Bochi/Ron, are you aware of the situation with the YN who cried fowl? That said YN was not even supposed to be there but wouldn't stay away? Whose thread about a supposed slight caused a large controversy, and whose complaint was found to have been unfounded? That the situation would not have even occurred had said YN been made to follow the rules and not play on the OF? That the person you know I'm referring to would never have had the issue to use to complain about the OF?
By your admission you weren't around. Ask those who were if things were different then. At the time of it's death, the topics were Clinton and The Path To 9/11, and the elections. Same ol stuff.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Pharmer, answered you in PM so as to not continue OT or flaming here...but, for the record, it is my understanding that the person you refer to as YN is actually in college. The "restriction" was on younger than 18. Some people consider YN to be under 21. (I personally consider under 18 to be YN).
btw....it shouldn't matter....it is a privately owned board that was publically viewable....people should have acted like more responsible adults.
<< <i>it simply means that there should be no state sponsored national religion such as The Church of England was. >>
I would argue that devices such as IGWT represent a de facto establishment, or at least, acknowledgement, of a religion, and is therefore unconstitutional even if we discount the concept of separation of Church and State.
<< <i>it simply means that there should be no state sponsored national religion such as The Church of England was. >>
I would argue that devices such as IGWT represent a de facto establishment, or at least, acknowledgement, of a religion, and is therefore unconstitutional even if we discount the concept of separation of Church and State. >>
<< <i><< it simply means that there should be no state sponsored national religion such as The Church of England was. >>
I would argue that devices such as IGWT represent a de facto establishment, or at least, acknowledgement, of a religion, and is therefore unconstitutional even if we discount the concept of separation of Church and State. >>
You are, of course, wrong. The motto does not interfere with anybody's choice of religion in this country, and that is the crux of the issue.
no actual religion is acknowledged. So we could say it stands for all religions who believe in a creator. That would include all religions in this country which I doubt will change our coins just because a few do not approve.
<< <i>no actual religion is acknowledged. So we could say it stands for all religions who believe in a creator. >>
Fair enough. So that excludes religions that do not believe in a creator, as well as atheists.
<< <i>That would include all religions in this country which I doubt will change our coins just because a few do not approve. >>
Otherwise known as the tyranny of the majority. Atheists are the last group which can openly be discriminated against without fear of reprisal. Even homosexuals have more political clout than we do.
Too bad the other threads went away - I thought the debate was on topic and for the most part polite, at least by the standards of the old OF anyway.
In any case, I pretty much said everything I had to say on this subject there, which put succinctly is that I am opposed to having IGWT on coins because on the one hand I believe it encroaches on the Democracy our Founding Fathers set up for us, while on the other I feel it does a disservice to religion by rendering the spiritual ubiquitous.
With regards to this comment:
<< <i>...no actual religion is acknowledged... >>
that may be true, however, in addition to athiests, Hindus are excluded because they beleive in many gods, and so are Bhudists who beleive in enlightenment - are any of these people fundementally less American than those who believe in one God? Is it right that they should be excluded by a motto on our coinage?
<< <i>Too bad the other threads went away - I thought the debate was on topic and for the most part polite, at least by the standards of the old OF anyway.
In any case, I pretty much said everything I had to say on this subject there, which put succinctly is that I am opposed to having IGWT on coins because on the one hand I believe it encroaches on the Democracy our Founding Fathers set up for us, while on the other I feel it does a disservice to religion by rendering the spiritual ubiquitous.
With regards to this comment:
<< <i>...no actual religion is acknowledged... >>
that may be true, however, in addition to athiests, Hindus are excluded because they beleive in many gods, and so are Bhudists who beleive in enlightenment - are any of these people fundementally less American than those who believe in one God? Is it right that they should be excluded by a motto on our coinage? >>
Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere.
<< <i>Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere. >>
You're comparing 'Phil from Tenth Ave.' to all of the Hindus and Bhudists living in America?
The First Amendmant states this:
<< <i>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; >>
Hinduism & Bhudism are among the most respected religions in the world, yet in light of the fact that one believes in many Gods and the other all but forgoes the concept of God altogether, I fail to see how the presence of 'IGWT' on our nation's coinage reconciles with the Constitution.
Other notable polytheists are some of the many of the tribes of Native Americans - how well does the motto 'IGWT' represent them?
I find your point about 'Liberty' and 'United States of America' being offensive to some irrelevent given the fact that there is nothing vaguely unconstitutional about either.
