<< <i>Some of our Founding Fathers were atheists. Ben Franklin comes to mind. As far as atheists not believing in anything, I don't think that's true. Some people believe in doing the right things in life simply for the sake of doing the right thing, not because of some eternal reward or punishment.
I don't think the motto will be removed, but I think it should be. >>
Actually he believed in God,and made many comments about Divine Providence.However was not a Christian and did not believe that Jesus Christ was God's son. Just thought I'd clear that up...
The motto on our money is a reflection of the values that the vast majority in our nation believe. We are, as the pledge says; "one nation under GOD." That is still the majority view; and it is a VAST majority view. The atheist mindset is VERY VERY far in the minority; even fringe.
It is an absolute fact that America is unquestionably and overwhelmingly a Christian nation by majority. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian. The "motto" on our money is merely a humble human expression of our LOVE and thankfulness to the Almighty Creator GOD who has richly and powerfully blessed our fantastic nation. I'm confident the motto will stay on U.S. money. It will never leave our coinage. Those who don't like it will have to get used to it. matteproof
How many people are into a positive view of one God is immaterial to whether or not Government should be in the business of affirming that. Using tax dollars to unnecessarily meddle religion and Government is a matter of principle, not polls. The Founders did not put God on everyone's money and were into being inclusive when it came to Government.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
I'm not a religious person although I do at times feel there's some "greater presence" (i.e. Nature beyond human comprehension). Call it what you will (God?) but a generic God is how I always understood the motto. It's certainly not going to convert me into believing in anyone else's idea of God just because I see it on my money.
My vote would be for removal. It really doesn't serve much of a purpose IMHO, just additional decoration. But if it stays it really doesn't bother me that much since I don't view it as a Christian only message anyway.
However if a clearly Muslim message were to be used, I wouldn't be very pleased. I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime.
-Bob collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens. The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
Hi FoundingFather. You said; "How many people are into a positive view of one God is immaterial to whether or not Government should be in the business of affirming that..." In a sense, I agree with you. However, American government has always affirmed "GOD" in many ways throughout the public domain. Even the most casual read of Washington, Henry, to mention only a very few, illustate this very clearly.
For example, we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving; a holiday for which George Washington invoked the use of GOD's name repeatedly, splendidly and overwhelmingly. Many of the founding fathers presented their passion for GOD in the public setting in a myriad of ways. GOD is very much a part of America's history and dynamic in the historical sense; even if one does not like it in the heavenly sense. The word GOD has as much historical justification on coinage as does the word Liberty or the heraldic and other eagles that grace the reverses of many U.S. coinage series.
Perhaps most important is the "spirit" behind the motto. It is a spirit that reflects American values; and while we are not always on our "best" behavior, America is still the shining light, the "DCAM" and Rainbow toning over the rest of the dipped out world. That is only because GOD still reigns in our hearts, souls and National identity and with it the pure originality that IS America.
You said; "Using tax dollars to unnecessarily meddle religion and Government is a matter of principle, not polls..." Again, I tend to agree with you. However, the motto being part of a coins design has little to do with tax dollars spent. In addition, the motto on coin design does not specifically promote or meddle in religion. If it said; "In Catholics We Trust" or "In Baptists We Trust," then I would see your point. Thankfully, it does not say that. matteproof
<< <i>The motto on our money is a reflection of the values that the vast majority in our nation believe. We are, as the pledge says; "one nation under GOD." That is still the majority view; and it is a VAST majority view. The atheist mindset is VERY VERY far in the minority; even fringe.
It is an absolute fact that America is unquestionably and overwhelmingly a Christian nation by majority. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian. The "motto" on our money is merely a humble human expression of our LOVE and thankfulness to the Almighty Creator GOD who has richly and powerfully blessed our fantastic nation. I'm confident the motto will stay on U.S. money. It will never leave our coinage. Those who don't like it will have to get used to it. matteproof >>
You know, I see poll results all the time about what Americans believe. And yes, I know what they often show. But when I think about the lunchroom conversations at work, I'd say a good third of the employees are agnostic/atheist. And another third are what I call the "pick-and-choose" Christians. They were brought up Lutheran or Catholic, but no longer attend church and do not subscribe to all of the dogmas associated with the churches. They really just hope there is a god, and would classify themselves as Christians if asked. I think many of them are afraid to express doubt in religion because of the expectations of their family. You've also got people like my brother, who honestly couldn't care less if there is a god or not, but attends church with his wife to keep the peace. The other third are active Christians.
Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk.
<< <i>The Constitution makes no requirement that our money be backed by gold or silver. It only prohibits the STATES from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender. There is no such prohibition against the federal government. >>
The Federal Government doesn't issue "our" money anyway. That task is performed by the private Federal Reserve bank.
Hi gulliblenewb. You said; "But when I think about the lunchroom conversations at work, I'd say a good third of the employees are agnostic/atheist.." Yes, I hear you. However, an atheist by definition is someone who flatly does not believe that "GOD" exists. A person can behave poorly, engage in salty lunchroom conversations (porno and all) and STILL believe in GOD; thus they would not be atheist. On the other side of the coin, there are some atheists who behave wonderfully, do not engage in salty lunchroom conversations yet do not believe in GOD. So, bad behavior and tainted lunchroom conversations are not the measuring stick for either believers or atheists. It is belief in GOD or non-belief in GOD that defines the terms.
You said; "Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk." Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind. However, it is estimated that atheists and agnositcs combined represent about 3% of America with 9% the most aggressive estimate; and agnostics are hardly atheists. I perceive that to be low enough to be considered fringe. Incidentally, I don't think that the word "fringe" is negative per-se. It just means that it is distinctly in the minority. By contrast, Christians claim 85% of Americas mindset. So, in other words, the Christians win the numbers by a landslide; and in my humble view they win the heavenly by a landslide too. matteproof
<< <i> It is an absolute fact that America is unquestionably and overwhelmingly a Christian nation by majority. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian. The "motto" on our money is merely a humble human expression of our LOVE and thankfulness to the Almighty Creator GOD who has richly and powerfully blessed our fantastic nation. I'm confident the motto will stay on U.S. money. It will never leave our coinage. Those who don't like it will have to get used to it. matteproof
You said; "Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk." Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind. However, it is estimated that atheists and agnositcs combined represent about 3% of America with 9% the most aggressive estimate; and agnostics are hardly atheists. I perceive that to be low enough to be considered fringe. Incidentally, I don't think that the word "fringe" is negative per-se. It just means that it is distinctly in the minority. By contrast, Christians claim 85% of Americas mindset. So, in other words, the Christians win the numbers by a landslide; and in my humble view they win the heavenly by a landslide too. matteproof >>
This is parts of two different posts but this could be understood to mean that as long as a minority is sufficiently small then at least some of their rights can be trampled. If you can show that one group or the other is better then maybe the solution would be simple erad- ication. This has been tried through out history to usually no good effect, but it might work this time.
Seriously, the size of the minority is totally irrelevant to whether or not this motto should be on the currency or whether it should be removed. This country was founded on the rights of all individuals, these rights were not based on their status of being African, Polish, Atheist, Christian, White, Female, Handicapped or any other type of Hyphenated-American. They were based on the inalienable rights granted by their creator(s). They were ripped from a far away king at huge human cost so that we might all pursue life, liberty, and hap- piness. Muslins, Druids, Atheists, Polytheists and every individual has the right to this pur- suit without any religion being foisted on their money. Christians, too, have a right to not be exposed to a culture which grants rights only to hyphenated people and sufficiently large minorities.
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. You said; "But when I think about the lunchroom conversations at work, I'd say a good third of the employees are agnostic/atheist.." Yes, I hear you. However, an atheist by definition is someone who flatly does not believe that "GOD" exists. A person can behave poorly, engage in salty lunchroom conversations (porno and all) and STILL believe in GOD; thus they would not be atheist. On the other side of the coin, there are some atheists who behave wonderfully, do not engage in salty lunchroom conversations yet do not believe in GOD. So, bad behavior and tainted lunchroom conversations are not the measuring stick for either believers or atheists. It is belief in GOD or non-belief in GOD that defines the terms.
You said; "Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk." Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind. However, it is estimated that atheists and agnositcs combined represent about 3% of America with 9% the most aggressive estimate; and agnostics are hardly atheists. I perceive that to be low enough to be considered fringe. Incidentally, I don't think that the word "fringe" is negative per-se. It just means that it is distinctly in the minority. By contrast, Christians claim 85% of Americas mindset. So, in other words, the Christians win the numbers by a landslide; and in my humble view they win the heavenly by a landslide too. matteproof >>
I would ask you to look at this page, and comment.... There are several items on there of interest.
