those animals with us today. Strange isnt it?
Never try to stop a pig from getting dirty. It is an impossible task and it annoys the pig!
How many Christians there are or how Christian people feel has absolutely nothing to do with the principles that need to be considered before deciding whether or not a billboard of "Trusting Monotheism" is appropriate and/or necessary for ALL Americans, using tax money or on that money.
I believe I've laid out several lines of logic and support for it being unprincipled, including the obvious "it's creating divisiveness unnecessarily" line.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>I also forget, are you on the "leave it on" or "take it off" side? What you have written above seems to indicate a good reason to remove it. >>
We should leave it on. If it ain't broke...
<< <i>I believe I've laid out several lines of logic and support for it being unprincipled, including the obvious "it's creating divisiveness unnecessarily" line. >>
Foundingfather: In our society today, everything offends someone. The Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, the national anthem--there are people who find all of the above to be offensive. Wasn't it recently that the national coinage committee (whatever the official name is) rejected commemerative designs as being too patriotic? If "In God We Trust" was tearing apart our country, that would be different. But don't you think this atheist fellow wasn't offended by the motto. All of the sudden he loses his Pledge of Allegiance case and now he's offended by IGWT--naturally it couldn't have anything to do with missing the limelight!
Work offended Bartleby the Scribner. Should we thus abolish EVERYTHING in society for fear of offending some? Where does it stop, anyway?
++++
Matteproof: Scripture does tell us to go to church. For many years I thought you were correct, and that church was a "suggestion," at best. But then I stumbled upon Hebrews 10:25: "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching." The term "let us" is subjunctive, which indicates a command.
Emphasis added to the first part of the verse. There are also many verses that say how the early church met on the first day of the week, so it can reasonably be inferred that it's a pretty good idea, even if Hebrews 10:25 weren't there.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>All of the sudden he loses his Pledge of Allegiance case and now he's offended by IGWT--naturally it couldn't have anything to do with missing the limelight! >>
Uh... Newdow won his latest Pledge suit. He lost the first one on a technicality, and came back with a second case which he won. (Obviously, it will still need to go through many appeals before any real decision is made.) It's not about being out of the limelight; it's moreso building on the success of his Pledge case.
<< <i>Foundingfather: In our society today, everything offends someone. The Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, the national anthem--there are people who find all of the above to be offensive. >>
It's not about being offensive -- there are many things in life that offend me, yet are perfectly legal. The IGWT case is a question of Constitutionality, not offense. As we've seen from this thread, there are some who feel it is perfectly fine Constitution-wise, while others feel it is categorically unconstitutional. This is exactly the sort of issue that should be presented before the courts, and specifically the Supreme Court. I hope they choose to hear it.
Comments
"I don't view the word "GOD" or a phrase "In GOD We Trust" (or similar phrases) to be promoting or establishing a national religion. If it said; "In Catholics We Trust" I could see where your concern might arise."
Give me another shot on this one. First, it doesn't have to be "establishing a national religion" -- the First Amendment is about RESPECTING the establishing of a religion. That's calling for neutrality, not promotion of a preference. So, it's RESPECTING not "ESTABLISHING A RELIGION" which is why the First Amendment protects us from far more than just a law clearly and directly mandating a national religion. Hopefully you don't really believe that all that Amendment does is stop the Government from officially claiming a National Religion. That would fly in the face of common sense and the facts. It's an effective separation of Church and State. That's not to say no politician can say God or be religious, that would be ridiculous -- but it is about RESPECTING, which means no promoting, coercing, indoctrinating, or preferring on the tax payer's dime to the exclusion of other religious beliefs. There is plenty of evidence that the Founders purposefully wanted all believers, even non-believers, to be just as represented and included without the policy or practices of Government saying otherwise. The Government sending out mail to everyone that says "Jesus saves" or "God is good" is against the Constitution even though it doesn't officially set up some National Religion.
"In God We Trust" is the equivalent to "Believe in and trust one God," and sending out printed billboards on money that all Americans, or we all should, or this Government wants you to "Believe in and trust one God" is a promotion of a religious stance that excludes millions. The Constitution forbids Government from RESPECTING an establishment of that or any religion. A belief in one God, a God we should trust, constitutes a religion It might not be the rulebook of a big Organized Religion, but it's religious, it's a religion, and it's putting forth one particular religious view: a one, trustworthy God. All Americans are not bound to, believe in, or support, a one, trustworthy God because they are not of that religious view.
"The Declaration of Independence is the PRIMARY document that gave birth to America. It is the mother document that created America at the precise moment it was issued to the King of England. That document is centered around GOD."