<< <i>Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere. >>
It's not about being offensive -- you're missing the point. It's about constitutionality.
<< <i>no actual religion is acknowledged. So we could say it stands for all religions who believe in a creator. >>
Fair enough. So that excludes religions that do not believe in a creator, as well as atheists.
<< <i>That would include all religions in this country which I doubt will change our coins just because a few do not approve. >>
Otherwise known as the tyranny of the majority. Atheists are the last group which can openly be discriminated against without fear of reprisal. Even homosexuals have more political clout than we do. >>
Are you gaybashing? Just continuing the politically correct BS...
<< <i>It's not about being offensive -- you're missing the point. It's about constitutionality. >>
I don't think the Constitutional argument is an open-and-shut case. I can understand the interpretation, but I don't think putting IGWT on a coin violates the establishment clause. It arguably violates the spirit of it, I guess, but I think that does nothing to establish a national religion.
IMO the whole issue is much ado about nothing one way *or* the other.
For a country preaching freedom of religion and an implied separation of church and state, it's a shame that our government got to pick the deity that everyone must put their trust in.
the question was: Since when is "In God We Trust" on our coinage not a coin related subject ???
Is it a coin topic? Yes or No
If it is or isn't a coin topic why?
I don't think whay someone believes or what the founding fathers thought or if you think it should be there or not has anything to do with the original question.
<< <i>I don't think the Constitutional argument is an open-and-shut case. >>
I agree wholeheartedly. It's certainly not open-and-shut, despite what many of the pro-IGWT folk would have one believe. If the Constitution weren't open for interpretation, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. The fact that an entire branch of government is dedicated to this purpose shows that interpreting the Constitution is not a trivial matter.
<< <i>I can understand the interpretation, but I don't think putting IGWT on a coin violates the establishment clause. It arguably violates the spirit of it, I guess, but I think that does nothing to establish a national religion. >>
IGWT certainly does not "establish" a national Church-of-England style religion, but I would suggest that IGWT does explicitly endorse religion, and that is contrary to the "spirit" of the Constitution, and especially when early writings of the founding fathers are considered along with.
<< <i>Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere. >>
It's not about being offensive -- you're missing the point. It's about constitutionality. >>
Bob--I got your point 100%. Let me also add that although I disagree on this, your point is 100% on target and you continue to logically state your case. If I had to bet on one side in a debate I wouldn't bet against you.
It is a coin related topic because the motto is on coins. It is also a political topic because it was mandated by acts of Congress and because there was at least one President in the last hundred years who wanted it removed. Furthermore, it is a religious topic because most people persist in believing that the motto has some sort of religious meaning despite the opinions of both the Ninth and the Tenth Circuits who said that it was essentially meaningless--purely ceremonial.
I want is off the coins because I think the Ninth and Tenth Circuits were wrong in their interpretation of the motto and because the Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of "religion in general" as well as any particular religion. I have no problem with the government acknowledging religion. You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to know that religion is alive and well in this country; but it's not the governments place to support it.
"You are, of course, wrong. The motto does not interfere with anybody's choice of religion in this country, and that is the crux of the issue."
Actually, Russ, I believe you are wrong. The crux of the issue is the wisdom and principle behind having an endorsement of monotheism and a call to trust in it, by our public servants. It's not about religion interfering or infringing via IGWT, or about interfering with a choice of religion as you stated - it's about the principle of not being all-inclusive using tax dollars and the wisdom of keeping Government and religion out of bed with each other using tax dollars whenever we reasonably can. The founders didn't put it on the money for a reason, just like the disallowed religious instruction from the first tax-funded public school system for a reason. Your view of the subject is too narrow and misses the big picture and principle at play. Many great things are done on principle (like the Constitution) even though one could point out no direct harm from a particular point of view, as you have done.
I also find it amusing the many people here have heart attacks over a topic not being purely coins, as if some politics or religion mixed in is going to ruin the quality of the threads or the environment - yet say nothing when personal attacks and other juvenile baloney are engaged in (as if those are harmless).
Carry on and thanks for reading.
- Frank
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
"I am opposed to having IGWT on coins because on the one hand I believe it encroaches on the Democracy our Founding Fathers set up for us."