The percentage of American adults who identify themselves as Christians dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001. Agnosticism, Atheism, secularism are growing rapidly.
I don't think things are as rosy for Christianity as you paint them.
And oh yes, porn and lots of stuff gets discussed. But the lines have been distinctly drawn on who believes what with regard to a god.
This is a topic that people will NEVER agree on. The length of this thread, and the heated debate here, is proof that church and state most definitely should be kept separate, whether the constitution explicity says so or not.
And if you follow some of the poll links on that page, you'll find this:
One of the most important pieces of religious information is that about 76% of American adults consider themselves to be Christians. This value appears to be dropping at almost one percentage point per year. If this rate holds, then most Americans will not consider themselves Christian by late in the 2020's.
However, this datum does not tell us anything about the seriousness with which adults consider their faith. One source described the results of a 1993 in-depth survey of about 4,000 American adults. They concluded that:
30% are totally secular in outlook. 29% are barely or nominally religions. 22% are modestly religious. 19% regularly practice their religion.
Edited to add the cited reference for the numbers above:
Thomas C. Reeves, "The Empty Church: Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore?" Simon & Schuster: New York, NY (1998), Page. 64." Cited in http://www.adherents.com/Na_169.html under the topic "religious - modestly"
Hi Matteproof, I appreciate your tone. It's spiteful, juvenile, disingenuous and evil, just like mine. Only yours is more direct (see: "Hi Founding Father).
"However, American government has always affirmed "GOD" in many ways throughout the public domain. Even the most casual read of Washington, Henry, to mention only a very few, illustate this very clearly."
There is nothing wrong with people affirming God or being religious. That's a different animal than coercing others to be, excluding them if they are not, or promoting it. That's why Jefferson found Constitutional problems with having religious instruction in a tax-funded public school system, or why it's OK for a politician to favor one religion, but not his State. Also, please note that everyone also affirmed racism, sexism, slavery, and religious discrimination as well in the culture at that time. The principles and framework of the Constitution was not put in place to reflect the crowd, but the time-tested facts about protecting freedom. That's why there is a disconnect between what the Founders or the people at the time liked, and what the Founders bound future generations to. Printing God-Spin on money is something they did not do for future generations.
"For example, we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving; a holiday for which George Washington invoked the use of GOD's name repeatedly, splendidly and overwhelmingly."
See above to see why I think a President mentioning God is a different animal. Also, please note that the Proclamation was written before the First Amendment was constructed ... and that Jefferson broke this new tradition with his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists.
"Many of the founding fathers presented their passion for GOD in the public setting in a myriad of ways. GOD is very much a part of America's history and dynamic in the historical sense; even if one does not like it in the heavenly sense. The word GOD has as much historical justification on coinage as does the word Liberty or the heraldic and other eagles that grace the reverses of many U.S. coinage series."
I disagree since eagles hadn't proven to be the massive foe to freedom that Organized Religion was. They were cool with God and religion, just not coerced or imposed through Government. Also, slavery and racism was as much a part of the culture as Bible Class -- in fact, religious was very often used to defend it. So again, the current culture or love of this or that is not what the Founders went by. They are revolutionary for having NOT gone by that stuff and instead, respecting the history about Government and God-Spin in bed together.
"...However, the motto being part of a coins design has little to do with tax dollars spent."
I disagree -- the coins arrive to you using tax dollars. They ARE our tax dollars. They are tax-funded, minted by employees of the People, and Government-regulated.
"In addition, the motto on coin design does not specifically promote or meddle in religion. If it said; "In Catholics We Trust" or "In Baptists We Trust," then I would see your point. Thankfully, it does not say that."
It doesn't blatantly promote one sect or a specific Organized Religion, but the basic point and principle still stands since not everyone believes in God, or in One God, or that we should all believe that it isn't crazy to trust our affairs to a God. Your point here, I believe, is that it doesn't offend a particular sect because it is too generic. But I believe an oversight here on your part is that you assume that offending a particular sect is somehow less "wrong" than offending the agnostics or polytheists or atheists. In addition, it offends those who do not want to unnecessarily allow an already oversized Federal Mint put God billboards on our money as if we are all religious.
Thanks for reading.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
"It is not possible except for liberal attempts at rewritting history to argue that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs....."
It wasn't based upon Christian beliefs as it was based upon the timeless and basic principles of freedom which believe me, had no help from the Christian Institution in the past. Sometimes people like to make believe that "not stealing" or "being nice" or "don't kill" originate from the Bible. Morals and values existed before and outside the Christian faith. Christianity merely houses some of them, along with some other ones I'm not crazy about. Our morals and values come from the common sense observation of our human social structure. Monkeys do the same, which is why even a monkey knows its "bad" to steal.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
FF, regarding "it was based upon the timeless and basic principles of freedom which believe me, had no help from the Christian Institution in the past."
This is not true. It is true that altruistic principles that we associate with Christianity are found in other major religions of the world, and also in many so-called "primitive" cultures. However (and with specific regard to our European roots), if you look at the tribes who lived in what is now much of Western Europe, they very definitely were not "nice", and they did not adhere to commandments against stealing and killing. It is very criticize the institution of Christianity, and the bending of Christianity for political purpose. However, without the establishment of monastic outposts in Western Europe, and the gradual Christianization of Europe, our country, and our view of charity and freedom would never have come into being.
Christianity obviously did a bang-up job packaging and housing those values, but they still existed independent of and without. It would be absurd for Christianity not to have most of its values, considering the common sense no-nos in a human social structure. More importantly, and more to my point, Organized Religion (Christianity included) has been no friend to freedom. It's been a foe. The Founders were BIG on that and there are endless harsh criticisms by them on that, especially on Christianity.
Our System -- our Constitution -- is NOT based on any particular religion. It is based on an unprecedented Leashing of religion, but more broadly, on the principles of freedom and individual rights. It is based on limited Government and respecting the rights of the individual like never before. The Founders studied religion, people, history, and Government and were very clear that the conclusion to be drawn is to keep Organized Religion the frig away from Government power.
Organized Religion is inherently oppressive -- look at the 10 Commandments. The First one is against religious freedom, a cornerstone of our Nation. Then there are two others (Sabbath & Coveting) that reference the permanent servants or slaves that were obtained sometimes by capturing women and purchasing children. So, again, while Christianity houses some good values, so does a lot of other things. Of course the Founders and their culture were heavily influenced by Christianity, but what made them special was their ability to NOT base the Constitution on religious views, even though they appreciated private worship and God. They took great pains to base the Constitution on safer things for freedom. The Church did NOT get its way on that one, and the Church was NOT happy about it. The Founders said the greatest gift to mankind was what I am talking about.
Madison, in Defense of the Constitution, during the Ratification period: "...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind”
Just because Christianity was popular and housed some pre-existing values that a lot of people appreciated doesn't mean that the Bill of Rights or the Constitution in general is "based" upon it. In fact, if it was Christian land, I feel quite confident that the Church would never have approved of a Bill of Rights. It wouldn't have gotten past "all men are created equal" since it was supporting slavery, OR the First Amendment which would cut it short of power, OR the notion that we are to govern ourselves without the superstition and pretense of Christianity.
We see a conflict between the Bible being good for people and Organized Religion being bad for freedom. That's why it is so easy to debate it. I also submit to you that our System was partially based upon a FEAR of that Institution due to its track record with freedom.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
It's amazing to me that we're fighting a war against religious zealotry, and yet there are those who would prefer the same such religious zealotry in the US's government. Read Founding Father's posts, carefully. He's clearly done his history homework, while many of the pro-IGWT crowd seem to be parroting the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.
I beg to differ, but we are not fighting a war against religious zealots, we are fighting a war against people who want to kill us and others. If they were religious zealots who did not want to kill us and others we wouldn't care.
Hi foundingfather. Thank you for the follow up. You said; ”But I believe an oversight here on your part is that you assume that offending a particular sect is somehow less "wrong" than offending the agnostics or polytheists or atheists...” In theory, it would be ideal if everyone were happy and no one offended. However, there is always something that offends someone. If we renounced everything that offended someone there would be nothing left to renounce. Atheists represent a tiny amount of the National identity. Yet, if they had their way they would trump the rights of others (in this instance the massive majority) and impose their minority view upon the whole. I see this as unreasonable.