You are correct, and I should not have lumped the Declaration of Independence in. But I'm not talking about the Founders simply mentioning God, my point has been about what the Founders and the principles they enshrined said in regard to Government-sponsored or distributed religious material, instruction, condoning, or preference to the public. My point was about the System of Government that was made to bind us all in law -- The Declaration is not included obviously because it is not a binding System that was made to ensure that we stay free and protected from the time-proven tendencies of Government. I was really indicating the System documents we are bound to as a Nation -- our laws and principles that guide our Public Servants over us and give them the power we are supposed to be monitoring in our vigilant guard. I was really talking about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. At that day and age, it would have been BEYOND easy to include God -- not just on the money, but in the Constitution itself. It's disturbingly not there (well, disturbing to the Church at the time). Even in the Declaration notice how the use of God is especially generic and non-specific -- i.e. purposefully not Christian. The key point here is not to debate the use of language in the Declaration of Independence, which obviously reflects a respect to a higher power, but to point out to you that putting the public in a position of religious exclusion or coercion was purposefully avoided. Their debates and words clearly reflect that, as well as the final product and System of Government we are all supposed to be bound to -- the Constitution.
The bottom line for me is, God was purposefully left out of our System of Government and the framework the Founders created. In fact, not only was God left out, no religious test is allowed and no law even respecting an establishment of religion is allowed, as you know. So while we can talk about God being here and there, and this or that person's love of religion, the Bible, and God -- it's really not material to my point since my point is not that God was supposed to be absent from ALL things.
My point is that it was intended for Government to refrain from disseminating religious views or spins to the public using tax dollars. I believe this is clearly supported by a wide range of evidence, decisions, and arguments by the Founders as well as the timeless principles of freedom-protection. I believe sending out the message "Believe in and trust one God," which is exactly what "In God We Trust" does, qualifies as not only a concern, but an infringement of that unprecedented, revolutionary, and fortunate Leashing of Religion. It's simply unnecessary to have it, and unwise to tolerate it. That's how I feel.
You said; "It's simply unnecessary to have it, and unwise to tolerate it. That's how I feel." While I don't agree, I absolutely support your right to feeling that way. America is a GREAT nation because it is diverse and provides opportunity for each of us to freely express ourselves. In the process perhaps we learn and grow. If every human being followed the Biblical principal of the "fruits of the Spirit," this would be a wonderful world indeed. The fruits of the Spirit are: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulnes, gentleness, and self-control" (Gal. 5: 22-23). There are no "laws" that can overcome the power of such things; and love is still the greatest of them all. Thank you again for the follow up foundingfather.
"Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in his defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing...this national recognition."
These words suggest that Chase was acting out of a deeply ingrained expression rather than a "whim" or temporary insight derived from the Civil War experience. It is meaningful too that the citizens resoundly embraced the motto "defacto" for nearly a century thereafter; before it was passed into law. This strongly suggests that the GOD sentiment was already deeply ingrained in the National psyche. Otherwise there would have been a public outcry against the motto. On the contrary, it received wide public support. It demonstrates also that the Motto "In GOD We Trust" was not an attempt to establish a religion (GOD and religion are different) and the actions of the populace demonstrate this must have been true then as it is now. Perhaps that is why the courts throughout the years have consistently held that the motto is NOT an effort to establish a national religion. Thank you Flamino.
You said; "NO credit card debt, other than just a monthly use and pay to keep the man happy and keep the credit score good. I would love to see any factual information you could provide on the fiscal responsibility of believers vs. non-believers." My previous post was not suggesting that Christians are more fiscally responsible than non-believers. On the contrary, the current Jeffersonian materialistic scourge that has struck debt-plagued America effects Christians and non-Christians alike. It is unquestionable that many Americans have been on a wild spending spree these past few years, most of it financed by the highest amounts of debt ever. Many of them are being crushed under the weight of their debt-serviced materialistic lust. Now, with new bankruptcy laws in place, escaping the debt scourge is not even possible. Slaves! Of course, if the debt-plauged followed the dictates set forth in the Bible as they should, they would not now find themselves in debt-slavery (Proverbs 22: 7). Thank you again gulliblenewb.
"I do believe it means this."
So then I have to assume you are in disagreement with all the Court rulings since the Founding that expressed a clear message that the religion component of the First Amendment is protection for more than just a blatant and direct establishing? Or do you not believe those Court cases decided against your assertion? The only other option I can think of besides those two is that you don't think "respecting an establishing" means "respecting an establishing" -- that is somehow means "officially forming an establishment." But that would immediately take me back to the Court rulings? Furthermore, it is my claim that both the Court rulings and the words of the Founders themselves on this topic supports my stance that the "respecting and establishment" means, and was intended to mean, Government-promoted, favored, indoctrinating, or coerced both directly and indirectly using tax dollars, on the public.
"In addition it means that the government may NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion; although it must exercised in a peaceable manner."
Right, but here we are talking about the free exercise of a chosen religion by People -- individuals, not Government sponsorship using tax dollars.
"Most importantly, the amendment makes no reference whatsoever to GOD and does not restrict or prohibit any individual, governmental or official action pertaining to GOD (only religion itself which is different)."
But it does prohibit some "Government action pertaining to God" -- namely, having laws, practices, or policies that respect the establishing of a religion. As the Court cases and Founders themselves would show, respecting something is also promoting, endorsing, or disseminating in a way as to establish it as a favored or official way.