Here's some help...There is a separation of church and state such that no individual church or denomination is singled out. It begs to the freedom to practice any religion based on any individual faith. There is a separation from any specific church or specific religion from our government (hence separation of church and state); however; we are a nation founded to allow for religious freedom (check your history for the 1600's and see what the situation was in England regarding religious freedom, or see below). The opportunity to believe in any God of individual choice and the freedom to believe in the faith of individual choice is one of the foundations of our country. Therefore, we have IGWT as our national motto. Note that it doesn't say In Baptist We Trust or In Catholicism We Trust (duh?). There is no offical religion of the government and there is no opportunity for the church to tax citizens...we do indeed have separation of the church from the state. the opportunity to practice the religion of choice is protected by our constitution and a basis for the foundation of our form of government...what's so hard to understand here? So, it is very appropriate to have In God We Trust on US coins.
Just for fun:
"From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861. An Act of Congress, approved on April 11, 1864, authorized the coinage of two-cent coins upon which the motto first appeared.
The motto was omitted from the new gold coins issued in 1907, causing a storm of public criticism. As a result, legislation passed in May 1908 made "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins on which it had previously appeared.
Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the United States.
Several years ago, the appearance of "In God We Trust" on our money was challenged in the federal courts. The challenge was rejected by the lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case."
Here's a little help for the misguided and unpracticed in American History. This is from a 1st grade teachers manual, just to make it easy.)
"1 The time was the early 1600's. The place was England. The century before had seen the Protestant Reformation, and the Church of England was now the official church. A person could not choose to join a different church.
2 By the 1600's, some members of the Church of England felt that changes were needed. Some people tried to change the church from within; others decided to leave and start their own congregation. Those who decided to leave became known as the Separatists.
3 Because leaving the church was not allowed, the Separatists soon had to flee the country. In 1609, a group of Separatists led by William Brewster fled to Holland and settled in the town of Leiden.
4 The Separatists lived in Leiden for years, but never quite felt at home there. It wasn't like England where they had grown up. They couldn't own their own land there either. They thought about leaving Holland.
5 In 1620, they found merchants who were interested in financing a voyage to America. Forty-one members of the Leiden congregation decided to sail for America. Along with 61 other English people, they set sail in September aboard the Mayflower. Just before they left Holland, the Separatists celebrated a Fasting Day in their church to pray for God's guidance on the long journey to come."
If they can find a judge to rule a cross on public land is government sponsorship of a specific religion, they will have no problems finding a judge on this issue. Next all crosses will be removed from highways (and places like Arlington National Cemetary). The Supreme Court building will need to be demolished and re-built due to the Ten Commandments being built into it. We are no longer a land of the people, but a land where the minority pushes their beliefs on the majority.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>because the Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of "religion in general" as well as any particular religion. >>
The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit the endorsement of religion, it prohibits a state sanctioned church. In fact, by virtue of that prohibition and the freedom it guarantees, it actually "endorses" all religions.
<< <i>Therefore, we have IGWT as our national motto. Note that it doesn't say In Baptist We Trust or In Catholicism We Trust (duh?). >>
Yes, but it may as well say in Hinduism, Bhudism, or any other polytheist indigenous American religion we DO NOT trust, so in that sense it does favor some religions over others, and that, IMHO, is why IGWT violates the First Amendment.
<< <i>Therefore, we have IGWT as our national motto. Note that it doesn't say In Baptist We Trust or In Catholicism We Trust (duh?). >>
Yes, but it may as well say in Hinduism, Bhudism, or any other polytheist indigenous American religion we DO NOT trust, so in that sense it does favor some religions over others, and that, IMHO, is why IGWT violates the First Amendment. >>
You are going to have to clear up where the First Amendment is on this one.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>If they can find a judge to rule a cross on public land is government sponsorship of a specific religion, they will have no problems finding a judge on this issue. Next all crosses will be removed from highways (and places like Arlington National Cemetary). The Supreme Court building will need to be demolished and re-built due to the Ten Commandments being built into it. We are no longer a land of the people, but a land where the minority pushes their beliefs on the majority. >>
There are countless instances in American History where it got justly determined that the will of the majority did not reconcile with the protections afforded by the Constitution. Not trying to offend you, I'm just making an ongoing point about why I believe the original motto for this Country, E Pluribus Unum, I think better serves its citizenry.
Yes, but it may as well say in Hinduism, Bhudism, or any other polytheist indigenous American religion we DO NOT trust, so in that sense it does favor some religions over others, and that, IMHO, is why IGWT violates the First Amendment.