There were many “atheistic” spirits among the founding fathers (Paine, Jefferson) and each of them tried very hard to impose their latter day godless French inspired philosophies on America. Both of them died broke (or nearly so) and mostly in ruin. The bitterness, vindictiveness and the blatant hypocrisy that infected much of their lives was probably rooted in their godlessness; which finally did both of these men in. With their best efforts they could not make GOD “go away” from our National conscience (Jefferson even tried to edit GOD out of the Holy Bible with his tragic so-called “Jefferson bible”).
Washington understood the national conscience in a way that Jefferson and his Francophile sensibilities could not. 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.
Throughout our nation’s history we have embraced GOD over and over again because GOD is and always has been the underlying foundation of our National identity and power. This historical fact alone demands that the “motto” on our coinage remain for historical purposes at the very least.
You said; ”I disagree since eagles hadn't proven to be the massive foe to freedom that Organized Religion was...” I consider organized religion and GOD to be two entirely separate things. It is a common error to equate the one to the other. GOD is the creator and upholder of the Universe; organized religion is an entirely different thing of course. Thank you for your thoughts foundingfather. matteproof
Hi cladking. Thank you for the comments. I appreciate them. As I see it, every person is beautiful, special and unique. This is because each person is created by GOD in HIS image. Each person is created with the right to pursue his happiness; and each person should be treated with dignity and respect. Studying and debating opposing views are how we learn and grow. As I see it, the ideal path to growth, joy and justice is through a GOD centered foundation. I wish all could see it that way but I recognize that this is not the case. And so, it is a gift to have opportunity to reason with others; particularly those who do not agree. Only through dialogue, reason and GOD’s grace can truth be found. Thank you cladking. matteproof
Christians are quite simply getting out-bred by the competition, and it is inevitable that IGWT will be removed. It won't happen now, but I would guess it will in the next thirty years. Empires, cultures, and their religions have always come and gone, and so it will be with Chrisitanity.
Since 1944, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans whether they "believe in God or a universal spirit." The answers have always been 94% or more affirmative. These numbers have been so widely reported in academic articles, and the media that they have been almost etched in stone. However, the ISSP results are under 63%. The wide gap is probably due to the different wording of the question asked. The ISSP requires a degree of certainty of belief that is not present in the Gallup Poll. This shows that many Americans who believe in God are not that certain about their conviction. A similar drop is seen between the Gallup Poll and the ISSP poll over belief about life after death. American results are typically 75% and 55%. Again, the degree of certainty expected for a positive answer to the ISSP question is probably responsible for the difference. Many Americans seem to hope for life after death, but are not that certain that it exists.
Chrisitanity isn't going anywhere. Nor is the IGWT. Religious extremists who kill in the name of allah have two paths: Gitmo and Hell. With both being easy to get into and neither has any virgins. Newdow already lost once. This guy needs to speak for no one but himself. He can stand on a soapbox in DC if he wishes, thats fine. Until he is dragged to a church and forced to pray to God, or forced to bow to a US coin, then he has a case. Until then he needs to go sew or knit, whichever he prefers.
Yes, all you have to do is ignore history and put on rose colored glasses. Then the inquisition is no longer an attrocity, the crusades become completely different than Bin Laden's jihad... heck, matteproof probably has a godly explaination for all the catholic pedophile priests too. Must have been those evil kid's fault, since bad things don't happen to those who believe. Believers get rich and prosper. At least Jefferson didn't die deluded.
Hi gulliblenewb. Thank you for the links and information. You said; ”Christians are quite simply getting out-bred by the competition, and it is inevitable that IGWT will be removed.” I can see the basis of your point. However, I’m confident that those who identify as Christians will always remain the vast majority in America. It simply would not be America otherwise.
You said; ” Empires, cultures, and their religions have always come and gone, and so it will be with Chrisitanity.” Christianity has survived – thrived – for over 2000 years! Christianity has stubbornly refused to do anything but advance; by the grace of GOD. It will never go away.
The religion of Jefferson is unquestionably on the rise in America over these past ten years or so. The price to those who have been blinded is proving to be severe. Like Jefferson at the end of his bankrupt life, many Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs; all because of their lust for Jefferson's “material.” New bankruptcy laws assure their economic slavery. While this is purely on the physical side, it is symbolic of the degeneration that can occur when we replace the true GOD with Jefferson’s false material god. Earthly debt-ridden bankruptcy is symbolic of the spiritual bankruptcy that empowers it. Thank you gulliblenewb. matteproof
"In theory, it would be ideal if everyone were happy and no one offended. However, there is always something that offends someone. If we renounced everything that offended someone there would be nothing left to renounce. Atheists represent a tiny amount of the National identity. Yet, if they had their way they would trump the rights of others (in this instance the massive majority) and impose their minority view upon the whole. I see this as unreasonable."
Oh I agree that it's absurd to try and please everyone and make policy totally and always revolve around the goal of never offending anyone. It's normally impossible and undesirable for all the reasons you obviously would agree with. However, my point wasn't that SOMEONE was offended, it was, as you quoted me: ...you assume that offending a particular sect is somehow less "wrong" than offending the agnostics or polytheists or atheists.." So, let me clarify: you indicated that a generic use of God was good because it didn't offend one particular religion or sect -- but again, you are supposing that it is more valid to not offend a Buddhist than an atheist, agnostic, or polytheist. I find your response to be too unprincipled for my tastes, because your view is, basically, "well they fall in the category of too bad, can't please everyone" when you aren't willing to say that about some small but recognized religious minority in the Country -- even though their numbers may pale in comparison to the amount of atheists or agnostics. I've had people debate me and point out that being an agnostic or atheist is a religion, to show me I am being just as fanatical or as part of a Club as they are -- so my response back to them is, well then be consistent. The second point I'd like to make to you on this is that while you can't prevent everyone from being offended, it is obviously very important to take great pains not to do so when getting near some line to cross regarding meddling religion with Government. If we were talking about making french fries, then I'd agree with you. But when we are talking about doing things that are supposed to protect freedom from its known foes for centuries to come and need to stick to principle, then I believe it is wiser to play it safe, respect the fact that God was not on the money to begin with for a reason, and don't use tax-funded outlets to not just offend, but worry or exclude, agnostics and atheists alike (and of course, polytheists). I don't find it principled to exclude millions and millions of Americans with their own tax money though Government. "Can't please everyone" simply doesn't cut it.
God and Christian-specific language was purposefully left out of the Founding Documents, the first public school system purposefully left out religious instruction, the first Pledge purposefully left out God, the first money had no God, no religious test for office, no law allowed that even "respects" an establishing of religion, ... Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated. You could go on an on about how God was injected in this and that, and I could go on about how it was purposefully left out when it came to binding the public or using their tax dollars. I feel much better with my view because everything I always research pointed to us both being right -- that God and religion were important and involved, but that they took great pains to separate what's important to an individual and what a Government should endorse or spin. In my view, all the evidence demonstrates that there is a big difference between calling out God's name, claiming religion as an inspiration, or being religious and talking about its virtues ... and not coerce the public, either directly or indirectly, to affirm something religious. For you to be right, the mountain of evidence showing the great pains the Founders went through to be inclusive, even of atheists, would have to magically disappear. The mountains of evidence showing how the Founders made a clear distinction between personal adoration of religion and its benefits to society and drawing the line with using the Government to spin or promote it. Using money as a billboard for monotheism and calling for everyone to trust one God crossed the line.
"I consider organized religion and GOD to be two entirely separate things. It is a common error to equate the one to the other. GOD is the creator and upholder of the Universe; organized religion is an entirely different thing of course."
The Founders thought it wasn't justified to put "GOD" in the Constitution for the same reason it put Religion on an unprecedented Leash -- personal views should be kept personal, not Government-distributed as it is with "In God We Trust" on the money. I disagree with you that "the word GOD has as much historical justification on coinage as does the word Liberty or the heraldic and other eagles that grace the reverses of many U.S. coinage series" since eagles hadn't proven to be the massive foe to freedom that Government-sponsored, endorsed, promoted, or distributed religion has always been. If the word "GOD" has so much justifcattion and is so harmless, why did the Founders purposefully not put it in the Constitution? Even that point isn't key to me, because over time some things improve and some things go wrong, and I believe that putting God on the money was not necessary or ideal according to the principles of protecting freedom for the long-term.
"Thank you for your thoughts foundingfather."
Thank you for yours, and thanks for reading (assuming you did, heh).
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Hi Crito. Thank you for your thoughts. You said; ”matteproof probably has a godly explaination for all the catholic pedophile priests too. Must have been those evil kid's fault, since bad things don't happen to those who believe…” All pedophiles regardless of their faith should be put away for life and punished severely for their horrible crimes against humanity. You seem to make the classic error of confusing “religion” with GOD. They are different.