"While I don't agree, I absolutely support your right to feeling that way. America is a GREAT nation because it is diverse and provides opportunity for each of us to freely express ourselves. In the process perhaps we learn and grow."
That's true, and that is part of the reason it is not necessary or appropriate to have God-spin on our money. In other words, Government neutrality promotes and facilitates the freedom to do what you just mentioned. Once Government starts favoring, spinning, or disseminating a particular religious view (in this case, "Believe and trust in monotheism" then that neutrality is lost and millions are excluded on something that Government is not supposed to be create divisiveness about and certainly not take sides on using tax dollars.
"If every human being followed the Biblical principal of the "fruits of the Spirit," this would be a wonderful world indeed."
If every human being still followed the morals and values in the Bible we would still have slavery and there would still be the "tyranny of the mind" the Founders accused Organized Religion of cementing. They considered Organize Religion (not personal) to be a chief foe to freedom and so when you imply everything would be great if we all followed the Bible (verses, let's say, a System based more on individual and religious freedom) you seem to be dismissing the historical facts on this matter, as well as the reality of the inherently anti-freedom nature of such worship. In short, the reason we have such a great America is because it put religion on an unprecedented Leash and use a more objective, natural, time-tested set of principles to protect freedom. For example, as nice as it would be to take a day off on the Sabbath, the longer version of that Commandment also calls for giving your slaves a break -- people often put into permanent servitude from being captured in battle, or as purchased foreign children never to see their parents again. There are positive and productive values to be drawn from observing a human social structure -- the Bible houses many of them, but they do not exist due to it, and they existed before it as well. There is no reason to use that as a guide for happiness since no one needs the ignorant or anti-freedom aspects of it, and American freedom would not have been possible without Leashing it.
What would be nice is if everyone stopped wanting their religious view spit out in public and would just be content with their private views and worship. We are having this discussion because, apparently, there are too many people that won't be satisfied with just private worship. They WANT everyone's money to signal "believe in one God and Trust it." Sorry, that goes against the grain of freedom as well as the spirit of the First Amendment. It's also selfish.
I happen to know a lot about financial health and habits. How financially sound you are is not dependent upon how materialistic you are -- which is why there are lots of materialistic people who are financially solid and lots of people who are not materialistic that are financially shaky. The main reason people have financial problems has to do with a lack of good habits, lack of a Plan, and lack of education about it. How much you make, what religion you are, or materialism are all secondary at best and incidental to the broader aspects I mentioned. If you have poor savings and spending habits, it's not necessarily because you are too materialistic. If you have good habits and were taught about money from childhood, you probably can afford to be materialistic and enjoy. If you have bad habits and never engage your finances in a disciplined way, it easily doesn't matter how materialistic you are. In a bet based on averages, I'll take the person who has good habits and spent an adequate amount of time learning about this important aspect of their lives, verses the person who is simply not materialistic.
Indicating materialism as a chief cause of financial illness is as silly as indicating "entertainment" (TV, music, hanging out) as the chief cause of procrastination, laziness, or a lack of motivation. It's like blaming the gun for the criminal, blaming the beer for the crime, or blaming the breasts for the sex.
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "The numbers indicate otherwise. Do you have anything to support this statement other than blind hope?" At the present time, Christianity represents about 85% of America. I believe Christians will become stronger, MUCH stronger as we move into the future. While I don't base this on "blind hope," it is fair to say that I base it on a "not so blind faith" supported by the Bible.
Again, the numbers I have provided show christianity at 76-77%. And shrinking. I repeat, America is not 85% Christian. Show me numbers to support this claim.
If America prospers, Christianity will continue to dwindle. Tough times would drive a bit of a return to the church.
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion: 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10 In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% when compared with 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%."
The ARIS is the "American Religious Identification Survey," by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
take a look
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
<< <i>IMHO... all of you that think it should be removed.........grab a weapon and join Al-Quida. >>
Nice. What about folk like eagle7, a devout Christian who wants it removed?
What about Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege." Was he an early al-Qaeda operative?
Why so much hate? I always thought Christianity was a religion of love.
Off the web:
In God We Trust" got inscribed on the money only after a coalition of Protestant church groups failed to rewrite the Constitution to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." They failed in Congress and in the states, but amongst their supporters was a director of the U.S. Mint during the Civil War. After getting Congress to grant him the power to control the design of the coinage, he promptly Christianized America's cash.
Not all Christians approved. Theodore Roosevelt (certainly no fan of atheists) wrote that "to put such a motto on coins ... is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege." He sought to remove it when the currency was redesigned under his presidency, but he had to back down under political pressure from the church people.
Fugio cent mention:
As for "In God We Trust," I prefer what was written on the money back in 1787, when the Constitution was framed: "Mind Your Business."
<< <i>Theodore Roosevelt (certainly no fan of atheists) wrote that "to put such a motto on coins ... is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege." He sought to remove it when the currency was redesigned under his presidency, but he had to back down under political pressure from the church people.