<< <i>You are going to have to clear up where the First Amendment is on this one. >>
The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The motto IGWT respects the establishment of monotheist religions, but does not respect the establishment of the others that I list.
"The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit the endorsement of religion, it prohibits a state sanctioned church."
Incorrect, again. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that RESPECT an establishment of religion. The Government is not supposed to use tax dollars to promote a religion and IGWT promotes not only a monotheistic religion, but calls for us all to trust in it. The first Amendment is not just about prohibiting a state-sanctioned church - you made that up or bought into that from somewhere. It's about prohibiting laws that respect a religion. It doesn't have to be "state-sanctioned" it can just be something small that shows a part of Government favoring a particular religion - tax code, real estate allotment, etc. In other words, it doesn't have to be a law that sanctions a church or religion, it can be a law that works toward it.
Why do you think the Founders cited the First Amendment as a chief reason they had to disallow religious instruction of ANY KIND in the first tax-funded public school system?
Coinage sporting a particular religious view minted by our Government using our tax dollars crosses the line to any clear-thinking person.
re: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
"Ask a Jew if he or she thinks a cross is not a sponsorship of a specific religion."
Great point. As rare in these parts as it may be, now ask someone who worships in more than one God doesn't think the monotheistic promotion on our coinage isn't excluding them as well. Also, millions of Americans do not"trust" in someones idea about an Invisible Superbeing - why should they be excluded unnecessarily as if they don't count?
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Before the day even begins to discuss any subject matter such as coin issues our politicians be they dems or repubs start the day with a morning prayer.They are respectfull in some sort of way ..I believe...
The solution is the govt. should just adopt Christianity as the official religion of the nation and then it would be very appropriate to have the saying on all of our coinage.
The solution is the govt. should just adopt Christianity as the official religion of the nation and then it would be very appropriate to have the saying on all of our coinage.
actually, I disagree with that.
I'm not a Christian or even a monotheist. I define "God" as, "The Nature of the Universe"
By that definition, even a freethinking scientist like myself can honor IGWT
Comments
By your admission you weren't around. Ask those who were if things were different then. At the time of it's death, the topics were Clinton and The Path To 9/11, and the elections. Same ol stuff.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
<< <i>so, those of you that have a "problem" with IGWT being on our coinage....
Am I to assume you don't collect any coinage with this phrase on it or it is ok to collect and/or spend?
I would think if you feel that strong about it, you'd do neither. >>
It's all fiat crap that our government forces us to use.
They know that we can't put our trust in the value of base metals!
No one is forcing you to do anything. Ever hear of direct deposit, check cards, checks, debit cards, credit cards, etc.
The mods have spoken!
<< <i>That said YN was not even supposed to be there but wouldn't stay away? >>
Why was said "YN" not supposed to be there?
Russ, NCNE
btw....it shouldn't matter....it is a privately owned board that was publically viewable....people should have acted like more responsible adults.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>but, for the record, it is my understanding that the person you refer to as YN is actually in college. >>
That's also what I understand.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>it simply means that there should be no state sponsored national religion such as The Church of England was. >>
I would argue that devices such as IGWT represent a de facto establishment, or at least, acknowledgement, of a religion, and is therefore unconstitutional even if we discount the concept of separation of Church and State.
<< <i>
<< <i>it simply means that there should be no state sponsored national religion such as The Church of England was. >>
I would argue that devices such as IGWT represent a de facto establishment, or at least, acknowledgement, of a religion, and is therefore unconstitutional even if we discount the concept of separation of Church and State. >>
What religion is it sponsoring or acknowledging?
<< <i><< it simply means that there should be no state sponsored national religion such as The Church of England was. >>
I would argue that devices such as IGWT represent a de facto establishment, or at least, acknowledgement, of a religion, and is therefore unconstitutional even if we discount the concept of separation of Church and State. >>
You are, of course, wrong. The motto does not interfere with anybody's choice of religion in this country, and that is the crux of the issue.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>What religion is it sponsoring or acknowledging? >>
A religion whose members believe in God.
even though some Americans don't believe that there is such a being
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>You are, of course, wrong. >>
No, you're wrong.
We can do this all day, if you like
<< <i>no actual religion is acknowledged. So we could say it stands for all religions who believe in a creator. >>
Fair enough. So that excludes religions that do not believe in a creator, as well as atheists.
<< <i>That would include all religions in this country which I doubt will change our coins just because a few do not approve. >>
Otherwise known as the tyranny of the majority. Atheists are the last group which can openly be discriminated against without fear of reprisal. Even homosexuals have more political clout than we do.