You said; ”At least Jefferson didn't die deluded..” He died deluded as he lived deluded. His entire Franco philosophy was as deluded as it is bankrupt. Jefferson, the man who correctly railed against slavery, continued to own them until the bitter end, refusing to let them go. Jefferson, the man who rightly believed in “free speech” insisted that the people should only be “told what they need to know” and tried to suppress free speech whenever it was not in his best interests (making a mockery of the so-called “Jeffersonian notion” which he himself never followed). Jefferson was so tainted by his quasi-atheistic French inspired materialism, that he ultimately degraded into the dark world of prejudice, hypocrisy, and arrogance; even the "tyranny" that he claimed to so loathe.
You said; ”Believers get rich and prosper..” Of course, faith and material prosperity are different things. It is not a sin to be poor. The brilliant sociologist Max Weber was the first to connect “the Protestant work ethic” to the massive financial growth, humanitarian charity and the rapid advancement of our fantastic nation in what was then industrialized America. Our nation’s power, prestige and might are all wrapped up in our GOD national identity. Thanks crito. matteproof
Well, Matteproof, we are going to totally disagree about Jefferson as well, since I consider him absolutely key to making the Founding Documents and decisions better for all -- and his type of life-view and ideology was absolutely necessary. His was the level head, not brainwashed by any religion, that made things more inclusive, more protected from the known foes to freedom, and helped make sure our System was not more based on myth, superstition, and pretense like the ones before it. Those that did not want to separate their personal views or assumptions about God always worked to dismember freedom in one way or the other -- the religious types that assumed it was OK to treat their FAITH AS FACT, and wanted to inject those presumptions into Government, were the foes to freedom. Jefferson was a true defender. The flaws you can come up with are no more impressive than the flaws of anyone.
But, I am going to skip that because one big topic is enough at one time
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>However, I’m confident that those who identify as Christians will always remain the vast majority in America. It simply would not be America otherwise. >>
The numbers indicate otherwise. Do you have anything to support this statement other than blind hope?
<< <i>The religion of Jefferson is unquestionably on the rise in America over these past ten years or so. The price to those who have been blinded is proving to be severe. Like Jefferson at the end of his bankrupt life, many Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs; all because of their lust for Jefferson's “material.” New bankruptcy laws assure their economic slavery. While this is purely on the physical side, it is symbolic of the degeneration that can occur when we replace the true GOD with Jefferson’s false material god. Earthly debt-ridden bankruptcy is symbolic of the spiritual bankruptcy that empowers it. Thank you gulliblenewb. matteproof >>
Oh I don't know about this one either. My wife and I only have the mortgage (and we purchased a house valued at only 3/5 of what we were approved for) and her car payment (which we financed for 5 years but are on pace to have paid off in 2.5). 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.
Now my boy Jefferson is getting too bad of a deal for me to be silent about! Do we really need to go into the religious people who have had terrible lives? Nah. Financial misfortune is not caused by a lack of faith or some outside force controlling you that some subjective view of some God would have shielded you from. There is no shortage of opportunity and the ability to be responsible and wise with money in America. Sure, some people have it bad and sure, there are victims of things, but I don't believe the evidence indicates that this would have been stopped if they just believed in Jesus more or something. Most of the bankruptcies I am familiar with can be easily traced back to a lack of good habits from childhood, focus, responsibility, or planning. I find the connection between being religious and financially responsible, or even a moral person, to be questionable to say the least. I have found that agnostics and atheists are just as principled and nice to live near or do business with. I have found no connection between better neighbors or friends and how religious they are. So many of the jerks I've known either go to Church or get bent a little when they find out I'm agnostic, and meanwhile, they almost all engage in behaviors I would not. Most Christians are really barely Christian at all, and financial responsibility, if anything, is easier to find with people who make no presumption that prayers will work or God will help them. My words are related to this topic because the presumption that religious people are better or somehow deserve or constitute a principled reason to have God billboards on our money, is problematic for me.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Gullible newb, your name says it all. You are very gullible. I bet you believe the Darwinist DOGMA about the "non intelligent" origin of life. Every where around us if we open our eyes we can see all sorts of things created by "intelligent design". I mean can anyone argue that the Boeing 747 airplane is not a creation of "intelligent design". A tornado did not move thru a junkyard and Zappo! A brand new 747 was born, even with fuel in the tanks. No it dont happen that way. The universe did not happen that way either. Just walk out in your yard at night and look at the Constellation ORION. Only an IDIOT could fail to see the intelligent design of that constellation. BTW look up the word ORION. It comes from a Hebrew word meaning "Light". You have made some bad choices in your life, I see black for you.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
<< <i>Gullible newb, your name says it all. You are very gullible. I bet you believe the Darwinist DOGMA about the "non intelligent" origin of life. Every where around us if we open our eyes we can see all sorts of things created by "intelligent design". I mean can anyone argue that the Boeing 747 airplane is not a creation of "intelligent design". A tornado did not move thru a junkyard and Zappo! A brand new 747 was born, even with fuel in the tanks. No it dont happen that way. The universe did not happen that way either. Just walk out in your yard at night and look at the Constellation ORION. Only an IDIOT could fail to see the intelligent design of that constellation. BTW look up the word ORION. It comes from a Hebrew word meaning "Light". You have made some bad choices in your life, I see black for you. >>
WOW, where did this little gem of a tirade come from? Did I mention ID anywhere? Is your coffee-maker on the fritz this morning, cupcake? Go wake up for awhile, then come back and try this all again, pumpkin.
<< <i>Every where around us if we open our eyes we can see all sorts of things created by "intelligent design". I mean can anyone argue that the Boeing 747 airplane is not a creation of "intelligent design". >>
No one invented the airplane. Like all inventions it was discovered by accident or in tiny little steps. The airplane was impossible before all its component parts were found. Without the wheel we'd still be in caves and without fire we'd also be shivering. It's not intelligence which has provided our riches and wealth, it's the ability to speak and understand. It's the ability to pass complex ideas to future generations because of the richness of vocabulary. As knowledge became greater than an individual could learn it became the invention of writing which made it possible for one to pick up where his ancestors left off. Even writing itself was not so much in- vented as it was discovered. It started with tokens used to represent farm commodities and the gradual realization in a succession of individuals that tokens weren't necessary if they could be recorded on a flat medium.
No. If you're looking for intelligence as most define it, you'll have to look toward a diety or per- haps a machine that some "person" will "invent" in the future.
Not having adequate answers to things from science as a reason to assert ID as fact is merely the individual wanting to feel good about their personal and subjective religious feelings, as they try desperately to make their FAITH into FACT. Not having answers to something is not evidence of ID or even a reason to call it a science. But, now we are REALLY deviating from the topic. If you want to be religious and believe this or that as your answers to the questions we all have, then good for you. That doesn't give you a principled reason to want every other American to have God billboards on their money.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Cladking, that is exactly my point. None of this world we live in nor the universe the earth lives in could have been possible without a "deity" at work in its creation, and the creation thereof proves the "deity" used intelligent design to accomplish the building of the universe and of course, by extension, what is here on earth. You misunderstood what I was saying I guess.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
Founding Fogger, I would like to see the motto changed to "In little gods we trust". Most of the people in the world today do just exactly that. All have some kind of "ISM" to call their own. Just one problem with that, it is not the "Real Thing". Of course we will all have to wait until we die, which for some may be sooner rather than later, to find out who is right and who is wrong. But find out we all will.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
<< <i>Founding Fogger, I would like to see the motto changed to "In little gods we trust". Most of the people in the world today do just exactly that. All have some kind of "ISM" to call their own. Just one problem with that, it is not the "Real Thing". Of course we will all have to wait until we die, which for some may be sooner rather than later, to find out who is right and who is wrong. But find out we all will. >>
So, uh, exactly what are your qualifications for the position of determining what "The Real Thing" is? I missed them somewhere...
<< <i>Gullible newb, your name says it all. You are very gullible. I bet you believe the Darwinist DOGMA about the "non intelligent" origin of life. >>
OK, now it's drifting into Open Forum material.
Keep it on topic, people. 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. It is an unconsitutional de facto establishment of religion, should never have been there in the first place, and should be removed.
Question for any dark-siders reading: just for curiousity's sake, what other nations mention the Deity on their coinage? It might be an interesting exercise to see who the US's peers are in this regard...
"Founding Fogger, I would like to see the motto changed to "In little gods we trust". Most of the people in the world today do just exactly that. All have some kind of "ISM" to call their own. Just one problem with that, it is not the "Real Thing". Of course we will all have to wait until we die, which for some may be sooner rather than later, to find out who is right and who is wrong. But find out we all will"
I'm not sure what you meant by "fogger." In any case, the world has always been, and still is, in far more danger from those that care too much about their religion or other people having only "little Gods" and who either want others to share it or want to support some way to effectively penalize, exclude, or outcast those who don't. Historically it has not been the people who are into "little gods or isms" as you point out. It's been the people who either fueled Organized Religion, weren't satisfied with keeping their worship private, or believed in the "big God" as they did everything from support the burning of books to racism and slavery. I will gladly take Little God Land over what Big God Land has always proven to be, which is a foe to freedom. Keep God mottos on your wall, not my money.
Flamino,
"Question for any dark-siders reading: just for curiousity's sake, what other nations mention the Deity on their coinage? It might be an interesting exercise to see who the US's peers are in this regard... "
I plan on doing that study -- it's too interesting to pass up. Great question!
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Gullible nub, I dont need any qualifications. All I have to do is to wait and see. If I am wrong, then I am just a dead animal lying in the road like you. But if I am right, you will be ashamed of your self. But so be it. What will be will be.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
<< <i>Cladking, that is exactly my point. None of this world we live in nor the universe the earth lives in could have been possible without a "deity" at work in its creation, and the creation thereof proves the "deity" used intelligent design to accomplish the building of the universe and of course, by extension, what is here on earth. You misunderstood what I was saying I guess. >>
I don't know.
But I do know that some people believe this deity is actuall many Gods and some don't recognize their God in our word for a deity. Many people see science as a God or even the great men of history like Buddha or Jesus Christ.
It would not seem appropriate that any such name be invoked on the currency even were we all the same faith.
Cladking, I agree with you on this one point. And that point is simply this. The motto should not be on our currency. But the reason I think it should not be on our currency is that I think it is in very poor taste and even borders on Blasphemy in the recognition of the GOD I belive in. GOD is not nearly as specific as it shoud be in my opinion. So it is best left off and just let it be blank. That would be ok by me.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
I agree.... what other countries have similar quotes on their coins? Could be interesting. Without looking, I would guess Israel for one. But what about the Moslem countries like Iran?
I myself.... I am secure enough in my relationship with my religion that I personnaly do not care whether IGWT is or is not on our coins. Immaterial to me. Although if I had to choose, would choose to take it off. Those who are secure in their relationship with God practice their beliefs in their day to day lives.... and do not need the words on their coins to be reminders, or whatever purpose. And of course those who do not believe in God certainly have no use for the words on the coins.
Just expressing my own opinion... nothing more, nothing less. Not condemning any other's opinions on this matter. As I said..... makes no difference to me. I am neither pleased nor offended by the words.
HOWEVER.... I DO have one problem if the words IGWT are removed from our coins. What will I use for the pick-up points for doubled dies?!!
<< <i>Gullible nub, I dont need any qualifications. All I have to do is to wait and see. If I am wrong, then I am just a dead animal lying in the road like you. But if I am right, you will be ashamed of your self. But so be it. What will be will be. >>
Just out of curiousity, how old are you? Speaking of ashamed, you should be of your posts.
You know, if I do find myself at the "pearly gates" someday, I'll be more than happy to say, "Oooops, my bad, you really do exist. And by the way, have you been watching what is going on down there? You're doing a shoddy job. A personal appearance now and then might help."
Hi foundingfather. Thank you again for the terrific exchanges. You said; "The second point I'd like to make to you on this is that while you can't prevent everyone from being offended, it is obviously very important to take great pains not to do so when getting near some line to cross regarding meddling religion with Government...." I hear your point, and it is valid. I suppose what we see different are the definitions of "religion" and "GOD." 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.
You said; "God and Christian-specific language was purposefully left out of the Founding Documents..." 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. For example; "....separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.." And later in the text; ".. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." There are many more historical and legal documents from our early Nation, many of them invoking the name of GOD. It is indisputable that the word, name, notion and concept of Almighty GOD is laden throughout our founding fathers documents, speeches, texts, assertions, and just about everything else that makes up America.
The Constitution of the United States does not prohibit GOD, the use of the word, diminish it, demand cessation from it's exhortation, reference or calling out to GOD, or restrict it, or amend it, remove it, or in any manner limit it. So GOD is not at issue in the Constitution, even if establishing a national religion is. If the Constitution restricted "GOD use," then the founding fathers could not have and would not have legally invoked the name of GOD in their many official writings, speeches, lectures, laws, gestures; and they would have broken the constitution every time they did so (which was often). Obviously, they did not think they were behaving unconstitutionally when they invoked GOD. Therefore, by their actions alone it is clear that the founding fathers understanding of the Constitutional substance relating to GOD differs dramatically from what the atheist community suggests. Thank you again for your follow ups foundingfather. matteproof
Comments
<< <i>Some of our Founding Fathers were atheists. Ben Franklin comes to mind. As far as atheists not believing in anything, I don't think that's true. Some people believe in doing the right things in life simply for the sake of doing the right thing, not because of some eternal reward or punishment.
I don't think the motto will be removed, but I think it should be. >>
Actually he believed in God,and made many comments about Divine Providence.However was not a Christian and did not believe that Jesus Christ was God's son. Just thought I'd clear that up...
It is an absolute fact that America is unquestionably and overwhelmingly a Christian nation by majority. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian. The "motto" on our money is merely a humble human expression of our LOVE and thankfulness to the Almighty Creator GOD who has richly and powerfully blessed our fantastic nation. I'm confident the motto will stay on U.S. money. It will never leave our coinage. Those who don't like it will have to get used to it.
Dave
My vote would be for removal. It really doesn't serve much of a purpose IMHO, just additional decoration. But if it stays it really doesn't bother me that much since I don't view it as a Christian only message anyway.
However if a clearly Muslim message were to be used, I wouldn't be very pleased. I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime.
collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens.
The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
For example, we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving; a holiday for which George Washington invoked the use of GOD's name repeatedly, splendidly and overwhelmingly. Many of the founding fathers presented their passion for GOD in the public setting in a myriad of ways. GOD is very much a part of America's history and dynamic in the historical sense; even if one does not like it in the heavenly sense. The word GOD has as much historical justification on coinage as does the word Liberty or the heraldic and other eagles that grace the reverses of many U.S. coinage series.
Perhaps most important is the "spirit" behind the motto. It is a spirit that reflects American values; and while we are not always on our "best" behavior, America is still the shining light, the "DCAM" and Rainbow toning over the rest of the dipped out world. That is only because GOD still reigns in our hearts, souls and National identity and with it the pure originality that IS America.
You said; "Using tax dollars to unnecessarily meddle religion and Government is a matter of principle, not polls..." Again, I tend to agree with you. However, the motto being part of a coins design has little to do with tax dollars spent. In addition, the motto on coin design does not specifically promote or meddle in religion. If it said; "In Catholics We Trust" or "In Baptists We Trust," then I would see your point. Thankfully, it does not say that.
<< <i>The motto on our money is a reflection of the values that the vast majority in our nation believe. We are, as the pledge says; "one nation under GOD." That is still the majority view; and it is a VAST majority view. The atheist mindset is VERY VERY far in the minority; even fringe.
It is an absolute fact that America is unquestionably and overwhelmingly a Christian nation by majority. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian. The "motto" on our money is merely a humble human expression of our LOVE and thankfulness to the Almighty Creator GOD who has richly and powerfully blessed our fantastic nation. I'm confident the motto will stay on U.S. money. It will never leave our coinage. Those who don't like it will have to get used to it.
You know, I see poll results all the time about what Americans believe. And yes, I know what they often show. But when I think about the lunchroom conversations at work, I'd say a good third of the employees are agnostic/atheist. And another third are what I call the "pick-and-choose" Christians. They were brought up Lutheran or Catholic, but no longer attend church and do not subscribe to all of the dogmas associated with the churches. They really just hope there is a god, and would classify themselves as Christians if asked. I think many of them are afraid to express doubt in religion because of the expectations of their family. You've also got people like my brother, who honestly couldn't care less if there is a god or not, but attends church with his wife to keep the peace. The other third are active Christians.
Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk.
<< <i>The Constitution makes no requirement that our money be backed by gold or silver. It only prohibits the STATES from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender. There is no such prohibition against the federal government. >>
The Federal Government doesn't issue "our" money anyway. That task is performed by the private Federal Reserve bank.
You said; "Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk." Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind. However, it is estimated that atheists and agnositcs combined represent about 3% of America with 9% the most aggressive estimate; and agnostics are hardly atheists. I perceive that to be low enough to be considered fringe. Incidentally, I don't think that the word "fringe" is negative per-se. It just means that it is distinctly in the minority. By contrast, Christians claim 85% of Americas mindset. So, in other words, the Christians win the numbers by a landslide; and in my humble view they win the heavenly by a landslide too.
<< <i>Well said, Matteproof.
Dave >>
Thank you Dave.
<< <i> It is an absolute fact that America is unquestionably and overwhelmingly a Christian nation by majority. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christian. The "motto" on our money is merely a humble human expression of our LOVE and thankfulness to the Almighty Creator GOD who has richly and powerfully blessed our fantastic nation. I'm confident the motto will stay on U.S. money. It will never leave our coinage. Those who don't like it will have to get used to it. matteproof
You said; "Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk." Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind. However, it is estimated that atheists and agnositcs combined represent about 3% of America with 9% the most aggressive estimate; and agnostics are hardly atheists. I perceive that to be low enough to be considered fringe. Incidentally, I don't think that the word "fringe" is negative per-se. It just means that it is distinctly in the minority. By contrast, Christians claim 85% of Americas mindset. So, in other words, the Christians win the numbers by a landslide; and in my humble view they win the heavenly by a landslide too.
This is parts of two different posts but this could be understood to mean that as long as
a minority is sufficiently small then at least some of their rights can be trampled. If you can
show that one group or the other is better then maybe the solution would be simple erad-
ication. This has been tried through out history to usually no good effect, but it might work
this time.
Seriously, the size of the minority is totally irrelevant to whether or not this motto should
be on the currency or whether it should be removed. This country was founded on the
rights of all individuals, these rights were not based on their status of being African, Polish,
Atheist, Christian, White, Female, Handicapped or any other type of Hyphenated-American.
They were based on the inalienable rights granted by their creator(s). They were ripped
from a far away king at huge human cost so that we might all pursue life, liberty, and hap-
piness. Muslins, Druids, Atheists, Polytheists and every individual has the right to this pur-
suit without any religion being foisted on their money. Christians, too, have a right to not
be exposed to a culture which grants rights only to hyphenated people and sufficiently large
minorities.
<< <i>Hi gulliblenewb. You said; "But when I think about the lunchroom conversations at work, I'd say a good third of the employees are agnostic/atheist.." Yes, I hear you. However, an atheist by definition is someone who flatly does not believe that "GOD" exists. A person can behave poorly, engage in salty lunchroom conversations (porno and all) and STILL believe in GOD; thus they would not be atheist. On the other side of the coin, there are some atheists who behave wonderfully, do not engage in salty lunchroom conversations yet do not believe in GOD. So, bad behavior and tainted lunchroom conversations are not the measuring stick for either believers or atheists. It is belief in GOD or non-belief in GOD that defines the terms.
You said; "Based on my personal experience, I think that your assertion that atheists are on the fringe is bunk." Fair enough. I won't try to change your mind. However, it is estimated that atheists and agnositcs combined represent about 3% of America with 9% the most aggressive estimate; and agnostics are hardly atheists. I perceive that to be low enough to be considered fringe. Incidentally, I don't think that the word "fringe" is negative per-se. It just means that it is distinctly in the minority. By contrast, Christians claim 85% of Americas mindset. So, in other words, the Christians win the numbers by a landslide; and in my humble view they win the heavenly by a landslide too.
I would ask you to look at this page, and comment.... There are several items on there of interest.
A page I Googled
Of Note:
The percentage of American adults who identify themselves as Christians dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001.
Agnosticism, Atheism, secularism are growing rapidly.
I don't think things are as rosy for Christianity as you paint them.
And oh yes, porn and lots of stuff gets discussed. But the lines have been distinctly drawn on who believes what with regard to a god.
One of the most important pieces of religious information is that about 76% of American adults consider themselves to be Christians. This value appears to be dropping at almost one percentage point per year. If this rate holds, then most Americans will not consider themselves Christian by late in the 2020's.
However, this datum does not tell us anything about the seriousness with which adults consider their faith. One source described the results of a 1993 in-depth survey of about 4,000 American adults. They concluded that:
30% are totally secular in outlook.
29% are barely or nominally religions.
22% are modestly religious.
19% regularly practice their religion.
Edited to add the cited reference for the numbers above:
Thomas C. Reeves, "The Empty Church: Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore?" Simon & Schuster: New York, NY (1998), Page. 64." Cited in http://www.adherents.com/Na_169.html under the topic "religious - modestly"
"However, American government has always affirmed "GOD" in many ways throughout the public domain. Even the most casual read of Washington, Henry, to mention only a very few, illustate this very clearly."
There is nothing wrong with people affirming God or being religious. That's a different animal than coercing others to be, excluding them if they are not, or promoting it. That's why Jefferson found Constitutional problems with having religious instruction in a tax-funded public school system, or why it's OK for a politician to favor one religion, but not his State. Also, please note that everyone also affirmed racism, sexism, slavery, and religious discrimination as well in the culture at that time. The principles and framework of the Constitution was not put in place to reflect the crowd, but the time-tested facts about protecting freedom. That's why there is a disconnect between what the Founders or the people at the time liked, and what the Founders bound future generations to. Printing God-Spin on money is something they did not do for future generations.
"For example, we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving; a holiday for which George Washington invoked the use of GOD's name repeatedly, splendidly and overwhelmingly."
See above to see why I think a President mentioning God is a different animal. Also, please note that the Proclamation was written before the First Amendment was constructed ... and that Jefferson broke this new tradition with his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists.
"Many of the founding fathers presented their passion for GOD in the public setting in a myriad of ways. GOD is very much a part of America's history and dynamic in the historical sense; even if one does not like it in the heavenly sense. The word GOD has as much historical justification on coinage as does the word Liberty or the heraldic and other eagles that grace the reverses of many U.S. coinage series."
I disagree since eagles hadn't proven to be the massive foe to freedom that Organized Religion was. They were cool with God and religion, just not coerced or imposed through Government. Also, slavery and racism was as much a part of the culture as Bible Class -- in fact, religious was very often used to defend it. So again, the current culture or love of this or that is not what the Founders went by. They are revolutionary for having NOT gone by that stuff and instead, respecting the history about Government and God-Spin in bed together.
"...However, the motto being part of a coins design has little to do with tax dollars spent."
I disagree -- the coins arrive to you using tax dollars. They ARE our tax dollars. They are tax-funded, minted by employees of the People, and Government-regulated.
"In addition, the motto on coin design does not specifically promote or meddle in religion. If it said; "In Catholics We Trust" or "In Baptists We Trust," then I would see your point. Thankfully, it does not say that."
It doesn't blatantly promote one sect or a specific Organized Religion, but the basic point and principle still stands since not everyone believes in God, or in One God, or that we should all believe that it isn't crazy to trust our affairs to a God. Your point here, I believe, is that it doesn't offend a particular sect because it is too generic. But I believe an oversight here on your part is that you assume that offending a particular sect is somehow less "wrong" than offending the agnostics or polytheists or atheists. In addition, it offends those who do not want to unnecessarily allow an already oversized Federal Mint put God billboards on our money as if we are all religious.
Thanks for reading.
It wasn't based upon Christian beliefs as it was based upon the timeless and basic principles of freedom which believe me, had no help from the Christian Institution in the past. Sometimes people like to make believe that "not stealing" or "being nice" or "don't kill" originate from the Bible. Morals and values existed before and outside the Christian faith. Christianity merely houses some of them, along with some other ones I'm not crazy about. Our morals and values come from the common sense observation of our human social structure. Monkeys do the same, which is why even a monkey knows its "bad" to steal.
This is not true. It is true that altruistic principles that we associate with Christianity are found in other major religions of the world, and also in many so-called "primitive" cultures. However (and with specific regard to our European roots), if you look at the tribes who lived in what is now much of Western Europe, they very definitely were not "nice", and they did not adhere to commandments against stealing and killing. It is very criticize the institution of Christianity, and the bending of Christianity for political purpose. However, without the establishment of monastic outposts in Western Europe, and the gradual Christianization of Europe, our country, and our view of charity and freedom would never have come into being.
Christianity obviously did a bang-up job packaging and housing those values, but they still existed independent of and without. It would be absurd for Christianity not to have most of its values, considering the common sense no-nos in a human social structure. More importantly, and more to my point, Organized Religion (Christianity included) has been no friend to freedom. It's been a foe. The Founders were BIG on that and there are endless harsh criticisms by them on that, especially on Christianity.
Our System -- our Constitution -- is NOT based on any particular religion. It is based on an unprecedented Leashing of religion, but more broadly, on the principles of freedom and individual rights. It is based on limited Government and respecting the rights of the individual like never before. The Founders studied religion, people, history, and Government and were very clear that the conclusion to be drawn is to keep Organized Religion the frig away from Government power.
Organized Religion is inherently oppressive -- look at the 10 Commandments. The First one is against religious freedom, a cornerstone of our Nation. Then there are two others (Sabbath & Coveting) that reference the permanent servants or slaves that were obtained sometimes by capturing women and purchasing children. So, again, while Christianity houses some good values, so does a lot of other things. Of course the Founders and their culture were heavily influenced by Christianity, but what made them special was their ability to NOT base the Constitution on religious views, even though they appreciated private worship and God. They took great pains to base the Constitution on safer things for freedom. The Church did NOT get its way on that one, and the Church was NOT happy about it. The Founders said the greatest gift to mankind was what I am talking about.
Madison, in Defense of the Constitution, during the Ratification period: "...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind”
Just because Christianity was popular and housed some pre-existing values that a lot of people appreciated doesn't mean that the Bill of Rights or the Constitution in general is "based" upon it. In fact, if it was Christian land, I feel quite confident that the Church would never have approved of a Bill of Rights. It wouldn't have gotten past "all men are created equal" since it was supporting slavery, OR the First Amendment which would cut it short of power, OR the notion that we are to govern ourselves without the superstition and pretense of Christianity.
We see a conflict between the Bible being good for people and Organized Religion being bad for freedom. That's why it is so easy to debate it. I also submit to you that our System was partially based upon a FEAR of that Institution due to its track record with freedom.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So far all of the people who get to decide if IGWT minted on coins is a violation of that rule have said No, it is not
Right or wrong, the law is only what Congress and the Supreme Court says it is.
Goodnight everybody
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
There were many “atheistic” spirits among the founding fathers (Paine, Jefferson) and each of them tried very hard to impose their latter day godless French inspired philosophies on America. Both of them died broke (or nearly so) and mostly in ruin. The bitterness, vindictiveness and the blatant hypocrisy that infected much of their lives was probably rooted in their godlessness; which finally did both of these men in. With their best efforts they could not make GOD “go away” from our National conscience (Jefferson even tried to edit GOD out of the Holy Bible with his tragic so-called “Jefferson bible”).
Washington understood the national conscience in a way that Jefferson and his Francophile sensibilities could not. 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.
Throughout our nation’s history we have embraced GOD over and over again because GOD is and always has been the underlying foundation of our National identity and power. This historical fact alone demands that the “motto” on our coinage remain for historical purposes at the very least.
You said; ”I disagree since eagles hadn't proven to be the massive foe to freedom that Organized Religion was...” I consider organized religion and GOD to be two entirely separate things. It is a common error to equate the one to the other. GOD is the creator and upholder of the Universe; organized religion is an entirely different thing of course. Thank you for your thoughts foundingfather.
Of interest:
Since 1944, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans whether they "believe in God or a universal spirit." The answers have always been 94% or more affirmative. These numbers have been so widely reported in academic articles, and the media that they have been almost etched in stone. However, the ISSP results are under 63%. The wide gap is probably due to the different wording of the question asked. The ISSP requires a degree of certainty of belief that is not present in the Gallup Poll. This shows that many Americans who believe in God are not that certain about their conviction.
A similar drop is seen between the Gallup Poll and the ISSP poll over belief about life after death. American results are typically 75% and 55%. Again, the degree of certainty expected for a positive answer to the ISSP question is probably responsible for the difference. Many Americans seem to hope for life after death, but are not that certain that it exists.
Not a US coin of course, but its nice. Also a scan not a real nice pic, like most of you take.
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
You said; ” Empires, cultures, and their religions have always come and gone, and so it will be with Chrisitanity.” Christianity has survived – thrived – for over 2000 years! Christianity has stubbornly refused to do anything but advance; by the grace of GOD. It will never go away.
The religion of Jefferson is unquestionably on the rise in America over these past ten years or so. The price to those who have been blinded is proving to be severe. Like Jefferson at the end of his bankrupt life, many Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs; all because of their lust for Jefferson's “material.” New bankruptcy laws assure their economic slavery. While this is purely on the physical side, it is symbolic of the degeneration that can occur when we replace the true GOD with Jefferson’s false material god. Earthly debt-ridden bankruptcy is symbolic of the spiritual bankruptcy that empowers it. Thank you gulliblenewb.
"In theory, it would be ideal if everyone were happy and no one offended. However, there is always something that offends someone. If we renounced everything that offended someone there would be nothing left to renounce. Atheists represent a tiny amount of the National identity. Yet, if they had their way they would trump the rights of others (in this instance the massive majority) and impose their minority view upon the whole. I see this as unreasonable."
Oh I agree that it's absurd to try and please everyone and make policy totally and always revolve around the goal of never offending anyone. It's normally impossible and undesirable for all the reasons you obviously would agree with. However, my point wasn't that SOMEONE was offended, it was, as you quoted me: ...you assume that offending a particular sect is somehow less "wrong" than offending the agnostics or polytheists or atheists.." So, let me clarify: you indicated that a generic use of God was good because it didn't offend one particular religion or sect -- but again, you are supposing that it is more valid to not offend a Buddhist than an atheist, agnostic, or polytheist. I find your response to be too unprincipled for my tastes, because your view is, basically, "well they fall in the category of too bad, can't please everyone" when you aren't willing to say that about some small but recognized religious minority in the Country -- even though their numbers may pale in comparison to the amount of atheists or agnostics. I've had people debate me and point out that being an agnostic or atheist is a religion, to show me I am being just as fanatical or as part of a Club as they are -- so my response back to them is, well then be consistent. The second point I'd like to make to you on this is that while you can't prevent everyone from being offended, it is obviously very important to take great pains not to do so when getting near some line to cross regarding meddling religion with Government. If we were talking about making french fries, then I'd agree with you. But when we are talking about doing things that are supposed to protect freedom from its known foes for centuries to come and need to stick to principle, then I believe it is wiser to play it safe, respect the fact that God was not on the money to begin with for a reason, and don't use tax-funded outlets to not just offend, but worry or exclude, agnostics and atheists alike (and of course, polytheists). I don't find it principled to exclude millions and millions of Americans with their own tax money though Government. "Can't please everyone" simply doesn't cut it.
God and Christian-specific language was purposefully left out of the Founding Documents, the first public school system purposefully left out religious instruction, the first Pledge purposefully left out God, the first money had no God, no religious test for office, no law allowed that even "respects" an establishing of religion, ... Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated. You could go on an on about how God was injected in this and that, and I could go on about how it was purposefully left out when it came to binding the public or using their tax dollars. I feel much better with my view because everything I always research pointed to us both being right -- that God and religion were important and involved, but that they took great pains to separate what's important to an individual and what a Government should endorse or spin. In my view, all the evidence demonstrates that there is a big difference between calling out God's name, claiming religion as an inspiration, or being religious and talking about its virtues ... and not coerce the public, either directly or indirectly, to affirm something religious. For you to be right, the mountain of evidence showing the great pains the Founders went through to be inclusive, even of atheists, would have to magically disappear. The mountains of evidence showing how the Founders made a clear distinction between personal adoration of religion and its benefits to society and drawing the line with using the Government to spin or promote it. Using money as a billboard for monotheism and calling for everyone to trust one God crossed the line.
"I consider organized religion and GOD to be two entirely separate things. It is a common error to equate the one to the other. GOD is the creator and upholder of the Universe; organized religion is an entirely different thing of course."
The Founders thought it wasn't justified to put "GOD" in the Constitution for the same reason it put Religion on an unprecedented Leash -- personal views should be kept personal, not Government-distributed as it is with "In God We Trust" on the money. I disagree with you that "the word GOD has as much historical justification on coinage as does the word Liberty or the heraldic and other eagles that grace the reverses of many U.S. coinage series" since eagles hadn't proven to be the massive foe to freedom that Government-sponsored, endorsed, promoted, or distributed religion has always been. If the word "GOD" has so much justifcattion and is so harmless, why did the Founders purposefully not put it in the Constitution? Even that point isn't key to me, because over time some things improve and some things go wrong, and I believe that putting God on the money was not necessary or ideal according to the principles of protecting freedom for the long-term.
"Thank you for your thoughts foundingfather."
Thank you for yours, and thanks for reading (assuming you did, heh).
You said; ”At least Jefferson didn't die deluded..” He died deluded as he lived deluded. His entire Franco philosophy was as deluded as it is bankrupt. Jefferson, the man who correctly railed against slavery, continued to own them until the bitter end, refusing to let them go. Jefferson, the man who rightly believed in “free speech” insisted that the people should only be “told what they need to know” and tried to suppress free speech whenever it was not in his best interests (making a mockery of the so-called “Jeffersonian notion” which he himself never followed). Jefferson was so tainted by his quasi-atheistic French inspired materialism, that he ultimately degraded into the dark world of prejudice, hypocrisy, and arrogance; even the "tyranny" that he claimed to so loathe.
You said; ”Believers get rich and prosper..” Of course, faith and material prosperity are different things. It is not a sin to be poor. The brilliant sociologist Max Weber was the first to connect “the Protestant work ethic” to the massive financial growth, humanitarian charity and the rapid advancement of our fantastic nation in what was then industrialized America. Our nation’s power, prestige and might are all wrapped up in our GOD national identity. Thanks crito.
But, I am going to skip that because one big topic is enough at one time
<< <i>However, I’m confident that those who identify as Christians will always remain the vast majority in America. It simply would not be America otherwise. >>
The numbers indicate otherwise. Do you have anything to support this statement other than blind hope?
<< <i>The religion of Jefferson is unquestionably on the rise in America over these past ten years or so. The price to those who have been blinded is proving to be severe. Like Jefferson at the end of his bankrupt life, many Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs; all because of their lust for Jefferson's “material.” New bankruptcy laws assure their economic slavery. While this is purely on the physical side, it is symbolic of the degeneration that can occur when we replace the true GOD with Jefferson’s false material god. Earthly debt-ridden bankruptcy is symbolic of the spiritual bankruptcy that empowers it. Thank you gulliblenewb.
Oh I don't know about this one either. My wife and I only have the mortgage (and we purchased a house valued at only 3/5 of what we were approved for) and her car payment (which we financed for 5 years but are on pace to have paid off in 2.5). 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.
<< <i>Gullible newb, your name says it all. You are very gullible. I bet you believe the Darwinist DOGMA about the "non intelligent" origin of life. Every where around us if we open our eyes we can see all sorts of things created by "intelligent design". I mean can anyone argue that the Boeing 747 airplane is not a creation of "intelligent design". A tornado did not move thru a junkyard and Zappo! A brand new 747 was born, even with fuel in the tanks. No it dont happen that way. The universe did not happen that way either. Just walk out in your yard at night and look at the Constellation ORION. Only an IDIOT could fail to see the intelligent design of that constellation. BTW look up the word ORION. It comes from a Hebrew word meaning "Light". You have made some bad choices in your life, I see black for you. >>
WOW, where did this little gem of a tirade come from? Did I mention ID anywhere? Is your coffee-maker on the fritz this morning, cupcake? Go wake up for awhile, then come back and try this all again, pumpkin.
<< <i>Every where around us if we open our eyes we can see all sorts of things created by "intelligent design". I mean can anyone argue that the Boeing 747 airplane is not a creation of "intelligent design". >>
No one invented the airplane. Like all inventions it was discovered by accident or in tiny little
steps. The airplane was impossible before all its component parts were found. Without the
wheel we'd still be in caves and without fire we'd also be shivering. It's not intelligence which
has provided our riches and wealth, it's the ability to speak and understand. It's the ability to
pass complex ideas to future generations because of the richness of vocabulary. As knowledge
became greater than an individual could learn it became the invention of writing which made it
possible for one to pick up where his ancestors left off. Even writing itself was not so much in-
vented as it was discovered. It started with tokens used to represent farm commodities and
the gradual realization in a succession of individuals that tokens weren't necessary if they could
be recorded on a flat medium.
No. If you're looking for intelligence as most define it, you'll have to look toward a diety or per-
haps a machine that some "person" will "invent" in the future.
<< <i>Founding Fogger, I would like to see the motto changed to "In little gods we trust". Most of the people in the world today do just exactly that. All have some kind of "ISM" to call their own. Just one problem with that, it is not the "Real Thing". Of course we will all have to wait until we die, which for some may be sooner rather than later, to find out who is right and who is wrong. But find out we all will. >>
So, uh, exactly what are your qualifications for the position of determining what "The Real Thing" is? I missed them somewhere...
<< <i>Gullible newb, your name says it all. You are very gullible. I bet you believe the Darwinist DOGMA about the "non intelligent" origin of life. >>
OK, now it's drifting into Open Forum material.
Keep it on topic, people. 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. It is an unconsitutional de facto establishment of religion, should never have been there in the first place, and should be removed.
Question for any dark-siders reading: just for curiousity's sake, what other nations mention the Deity on their coinage? It might be an interesting exercise to see who the US's peers are in this regard...
"Founding Fogger, I would like to see the motto changed to "In little gods we trust". Most of the people in the world today do just exactly that. All have some kind of "ISM" to call their own. Just one problem with that, it is not the "Real Thing". Of course we will all have to wait until we die, which for some may be sooner rather than later, to find out who is right and who is wrong. But find out we all will"
I'm not sure what you meant by "fogger." In any case, the world has always been, and still is, in far more danger from those that care too much about their religion or other people having only "little Gods" and who either want others to share it or want to support some way to effectively penalize, exclude, or outcast those who don't. Historically it has not been the people who are into "little gods or isms" as you point out. It's been the people who either fueled Organized Religion, weren't satisfied with keeping their worship private, or believed in the "big God" as they did everything from support the burning of books to racism and slavery. I will gladly take Little God Land over what Big God Land has always proven to be, which is a foe to freedom. Keep God mottos on your wall, not my money.
Flamino,
"Question for any dark-siders reading: just for curiousity's sake, what other nations mention the Deity on their coinage? It might be an interesting exercise to see who the US's peers are in this regard... "
I plan on doing that study -- it's too interesting to pass up. Great question!
<< <i>Cladking, that is exactly my point. None of this world we live in nor the universe the earth lives in could have been possible without a "deity" at work in its creation, and the creation thereof proves the "deity" used intelligent design to accomplish the building of the universe and of course, by extension, what is here on earth. You misunderstood what I was saying I guess. >>
I don't know.
But I do know that some people believe this deity is actuall many Gods and some
don't recognize their God in our word for a deity. Many people see science as a
God or even the great men of history like Buddha or Jesus Christ.
It would not seem appropriate that any such name be invoked on the currency even
were we all the same faith.
I myself.... I am secure enough in my relationship with my religion that I personnaly do not care whether IGWT is or is not on our coins. Immaterial to me. Although if I had to choose, would choose to take it off. Those who are secure in their relationship with God practice their beliefs in their day to day lives.... and do not need the words on their coins to be reminders, or whatever purpose. And of course those who do not believe in God certainly have no use for the words on the coins.
Just expressing my own opinion... nothing more, nothing less. Not condemning any other's opinions on this matter. As I said..... makes no difference to me. I am neither pleased nor offended by the words.
HOWEVER.... I DO have one problem if the words IGWT are removed from our coins. What will I use for the pick-up points for doubled dies?!!
<< <i>Gullible nub, I dont need any qualifications. All I have to do is to wait and see. If I am wrong, then I am just a dead animal lying in the road like you. But if I am right, you will be ashamed of your self. But so be it. What will be will be. >>
Just out of curiousity, how old are you? Speaking of ashamed, you should be of your posts.
You know, if I do find myself at the "pearly gates" someday, I'll be more than happy to say, "Oooops, my bad, you really do exist. And by the way, have you been watching what is going on down there? You're doing a shoddy job. A personal appearance now and then might help."
You said; "God and Christian-specific language was purposefully left out of the Founding Documents..." 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. For example; "....separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.." And later in the text; ".. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." There are many more historical and legal documents from our early Nation, many of them invoking the name of GOD. It is indisputable that the word, name, notion and concept of Almighty GOD is laden throughout our founding fathers documents, speeches, texts, assertions, and just about everything else that makes up America.
The Constitution of the United States does not prohibit GOD, the use of the word, diminish it, demand cessation from it's exhortation, reference or calling out to GOD, or restrict it, or amend it, remove it, or in any manner limit it. So GOD is not at issue in the Constitution, even if establishing a national religion is. If the Constitution restricted "GOD use," then the founding fathers could not have and would not have legally invoked the name of GOD in their many official writings, speeches, lectures, laws, gestures; and they would have broken the constitution every time they did so (which was often). Obviously, they did not think they were behaving unconstitutionally when they invoked GOD. Therefore, by their actions alone it is clear that the founding fathers understanding of the Constitutional substance relating to GOD differs dramatically from what the atheist community suggests. Thank you again for your follow ups foundingfather.