>>
This is exactly what will happen again if someone in power actually tried to do this again. It will not change in our lifetime, certainly not from this lawsuit, mostly because of "church people" would be upset, but also because it would be too expensive to change all the money.
<< <i> hate to agree with Condor, but if you think the majority has the right to force their religion on everyone else >>
That's quite an interesting statement...having "In God We Trust" on our coins forced you to become a Christian?
<< <i>There is NO seperatrion clause in the Constitution. There is a non-establishment clause. Learn it, know it, live it. If congress does not spefically create a United States Religion and madate all citizens to paractice that faith, its NOT unconstititional. >>
Exactamundo.
<< <i>This Liberal bullcrap about the majority vs the minority is just that, bullcrap. That position reaks of federalists bunk, who love to claim that the Constitution protects the minority from the majority beause thats what was in the Federalist Papers. Here is a clue, the Federalists Papers are not a controlling document in the United States, the Constitution is. >>
I thought the whole concept of "minority veto" died in April of 1865?
P.S. With the present composition of the Supreme Court, the motto will stay. If this person is really offended, let him simply not use currency or change. You can participate in any transaction without the use of cash, if you so desire (and in some cases are willing to spend more money for a similar product from a different retailer). Heck, even McDonald's takes cards!
<< <i>don't be surprised when the majority becomes muslim and does the same to you >>
P.S. I check the formatting of theses & dedications at a state university. Most of the students are Indians or Muslims, and in their Acknowledgements, 80% of them thank "God."
You said; "But it does prohibit some "Government action pertaining to God" -- namely, having laws, practices, or policies that respect the establishing of a religion...' Establishing a religion is not the same thing as invoking or embracing GOD. Establishing a religion by government is an entirely different thing than a government action pertaining to GOD. There are religions that do not even feature a "god" in their doctrine and government could not establish such a religion either. Most importantly, the amendment is completely silent on "GOD." It does not in any manner restrict, prohibit, or deny individuals or government in their official capacity or otherwise from invoking or utilizing GOD in any unfettered manner they wish. Thank you for the input foundingfather.
<< <i>We should stop this thread....like politics and religion.........lets get back to coins. >>
Why? They all seam to go hand in hand.
09/07/2006
You said you didn't know what court cases I was referring to when I was making my point about how the religion component of the First Amendment protects us from far more than just a blatant establishment of religion - so I've listed a sample. As you know I contend that it's as much about promoting, endorsing, excluding, and favoring, as it is some creation of a national religion. I'm really not sure why you think, for example, that the Government taxing Jews differently due to their religion wouldn't be a violation of the First Amendment, even though it is not "establishing a religion." The Founders words, common sense, and the "respecting" component of that Amendment are on my side I believe.
In any case, here are some court cases that demonstrate how the First Amendment is not just about making a national religion. Some deal directly with the existence of God and so feel free to apply it to the motto in discussion, and please take notice of how it doesn't take a new National religion formation to evoke the protection of the principles behind the First Amendment:
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947
The U.S. Supreme Court in Everson reaffirmed Jefferson’s view when it said, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) - Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) - Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. Having someone say they merely believe in a God is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money, as if we all condone trusting in God or believing in monotheism?
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) - Court finds school prayer unconstitutional. A prayer is a violation but not a "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional
Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional. Merely participating in a reading is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) - Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional. A mere posting of the 10 Commandments, the very foundation you would say of our legal system, is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) - Court finds state law enforcing a moment of silence in schools had a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional. A moment of silence is a violation but not "Believe in one God and Trust Him" (i.e. In God We Trust) all over our money?
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) - Court finds state law requiring equal treatment for creationism has a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 SCt. 2649 (1992) - Court finds prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
A controversial 2002 decision by the 9th Circuit in Newdow v. United States found the phrase "Under God" to violate all three modern establishment-clause tests. "Under God" but not "In God We Trust?"
Sandra Day O’Connor, who was widely regarded as the Court's leader in establishment-clause jurisprudence, said there were two ways the Government can encounter trouble: as through excessive entanglement with religious institutions and through government endorsement or disapproval of religion. “Endorsement sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community,” Justice O’Connor wrote.
On page 10 of this thread, in a post where I boldface the relevant terms, I believe I made a short but good case for the inherent and implied "separation of Church and State" that the First Amendment was inspired by, meant to provide, and in fact, must provide as separating the two was widespread and clear from the Founders as absolutely necessary for protecting freedom.
Thanks for reading.
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. You said; "Again, the numbers I have provided show christianity at 76-77%. And shrinking. I repeat, America is not 85% Christian. Show me numbers to support this claim..." Your number is derived from ARIS but you have not accurately represented the number. I assume you did this in error gulliblenewb. I enjoy having our dialogue but it would be kind of pointless if the information you provide is not more clear or focused. According to the "American Religious Identifcation Survey 2001," Christianity was at 86.2% in the last 1990 survey. In 2001, the same organization said it was 76.5% but it excluded Christians under the age of 18 (a massive number of Christians are under age 18). >>
Hello? EVERYONE under 18 was excluded, not just Christians. Or are you thinking everyone under 18 is a Christian?
<< <i>The survey also contains numerous attached "notes" to the 2001 figure (which you did not mention in your post) whereby an additional exclusion is listed for the substantial increase in the number of surveyed adults (over 18) who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference (a number which went from four million in 1990 to more than eleven million in 2001 - another 5% or so). This group is almost certainly made up of so-called "latterrain" and other "post-millenium" Christians who for doctrinal reasons do not reveal such data (the same ones who formerly identified themselves as "born again" or other but who no longer do). >>
Please back this up with evidence. There are plenty of folks not comfortable declaring their religious leanings.
<< <i> Indeed, the survey specifically states that there was a 6.8% increase in the number of Christians who identify themselves as "Christian - no denomination supplied." So, the data actually shows that the true number of Christians has increased (another thing that you did not mention when you quoted your number and which you explicitly stated was "shrinking"). Rather than "shrinking," the latest 2001 survey lists the number of Christians - even excluding those under 18 and the other aforementioned group(s) at: 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. So the numbers of Christians are increasing (not "shrinking" as you say) even if you exclude those under age 18 as this survey did. Thanks gulliblenewb.
Your TOTAL NUMBER is not shrinking. You are getting outbred. On a PERCENTILE BASIS, you are shrinking. My contention is that when you are small enough on a percentile basis, IGWT will be removed.
<< <i>Gull: perhaps 2-4% of the country is Christian. Religious surveys are utterly meaningless. >>
Please find something to back up that statement.
Not utterly, but of course sometimes it is difficult to pin people down on thier beliefs. Like matteproof noted in the poll, a larger number are declining to respond. He of course wants to claim them all as Christians. Simply because a whole lotta people believe something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. A lot of people are sheep. I believe I've seen the term "sheeple" on these boards, and I like it. Why do you think they call congregations "the flock"?
I looked up the numbers I was quoting because I was curious. I had heard and read that mainstream church attendance was dropping. In fact one article in the Mpls Star Tribune or St. Paul Pioneer Press made me laugh out loud. In it, a pastor bemoaned declining attendance, and said something like, "We have to get to them young, when they are 4 or 5, that's what makes a strong believer." It sounded kind of scary actually.
but honestly, can people not look at the complexity
and granduer of life and not see the hand of God?
an overwhelming majority of us can, there's your statistics
You said; "Your TOTAL NUMBER is not shrinking. You are getting outbred. On a PERCENTILE BASIS, you are shrinking. My contention is that when you are small enough on a percentile basis, IGWT will be removed." Surely you jest. The actual number of Christians has INCREASED not decreased. As for the motto, "In GOD We Trust" will never be removed in America. GOD is simply too great a factor in the American mindset. Christians will always be the extreme majority in America and, there numbers will continue to rise even as the survey YOU quoted illustrates.
You said; "Please back this up with evidence. There are pleny of folks not comfortable declaring their religious leanings." The evidence is in the very survey that YOU quoted. Read the details admist the fluff that you quoted. You said the number of Christians was "shrinking" yet the very report you quoted as your evidence actually showed the exact opposite; the number of Christians is at 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. You didn't know that because you didn't actually read the survey that you quoted; you just quoted something that you read on the internet.
You said; "Sandra Day O’Connor, who was widely regarded as the Court's leader in establishment-clause jurisprudence,.." I don't agree with O'Connor's concepts on this subject or an almost everything else she commented on. Her legal theories on other issues such as abortion were also horrible. Her final "wisdom" by providing "corporate manifest destiny" to corporate interests at the expense of the average property owner (in the recent Connecticut case) was an absolute shame. Thank you again for your input foundingfather. I much appreciate your thoughts.
<< <i>You said; "Hello? EVERYONE under 18 was excluded, not just Christians. Or are you thinking everyone under 18 is a Christian?". The number of under "18" Christians far outnumbers the number of under 18 "others." Therefore, by excluding under 18's, it skews the Christian numbers by greater weight.
You said; "Your TOTAL NUMBER is not shrinking. You are getting outbred. On a PERCENTILE BASIS, you are shrinking. My contention is that when you are small enough on a percentile basis, IGWT will be removed." Surely you jest. The actual number of Christians has INCREASED not decreased. As for the motto, "In GOD We Trust" will never be removed in America. GOD is simply too great a factor in the American mindset. Christians will always be the extreme majority in America and, there numbers will continue to rise even as the survey YOU quoted illustrates.
You said; "Please back this up with evidence. There are pleny of folks not comfortable declaring their religious leanings." The evidence is in the very survey that YOU quoted. Read the details admist the fluff that you quoted. You said the number of Christians was "shrinking" yet the very report you quoted as your evidence actually showed the exact opposite; the number of Christians is at 207,980,000 up from 175,440,000 in 1990. You didn't know that because you didn't actually read the survey that you quoted; you just quoted something that you read on the internet.
Egad, you are really trying my patience. Do you understand the difference between total numbers, and percentages of a whole? I'M TALKING ABOUT BLOODY PERCENTAGES. And please give me some hard evidence on, "The number of under '18' Christians far outnumbers the number of under 18 'others.'" I really doubt this.
Total numbers can be quite meanigless, especially when trying to determine growth of a segment in a population. You can't say that the grey paint got darker because you added two times as much black, as if you doesn't matter that you increased the white paint amount by 10 times over the same time period. It's misleading and inaccurate. You can't tell if the number of Christians are sinking on a population-percentage basis just by looking at the total amount of Christians at two different points. You have to look at the two different points in terms of the percentage of Christians in the population. If a town has 10% Italians (100 out of 1000 people) in 1990, but that same town has 5% Italians in 2000 (200 out of 4000 people), the total number of Italians has gone up but the population has gone up much faster, effectively showing a shrinkage of Italian representation. So yes, total numbers have gone up -- but that is not a GROWING SEGMENT. It's SHRINKING.
Money example: it's like claiming your net worth has gone up because your income has increased by 5%, but don't want to consider that your spending increase was 10% -- total income dollars aren't very meaningful by themselves. Context context context.
You need to consider the population totals before judging whether or not a segment has truly shrunk or grown overall, don't you agree?
<< <i>Please find something to back up that statement. >>
Well. let's see. For starters you could ask the "Christian" respondants if they actually go to church regularly (three or more times per month). Then ask if they actually believe in the basic tenents of the faith, such as God's existence and sovereignty, creation, the virgin birth, Jesus' perfection, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' ascention, heaven and hell, etc. Then further narrow it down by excluding people who are living lifestyles of sin. To be sure, we ALL sin, but when a person repeatedly, day in and day out, defies God without making any attempt at all at repentence (such as homosexuals or people who have sex outside of marriage, or who live together outside marriage). Then ask how many of the remaining people are just going through the motions, or how many really feel they have a relationship with God.
Just because a few lunatics who drive a plane into a building claim to be Muslims doesn't mean they really are. A senator that claims to be a liberal but consistently votes with the conservative viewpoint is certainly not a liberal--his/her actions refute his/her statements. In the same way, someone who goes to church twice a year and has a vague belief in a "higher power" is not necessarily a Christian, either.
Food for thought: in the above cited polls, Hitler would have listed himself as Christian (he always considered himself to be, since he was brought up as a Catholic). Think about that one.
The ARIS survey did not count "under 18's" which skews the numbers of Christians more than other groups in the survey because; Christians are the largest segment of the population by far and their number of children are cumulatively higher by virtue of their sheer size in comparison to other groups. Since most Christians marry in traditional male/female marriages and have children, the number of "under 18" Christians is magnified all the more. Christians as a group are far less likely than other groups to practice baby killing abortion too; which would skew the numbers even more in favor of Christians. In addition, a good number of Evangelical and strict Catholic Christians tend to have very large numbers of children (5 and more) as a matter of doctrinal practice (i.e. Gen. 1:28 "be frutiful and multiply and fill the earth," and Psa. 127:2-5 "children are a blessing from the Lord"). There are massive numbers of young and teenage Christians; so huge that entire industries specifically target them as a marketing group. As a result, it is very clear that by discounting the under 18's in the survey, the true number of Christians appears to be less than it actually is. I think this is significant.
There is more about the survey that is open for debate but it hardly matters and has little to do with our discussion about "the motto" so I won't elaborate further. Thank you for the follow up foundingfather.
<< <i>
<< <i>Please find something to back up that statement. >>
Well. let's see. For starters you could ask the "Christian" respondants if they actually go to church regularly (three or more times per month). Then ask if they actually believe in the basic tenents of the faith, such as God's existence and sovereignty, creation, the virgin birth, Jesus' perfection, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' ascention, heaven and hell, etc. Then further narrow it down by excluding people who are living lifestyles of sin. To be sure, we ALL sin, but when a person repeatedly, day in and day out, defies God without making any attempt at all at repentence (such as homosexuals or people who have sex outside of marriage, or who live together outside marriage). Then ask how many of the remaining people are just going through the motions, or how many really feel they have a relationship with God.
Just because a few lunatics who drive a plane into a building claim to be Muslims doesn't mean they really are. A senator that claims to be a liberal but consistently votes with the conservative viewpoint is certainly not a liberal--his/her actions refute his/her statements. In the same way, someone who goes to church twice a year and has a vague belief in a "higher power" is not necessarily a Christian, either.
Food for thought: in the above cited polls, Hitler would have listed himself as Christian (he always considered himself to be, since he was brought up as a Catholic). Think about that one. >>
You're ABSOLUTELY correct, I think I took the tone of your post completely wrong, my bad. I was pretty wrapped up in my brazen attempt to teach matteproof simple percentages. What you have written above mirrors what many of the poll numbers indicate, especially with regards to "how religious" people would describe themselves.
I also forget, are you on the "leave it on" or "take it off" side? What you have written above seems to indicate a good reason to remove it.
Will this get us up to 300?
<< <i>The ARIS survey did not count "under 18's" which skews the numbers of Christians more than other groups in the survey because; Christians are the largest segment of the population by far and their number of children are cumulatively higher by virtue of their sheer size in comparison to other groups. Since most Christians marry in traditional male/female marriages and have children, the number of "under 18" Christians is magnified all the more. Christians as a group are far less likely than other groups to practice baby killing abortion too; which would skew the numbers even more in favor of Christians. In addition, a good number of Evangelical and strict Catholic Christians tend to have very large numbers of children (5 and more) as a matter of doctrinal practice (i.e. Gen. 1:28 "be frutiful and multiply and fill the earth," and Psa. 127:2-5 "children are a blessing from the Lord"). There are massive numbers of young and teenage Christians; so huge that entire industries specifically target them as a marketing group. As a result, it is very clear that by discounting the under 18's in the survey, the true number of Christians appears to be less than it actually is. I think this is significant. >>
The NUMBER of children will be higher, not the PERCENTAGE. All of the articles I have read lately talk about many young people drifting away from the church, there are simply too many other distractions. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that adding the children back in will skew the percentages back up.
And this all has to do with the motto because the brunt of your argument seemed to be, "Look at how many of us there are, we must be right!"
Look all you want, you'll find if current trends continue, you will NOT be a majority. Of course perhaps not in your life, I don't know how old you are.
You said; "Then ask if they actually believe in the basic tenents of the faith, such as God's existence and sovereignty, creation, the virgin birth, Jesus' perfection, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' ascention, heaven and hell, etc." This is a valid point. There are those who identify as Christian who do not believe in some of these key ingredients of the faith. My own personal sense is that indiviuals come to deeper truth as they learn and grow. For me, if someone "identifies" as Christian, then I count them as "in" even if they have not arrived to fuller truth as yet. I concede that more dogmatic Christians would disagree with me; and that would be fine.
You said; "Then ask how many of the remaining people are just going through the motions, or how many really feel they have a relationship with God..." Another good point. However, I've learned many years ago that no human being can claim to know the heart and mind of another person. Only GOD knows what is going on in our hearts. The person who appears to have no relationship with GOD may very well have a very strong relationship with him. The guy who seems to be "holier than thou" may be a devil in sheeps clothing. Only GOD knows a man's heart. There is a fantastic example of this very thing found in Luke 18: 9-14.
You said; "Food for thought: in the above cited polls, Hitler would have listed himself as Christian (he always considered himself to be, since he was brought up as a Catholic). Think about that one..." Hitler did not identify as a Catholic (although it is reported he was raised as one). He dismissed the church as meaningless and he specifically rejected the Catholic church as an adult. He described himself as "a complete pagan." Hitler is quoted as saying; "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together..." He also said many other extremely anti-Christian statements. For example, he is reported to have said; "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." So, Hitler was what he was - an angry man unhappy with his own self, angry at his nation for surrendering to the Allies after WW1 (the Weimar Republic), and rather than trying to fix himself decided to destroy others and ultimately himself. matteproof
You said; "And this all has to do with the motto because the brunt of your argument seemed to be, "Look at how many of us there are, we must be right!"" To an extent this is true. However, I believe the "motto" is right simply because it IS right. It would be right even if the number of Christians were in the minority; which thankfully they are in the EXTREME majority. In the meantime, the nation's identity itself is highly connected to GOD and therefore the motto will continue against all odds.
You said; "Look all you want, you'll find if current trends continue, you will NOT be a majority. Of course perhaps not in your life, I don't know how old you are.." I don't need to look much at all. The facts are the facts. Christians are the extreme majority in America and will continue to be so in the future. Not in my lifetime, your lifetime or your great great great great grandchildrens lifetime will it ever be different. A thousand generations from now and nothing will change; Christians will always shine over America as the GREAT and mighty ones that they are. It would not be America otherwise. Thank you for the follow up gulliblenewb.
<< <i>i think in an effort to be all inclusive, once the state quarters series is done we should do a "motto series" to be all inclusive.
1st month: IGWT
2: IN Allah we trust
3: In Yahweh we trust
4: In satan we trust
5: In elvis we trust
6: We trust ourselves
7: We trust nobody
8: In Flying spaghetti monster we trust
.....
9. In fiat we trust
10. In cold hard gold we trust
Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the follow up. You said; "All of the articles I have read lately talk about many young people drifting away from the church, there are simply too many other distractions..." This is a valid point. Children today do have many distractions; far more than many of us had in our youth. However, the Internet (a key distractor for youth and the rest of us as well) has much potential to attract children to the faith too. So, in the end, it will be up to the families to direct their children in the way that they should go. Most will remain Christians, and a relative few of course may not.
You said; "And this all has to do with the motto because the brunt of your argument seemed to be, "Look at how many of us there are, we must be right!"" To an extent this is true. However, I believe the "motto" is right simply because it IS right. It would be right even if the number of Christians were in the minority; which thankfully they are in the EXTREME majority. In the meantime, the nation's identity itself is highly connected to GOD and therefore the motto will continue against all odds.
You said; "Look all you want, you'll find if current trends continue, you will NOT be a majority. Of course perhaps not in your life, I don't know how old you are.." I don't need to look much at all. The facts are the facts. Christians are the extreme majority in America and will continue to be so in the future. Not in my lifetime, your lifetime or your great great great great grandchildrens lifetime will it ever be different. A thousand generations from now and nothing will change; Christians will always shine over America as the GREAT and mighty ones that they are. It would not be America otherwise. Thank you for the follow up gulliblenewb.
Here-in lies the simple solution to this issue; If 85% of Americans are Christians and most
of them want the motto then simply issue about 75% with the motto. Issue a few with no
motto and some with the other dieties which people worship. Christians can be content that
most of their money has the motto and if they don't like the others then they don't have to use
them.
This has the added benefit of providing some truly rare coins in circulation again. I mean how
many of the Druid "In Tree We Trust" are going to be issued?
This way everyone is happy.
<< <i>That is because the American National conscience, empowered by GOD, rejected the quasi-atheistic French inspired “intellectual” philosophy that tainted Jefferson; the same French theory that is paralyzing modern day France today. >>
What's paralyzing France today isn't atheism - which by the way is not a philosophy - it is moral Subjectivism, Post-modernism, and Socialism.
Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>This is a perfect money making opportunity for the Mint! Make both motto and no-motto coins. Think about it, atheist collectors will still buy the motto coins and religious collectors will still buy no-motto. I can see it now... rolls, bags, special sets, double mint sets, double proof sets...... >>
I like that idea. The cost to US tax payers would be minimal (after all, you can make the coins for 6 months with a die w/out the motto, then retool the die). Instant doubling of varieties! the Mint would love that.
I also thing that the obligation to have IGWT limits the artistic creativity.
Another option would be to allow private entity to coin their own money, with their own chosen design. Those would most likely be minted in a gold standard (the G.Gram?), and would free us from government fiat money.
Robert A. Heinlein
Robert A. Heinlein
I believe I've laid out several lines of logic and support for it being unprincipled, including the obvious "it's creating divisiveness unnecessarily" line.
<< <i>...how long until some malcontent starts defacing the coinage by crossing out words they find offensive?
How will this play to the Christian majority?
It is illegal to do this by the way. >>
No, it's not. You can deface coinage all you want, as long as there is no intent to defraud. How else would elongated cents be legal?
<< <i>I also forget, are you on the "leave it on" or "take it off" side? What you have written above seems to indicate a good reason to remove it. >>
We should leave it on. If it ain't broke...
<< <i>I believe I've laid out several lines of logic and support for it being unprincipled, including the obvious "it's creating divisiveness unnecessarily" line. >>
Foundingfather: In our society today, everything offends someone. The Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, the national anthem--there are people who find all of the above to be offensive. Wasn't it recently that the national coinage committee (whatever the official name is) rejected commemerative designs as being too patriotic? If "In God We Trust" was tearing apart our country, that would be different. But don't you think this atheist fellow wasn't offended by the motto. All of the sudden he loses his Pledge of Allegiance case and now he's offended by IGWT--naturally it couldn't have anything to do with missing the limelight!
Work offended Bartleby the Scribner. Should we thus abolish EVERYTHING in society for fear of offending some? Where does it stop, anyway?
++++
Matteproof: Scripture does tell us to go to church. For many years I thought you were correct, and that church was a "suggestion," at best. But then I stumbled upon Hebrews 10:25: "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching." The term "let us" is subjunctive, which indicates a command.
Emphasis added to the first part of the verse. There are also many verses that say how the early church met on the first day of the week, so it can reasonably be inferred that it's a pretty good idea, even if Hebrews 10:25 weren't there.
<< <i>All of the sudden he loses his Pledge of Allegiance case and now he's offended by IGWT--naturally it couldn't have anything to do with missing the limelight! >>
Uh... Newdow won his latest Pledge suit. He lost the first one on a technicality, and came back with a second case which he won. (Obviously, it will still need to go through many appeals before any real decision is made.) It's not about being out of the limelight; it's moreso building on the success of his Pledge case.
<< <i>Foundingfather: In our society today, everything offends someone. The Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, the national anthem--there are people who find all of the above to be offensive. >>
It's not about being offensive -- there are many things in life that offend me, yet are perfectly legal. The IGWT case is a question of Constitutionality, not offense. As we've seen from this thread, there are some who feel it is perfectly fine Constitution-wise, while others feel it is categorically unconstitutional. This is exactly the sort of issue that should be presented before the courts, and specifically the Supreme Court. I hope they choose to hear it.