In any case, I pretty much said everything I had to say on this subject there, which put succinctly is that I am opposed to having IGWT on coins because on the one hand I believe it encroaches on the Democracy our Founding Fathers set up for us, while on the other I feel it does a disservice to religion by rendering the spiritual ubiquitous.
With regards to this comment:
<< <i>...no actual religion is acknowledged... >>
that may be true, however, in addition to athiests, Hindus are excluded because they beleive in many gods, and so are Bhudists who beleive in enlightenment - are any of these people fundementally less American than those who believe in one God? Is it right that they should be excluded by a motto on our coinage?
>>>My Collection
<< <i>Too bad the other threads went away - I thought the debate was on topic and for the most part polite, at least by the standards of the old OF anyway.
In any case, I pretty much said everything I had to say on this subject there, which put succinctly is that I am opposed to having IGWT on coins because on the one hand I believe it encroaches on the Democracy our Founding Fathers set up for us, while on the other I feel it does a disservice to religion by rendering the spiritual ubiquitous.
With regards to this comment:
<< <i>...no actual religion is acknowledged... >>
that may be true, however, in addition to athiests, Hindus are excluded because they beleive in many gods, and so are Bhudists who beleive in enlightenment - are any of these people fundementally less American than those who believe in one God? Is it right that they should be excluded by a motto on our coinage? >>
Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere.
<< <i>Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere. >>
You're comparing 'Phil from Tenth Ave.' to all of the Hindus and Bhudists living in America?
The First Amendmant states this:
<< <i>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; >>
Hinduism & Bhudism are among the most respected religions in the world, yet in light of the fact that one believes in many Gods and the other all but forgoes the concept of God altogether, I fail to see how the presence of 'IGWT' on our nation's coinage reconciles with the Constitution.
Other notable polytheists are some of the many of the tribes of Native Americans - how well does the motto 'IGWT' represent them?
I find your point about 'Liberty' and 'United States of America' being offensive to some irrelevent given the fact that there is nothing vaguely unconstitutional about either.
Respectfully ~ Artist
>>>My Collection
<< <i>Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere. >>
It's not about being offensive -- you're missing the point. It's about constitutionality.
<< <i>
<< <i>no actual religion is acknowledged. So we could say it stands for all religions who believe in a creator. >>
Fair enough. So that excludes religions that do not believe in a creator, as well as atheists.
<< <i>That would include all religions in this country which I doubt will change our coins just because a few do not approve. >>
Otherwise known as the tyranny of the majority. Atheists are the last group which can openly be discriminated against without fear of reprisal. Even homosexuals have more political clout than we do. >>
Are you gaybashing? Just continuing the politically correct BS...
<< <i>It's not about being offensive -- you're missing the point. It's about constitutionality. >>
I don't think the Constitutional argument is an open-and-shut case. I can understand the interpretation, but I don't think putting IGWT on a coin violates the establishment clause. It arguably violates the spirit of it, I guess, but I think that does nothing to establish a national religion.
IMO the whole issue is much ado about nothing one way *or* the other.
"Pick Your Deity" We Trust
For a country preaching freedom of religion and an implied separation of church and state, it's a shame that our government got to pick the deity that everyone must put their trust in.
the question was: Since when is "In God We Trust" on our coinage not a coin related subject ???
Is it a coin topic? Yes or No
If it is or isn't a coin topic why?
I don't think whay someone believes or what the founding fathers thought or if you think it should be there or not has anything to do with the original question.
So lets stay on topic.
<< <i>So lets stay on topic. >>
I believe I answered that in the first reply in this thread.
<< <i>I don't think the Constitutional argument is an open-and-shut case. >>
I agree wholeheartedly. It's certainly not open-and-shut, despite what many of the pro-IGWT folk would have one believe. If the Constitution weren't open for interpretation, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. The fact that an entire branch of government is dedicated to this purpose shows that interpreting the Constitution is not a trivial matter.
<< <i>I can understand the interpretation, but I don't think putting IGWT on a coin violates the establishment clause. It arguably violates the spirit of it, I guess, but I think that does nothing to establish a national religion. >>
IGWT certainly does not "establish" a national Church-of-England style religion, but I would suggest that IGWT does explicitly endorse religion, and that is contrary to the "spirit" of the Constitution, and especially when early writings of the founding fathers are considered along with.
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't forget to include Phil from Tenth Ave. who believes that the apple tree in his neighbors yard is the ultimate being and all the apples are his saints.......if we follow the logic you are pursuing then take LIBERTY off the coinage as well as EPU and USofA because they must offend someone somewhere. >>
It's not about being offensive -- you're missing the point. It's about constitutionality. >>
Bob--I got your point 100%. Let me also add that although I disagree on this, your point is 100% on target and you continue to logically state your case.
If I had to bet on one side in a debate I wouldn't bet against you.
I want is off the coins because I think the Ninth and Tenth Circuits were wrong in their interpretation of the motto and because the Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of "religion in general" as well as any particular religion. I have no problem with the government acknowledging religion. You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to know that religion is alive and well in this country; but it's not the governments place to support it.
Actually, Russ, I believe you are wrong. The crux of the issue is the wisdom and principle behind having an endorsement of monotheism and a call to trust in it, by our public servants. It's not about religion interfering or infringing via IGWT, or about interfering with a choice of religion as you stated - it's about the principle of not being all-inclusive using tax dollars and the wisdom of keeping Government and religion out of bed with each other using tax dollars whenever we reasonably can. The founders didn't put it on the money for a reason, just like the disallowed religious instruction from the first tax-funded public school system for a reason. Your view of the subject is too narrow and misses the big picture and principle at play. Many great things are done on principle (like the Constitution) even though one could point out no direct harm from a particular point of view, as you have done.
I also find it amusing the many people here have heart attacks over a topic not being purely coins, as if some politics or religion mixed in is going to ruin the quality of the threads or the environment - yet say nothing when personal attacks and other juvenile baloney are engaged in (as if those are harmless).
Carry on and thanks for reading.
- Frank
The political and religious debates behind our defining reasons are what cause the threads to be deleted.....
___________________________
click to email me
ronsrarecoin.com
ebay auctions for ronsrarecoin-com
Here's some help...There is a separation of church and state such that no individual church or denomination is singled out. It begs to the freedom to practice any religion based on any individual faith. There is a separation from any specific church or specific religion from our government (hence separation of church and state); however; we are a nation founded to allow for religious freedom (check your history for the 1600's and see what the situation was in England regarding religious freedom, or see below). The opportunity to believe in any God of individual choice and the freedom to believe in the faith of individual choice is one of the foundations of our country. Therefore, we have IGWT as our national motto. Note that it doesn't say In Baptist We Trust or In Catholicism We Trust (duh?). There is no offical religion of the government and there is no opportunity for the church to tax citizens...we do indeed have separation of the church from the state. the opportunity to practice the religion of choice is protected by our constitution and a basis for the foundation of our form of government...what's so hard to understand here? So, it is very appropriate to have In God We Trust on US coins.
Just for fun:
"From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861. An Act of Congress, approved on April 11, 1864, authorized the coinage of two-cent coins upon which the motto first appeared.
The motto was omitted from the new gold coins issued in 1907, causing a storm of public criticism. As a result, legislation passed in May 1908 made "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins on which it had previously appeared.
Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the United States.
Several years ago, the appearance of "In God We Trust" on our money was challenged in the federal courts. The challenge was rejected by the lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case."
Here's a little help for the misguided and unpracticed in American History. This is from a 1st grade teachers manual, just to make it easy.)
"1 The time was the early 1600's. The place was England. The century before had seen the Protestant Reformation, and the Church of England was now the official church. A person could not choose to join a different church.
2 By the 1600's, some members of the Church of England felt that changes were needed. Some people tried to change the church from within; others decided to leave and start their own congregation. Those who decided to leave became known as the Separatists.
3 Because leaving the church was not allowed, the Separatists soon had to flee the country. In 1609, a group of Separatists led by William Brewster fled to Holland and settled in the town of Leiden.
4 The Separatists lived in Leiden for years, but never quite felt at home there. It wasn't like England where they had grown up. They couldn't own their own land there either. They thought about leaving Holland.
5 In 1620, they found merchants who were interested in financing a voyage to America. Forty-one members of the Leiden congregation decided to sail for America. Along with 61 other English people, they set sail in September aboard the Mayflower. Just before they left Holland, the Separatists celebrated a Fasting Day in their church to pray for God's guidance on the long journey to come."
Enjoy
<< <i>Where's ..Wogee.. when you really need him..?!?!?! >>
Nah, we need PMH and FF here to turn this into a multi-hundred thread...
Ah well...
Chicolini: Mint? No, no, I no like a mint. Uh - what other flavor you got?
<< <i>because the Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of "religion in general" as well as any particular religion. >>
The Establishment Clause doesn't prohibit the endorsement of religion, it prohibits a state sanctioned church. In fact, by virtue of that prohibition and the freedom it guarantees, it actually "endorses" all religions.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Therefore, we have IGWT as our national motto. Note that it doesn't say In Baptist We Trust or In Catholicism We Trust (duh?). >>
Yes, but it may as well say in Hinduism, Bhudism, or any other polytheist indigenous American religion we DO NOT trust, so in that sense it does favor some religions over others, and that, IMHO, is why IGWT violates the First Amendment.
>>>My Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>Therefore, we have IGWT as our national motto. Note that it doesn't say In Baptist We Trust or In Catholicism We Trust (duh?). >>
Yes, but it may as well say in Hinduism, Bhudism, or any other polytheist indigenous American religion we DO NOT trust, so in that sense it does favor some religions over others, and that, IMHO, is why IGWT violates the First Amendment. >>
You are going to have to clear up where the First Amendment is on this one.
<< <i>If they can find a judge to rule a cross on public land is government sponsorship of a specific religion, they will have no problems finding a judge on this issue. Next all crosses will be removed from highways (and places like Arlington National Cemetary). The Supreme Court building will need to be demolished and re-built due to the Ten Commandments being built into it. We are no longer a land of the people, but a land where the minority pushes their beliefs on the majority. >>
There are countless instances in American History where it got justly determined that the will of the majority did not reconcile with the protections afforded by the Constitution. Not trying to offend you, I'm just making an ongoing point about why I believe the original motto for this Country, E Pluribus Unum, I think better serves its citizenry.
Respectfully ~ Artist
>>>My Collection
<< <i>You are going to have to clear up where the First Amendment is on this one. >>
The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The motto IGWT respects the establishment of monotheist religions, but does not respect the establishment of the others that I list.
>>>My Collection
I am in total agreement with you.
I also want to report that I have received no further threats over my initial posting of the IGWT threads.
Thank you
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
<< <i>Essentially, Carol will allow you to state whether you are for or against IGWT on coinage, but not why......
The political and religious debates behind our defining reasons are what cause the threads to be deleted..... >>
So, mentioning the words of Theodore Roosevelt will get your post deleted? Amazing...
and from a company that my shipments are delayed for a week or so because I cannot get them to fix their
records that I am at
PO Box 150411
Fort Worth, TX 76108
not
PO Box 76108
Fort Worth, TX 76108
<< <i>and from a company that my shipments are delayed for a week or so because I cannot get them to fix their
records that I am at
PO Box 150411
Fort Worth, TX 76108
not
PO Box 76108
Fort Worth, TX 76108 >>
I guess it's PCGS fault that you can't figure out how to log in to your account and change your default shipping address?
Russ, NCNE
Incorrect, again. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that RESPECT an establishment of religion. The Government is not supposed to use tax dollars to promote a religion and IGWT promotes not only a monotheistic religion, but calls for us all to trust in it. The first Amendment is not just about prohibiting a state-sanctioned church - you made that up or bought into that from somewhere. It's about prohibiting laws that respect a religion. It doesn't have to be "state-sanctioned" it can just be something small that shows a part of Government favoring a particular religion - tax code, real estate allotment, etc. In other words, it doesn't have to be a law that sanctions a church or religion, it can be a law that works toward it.
Why do you think the Founders cited the First Amendment as a chief reason they had to disallow religious instruction of ANY KIND in the first tax-funded public school system?
Coinage sporting a particular religious view minted by our Government using our tax dollars crosses the line to any clear-thinking person.
re:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
<< <i>If they can find a judge to rule a cross on public land is government sponsorship of a specific religion >>
Ask a Jew if he or she thinks a cross is not a sponsorship of a specific religion.
Great point. As rare in these parts as it may be, now ask someone who worships in more than one God doesn't think the monotheistic promotion on our coinage isn't excluding them as well. Also, millions of Americans do not"trust" in someones idea about an Invisible Superbeing - why should they be excluded unnecessarily as if they don't count?
actually, I disagree with that.
I'm not a Christian or even a monotheist. I define "God" as, "The Nature of the Universe"
By that definition, even a freethinking scientist like myself can honor IGWT
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry