Should In God We Trust be removed from currency?[poll]

thedrunkendaisy · May 10, 2006 2:25PM

So the guy who is suing to take "Under God" out of the pledge of allegence has found a new target
Article

ER · May 10, 2006 2:27PM

He's just an attention whore.

BECOKA · May 10, 2006 2:31PM

What ever happened to separation of church and state? The wording takes up too much space on the coins.

Rob9874 · May 10, 2006 2:36PM

<< What ever happened to separation of church and state? >>

I don't think that's what it meant. And "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution.

Fletcher · May 10, 2006 2:42PM

<< I don't think that's what it meant. And "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution. >>

No, but it was in the First Amendment to the Constituion as the Establishment Clause. It is a biggie. How would you feel if they changed it to say "One nation under Allah"?

flaminio · May 10, 2006 2:45PM

<< He's just an attention whore. >>

The ad hominem arguments started early. If you can't attack the argument, attack the man. Oldest and easiest logical fallacy in the book.

thedrunkendaisy · May 10, 2006 2:47PM

flaminnio
Are you perchance on the Fark forums as well?

alfalfa · May 10, 2006 2:51PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment either...

RJ

Dave99B · May 10, 2006 2:54PM

Nope. And hopefully it will never happen in our lifetimes (thank GOD!)

Dave

Fletcher · May 10, 2006 3:05PM

<< Separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment either... >>

It doesn't say it in those exact words ... but it is there. If you want the derivation of the actual phrase, "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state." In addition, James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Accordingly, it is contained within the spirit and meaning of the Constitution, as expanded upon by the framers, even though the exact phrase does not appear therein.

However, I chose to refrain from debating this issue further for the exact reason that it is the law of the land ... thank you and have a nice day

ILikeMercs · May 10, 2006 3:05PM

that would ruin all my coins if they took it off............

mozin · May 10, 2006 3:11PM

I am surprised at how many are voting here to eliminate "In God We Trust". I simply don't understand why they think that way. If one believes in some God, why would they choose to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency?

construct · May 10, 2006 3:17PM

They probably won't. I remember reading a 10th Circuit opinion that held that official expressions of this sort were purely ceremonial and had absolutely no religious significance whatsoever. For that reason the motto does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, I voted "yes."

TwoSides2aCoin · May 10, 2006 3:17PM

It could be taken off the currency but I would still Trust God.... I don't know about them, but I know about us.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

should we change that, too ?

lets call it the POST AMBLE

edit to add: wow, this thread is growing. I challenge any of you to keep a straight face while reading each response. Some will touch you , some will stir you , some will compel you , but this thread is truly what AMERICA is about. Liberty and Freedom.
The lawyers and those bringing frivolous suits ought to be under the prosecution of our own judicial system for taking the court's valuable time away from REAL matters.
(not saying GOD isn't REAL), but really when you think of REAL, we ought to take HIS name of of OUR money. It no longer is useful when our government operates in a deficit and we don't REALLY trust Him, as is indicated by soaring medical and insurance costs. WHY ? because INSURANCE COVERS THOSE WHO we cannot trust, and DOCTORS fix those who's faith cannot heal them.

. No LAUGHING

it's true

Buy Gold

Bear · May 10, 2006 3:19PM

I think the Pubs wanna replace it with" In President Bush we trust."

Mercury · May 10, 2006 3:20PM

I will leave the legal argument up to others.

My answer is no.

This is a hot issue with me and one I would fight as long as I was able.

Mercury

construct · May 10, 2006 3:23PM

I'm far more upset that they're taking "Liberty" of the dollar coin. They really are doing that. I guess they're hoping we'll forget we're supposed to have liberty!

Fletcher · May 10, 2006 3:25PM

<< I'm far more upset that they're taking "Liberty" of the dollar coin. They really are doing that. I guess they're hoping we'll forget we're supposed to have liberty!

>>

I'm with you! They should be stamping LIBERTY, FREEDOM, and DEMOCRACY on all of them.

Rob9874 · May 10, 2006 3:31PM

<< 

<< I don't think that's what it meant. And "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution. >>

No, but it was in the First Amendment to the Constituion as the Establishment Clause. It is a biggie. How would you feel if they changed it to say "One nation under Allah"? >>

No it isn't. And I wouldn't like that. But that's why it doesn't say "One nation under Jesus". The word "God" can mean many things to many people. And if you're athiest, you just have to realize you live in a society of theists and just accept it. I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending far more numerous people who want it on the coin.

HighRelief · May 10, 2006 3:36PM

How would you feel if they changed it to say "One nation under Allah"?

That would make a lot of Allah fans happy.... Fletcher, we need to hear more cow bell.

Fletcher · May 10, 2006 3:42PM

<< I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending far more numerous people who want it. >>

So how do you feel about slavery, women's right to vote, or Japanese Internment camps. Your attitude is exactly the reason why the separation of church and state was paramount to the framers of the constitution and is the law of the land today.

On a side note ... I'm not offended by it.

lkenefic · May 10, 2006 3:47PM

<< I'm far more upset that they're taking "Liberty" of the dollar coin. They really are doing that. I guess they're hoping we'll forget we're supposed to have liberty!

>>

xphobe · May 10, 2006 3:58PM

<< you just have to realize you live in a society of theists and just accept it >>

3/4 of the people in the US are white too. Maybe we should add a slogan like "A Country of White People".

I'm in favor of removing it, partly because it will create a new Variety and make my Modern Crap more collectible!

rmoss · May 10, 2006 4:06PM

"In God WE Trust" was on our money when the people that object came over here. If they find it offensive, leave. Our country was founded on a religious philosophy that includes the Christian God. Religious freedom was the main reason most came here way back when.

Bochiman · May 10, 2006 4:12PM

When there are people dying, wars going on, terrorists on the loose, poverty, and illegal aliens costing people billions, then trying to attack small things, like wording on currency, is just plain assinine.

xphobe · May 10, 2006 4:28PM

<< When there are people dying, wars going on, terrorists on the loose, poverty, and illegal aliens costing people billions, then trying to attack small things, like wording on currency, is just plain assinine. >>

I admit, this is pretty low on my list of things to get steamed about.

Interesting point you make though, because the motto was first added as a result of the Civil War, and was made mandatory as a result of the Cold War -- two of our most stressful times as a country. You would have thought people had more important things to worry about.

Mottos are apparently like taxes: once they're on the books, you can never again get rid of them.

Cladiator · May 10, 2006 4:30PM

<< Should In God We Trust be removed from currency? >>

no

relayer · May 10, 2006 4:35PM

It would make the baby Jesus cry

Darkmane · May 10, 2006 4:37PM

Absolutely not.

koincollect · May 10, 2006 4:46PM

<< "In God WE Trust" was on our money when the people that object came over here. If they find it offensive, leave. Our country was founded on a religious philosophy that includes the Christian God. Religious freedom was the main reason most came here way back when. >>

Are you also suggesting that atheists leave this country too? This isn't only about non-christians but I think the person who started the law suit is an atheist and does not want to do anything with god!

TommyType · May 10, 2006 4:52PM

Personally, I don't much care which way it goes. It's inoffensive to me, and has historical value.

On the other hand, it takes up space on coins!

....But then sometimes when I see the silly reasoning, self congratulatory attitude, and intentional blindness of the proponents of the motto, I just want to have it removed out of spite.

(I'm going to be a really good grumpy old man someday

)

rmoss · May 10, 2006 4:55PM

Sorry for the double post

rmoss · May 10, 2006 4:57PM

<< 

<< "Are you also suggesting that atheists leave this country too? This isn't only about non-christians but I think the person who started the law suit is an atheist and does not want to do anything with god! >>

The last time I heard, atheists were also non-Christians.

Boom · May 10, 2006 5:09PM

The man has the right to his own opinions and beliefs but he IS always making himself out to be the center of attention.

I have no problem with anyone. Whether you believe in God or not is totally a personal choice. But I do have a problem with someone that seeks to impose HIS will upon others. Is it REALLY that big a deal? I mean really.

Whether there is a God or not do you actually think having His Name or removing it from coins and currency bothers Him? Let's be real here. The answer is obviously NO.

This is about a man seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill and yes, Flaminio, he IS an attention whore but I don't care. I respect people as they are and for who they are not WHAT they are. Being Atheist doesn't bother me nor do religious fanatics. I am worried about my own beliefs and live accordingly. I have had friends from every walk of life and all of us respected one another along with our own beliefs. That is the beauty of Democracy and the Freedom to be this way and it did not come without a mighty price tag. A lot of people gave their lives for all of us to live as we please in a free Democratic Society.... and I DON'T mean Democratic in a political party sense. Ever stop to think about the fact that Republicans are still democratic in that they are free, to an extent.

This Extremist nonsense is just that .. NONSENSE.

I can be nice just the same as I can put the battle gear on. God's Name on money is so trivial it's pathetic. Like He could give a good rat's ass and THAT's the Bottom Line.

BECOKA · May 10, 2006 5:10PM

The problem is that this country is made of People who beleive in God, don't beleive in God and are not sure. We are forced to use money that pretends the entire nation is under some ones god. Who's God?

I understand that the majority of the founders may have beleived in the same God but times have changed and the phrase should more reflect the current nation.

Now this said why in God's nation are we removing the word Liberty?

Thenewguy · May 10, 2006 5:13PM

I vote no..I trust in GOD, it's our Government I dont trust.

Boom · May 10, 2006 5:14PM

<< Now this said why in God's nation are we removing the word Liberty? >>

Now THAT is a valid question and IMHO the answer is, because slowly but surely we ARE being stripped of our Freedom. (Liberty)

BECOKA · May 10, 2006 5:14PM

<< I vote no..I trust in GOD, it's our Government I dont trust. >>

I agree to both but does the phrase fit the current nation?

xphobe · May 10, 2006 5:19PM

<< they're taking "Liberty" off the dollar coin >>

Really? Does anyone have a link for that? I'd like to read about it. That's a shame - it's just about the ONLY word that's been on all our coins from the very beginning. To me it defines our country much better than "In God We Trust" or even "e pluribus unum" (who speaks Latin anyway, besides Mel Gibson?)

Boom · May 10, 2006 5:24PM

Just take the phrase, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" at face value. This would imply that each and every last one of us should be free to do as we please in the pursuit of happiness. If this were so then there would be no need for law or law enforcement Officers. Taken at face value I could theoretically live my life as I pleased.

If I wanted to walk down main street with nothing on but a holster and a firearm, smoking pot or whatever in the pursuit of happiness, by those words alone I should be able to. Afterall we do have the right to bear arms but go ahead and try this extreme example and see what happens.

You'd be picked up and thrown in the slammer so fast it would make your head swim yet according to that phrase you (I) would have not been in violation of the original decree. Food for thought.

johnsim03 · May 10, 2006 5:32PM

I voted no...

Some of my non-believing friends feel very strongly against the motto on
coinage and currency. My arguments about context and history have, of
course, had no effect on them...

The pure "civil disobedience" thing to do, of course, is to refuse to carry or spend
such offensive items

- failing that, it is probably a bit of a hypocritical attitude,
but I can understand why some people get offended. I'm just not impressed with
the arguments against it.

To each his own, I guess.

John

xphobe · May 10, 2006 5:42PM

Boom: We have a lot of laws against people doing things that are simply annoying to someone. Silly, but that's the way it is.

For example (and to bring this thread more or less back onto the topic of coins): Why is it you can have sex with someone, and you can give them a gift of a Liberty Head Quarter Eagle... but if you give someone a Liberty Head Quarter Eagle in exchange for having sex with you, that's against the law?

Although I do have a license to carry, the law states that it *must* be concealed, so I'd get arrested if I tried it in the buff! Right to bear arms is very restricted. Without a CHL it's illegal to carry a handgun period. Even with one, there are places I can not take it. I consider that to be discriminatory and an infringement of my rights, but what can I do.

Hey, didn't Teddy Roosevelt object to the motto on coins because he felt the name of god shouldn't appear on something so base that was used in casinos and brothels? Hm, I wonder if that was an official government endorsement of casinos and brothels?

Frankcoins · May 10, 2006 9:03PM

<< 
No it isn't. And I wouldn't like that. But that's why it doesn't say "One nation under Jesus". The word "God" can mean many things to many people. And if you're athiest, you just have to realize you live in a society of theists and just accept it. I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending far more numerous people who want it on the coin. >>

So, you'd be happy with "In any god we trust"?

McDonis · May 10, 2006 9:22PM

<< 

<< Separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment either... >>

It doesn't say it in those exact words ... but it is there. If you want the derivation of the actual phrase, "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state." In addition, James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Accordingly, it is contained within the spirit and meaning of the Constitution, as expanded upon by the framers, even though the exact phrase does not appear therein.

However, I chose to refrain from debating this issue further for the exact reason that it is the law of the land ... thank you and have a nice day

>>

I know you said you dont want to debate this issue but you might want to re-read that letter.

Jefferson was writing to a convention of Baptists telling them that they need not worry that the goverment wouldnt establish a religion for each state. They were affraid that since they were a minority in their state that their members would be excluded from holding office. Jefferson was telling them that they could not be prevented from practing their religion, and being exculded from public office. In the 1960's Jefferson's letter was used as an excuse to justify the removal of prayer in schools. I dont think Madison or Jefferson would approve of our current defination of his letter, especially since both men supported (and one of them wrote) state constitutions that said a man cant hold office unless he was a christian. Somehow I dont think people who believed public office should be limited to Christians would believe and support the complete removal of faith from all public life.

I am not necassarly supporting the idea of only Christians in office I am just pointing out how the current beliefs about "seperation" have nothing to do with actual fact. A lot of folks have decided to take history and re-write it so that faith was never a part of the founding.

lsica · May 10, 2006 9:33PM

<< I remember reading a 10th Circuit opinion that held that official expressions of this sort were purely ceremonial and had absolutely no religious significance whatsoever. >>

Doesn't that make the motto on money taking the Lords name in vain? Isn't using God's name in a place that has "absolutely no religious significance whatsoever" a violation of the third commandment?

I think all this was TR's argument against the use of the word "God" on currency

My point.. is that there are religious arguments AGAINST using the motto. It's not all a matter of "the Faithful" want the motto and "the Faithless" don't.

nwcs · May 10, 2006 9:55PM

There needs to be a poll option for "I just don't freakin care anymore"

Whitby · May 10, 2006 10:00PM

An action at this time, whtever that action would be, would do nothing except generate useless lawsuits and congressional debate.

My own spiritual beliefs aside, the "seperation" of church and state in this country is by and large a myth. Folks, look at the founding father bios and discourses. The topics of religion or fortune or faith or justice are pretty much intertwined.

If anybody who has lived in the US believes that there is a seperation; I suggest you get out more and drink heavy. OR, start removing all those cross markers from military cemeteries ASAP. That would certainly be popular........

DNADave · May 10, 2006 10:01PM

The NO's have it.

PerryHall · May 10, 2006 10:03PM

I would like to see "IN GOLD WE TRUST" on our paper money.

Frankcoins · May 10, 2006 10:04PM

<< I dont think Madison or Jefferson would approve of our current defination of his letter, especially since both men supported (and one of them wrote) state constitutions that said a man cant hold office unless he was a christian. Somehow I dont think people who believed public office should be limited to Christians would believe and support the complete removal of faith from all public life. >>

ABSOLUTELY FALSE!

Thanks to the strong influence of Jefferson and Madison, Virginia stood alone among the states in guaranteeing complete civic equality and religious freedom to all citizens. In 1786, Virginians rejected a proposal by Patrick Henry to provide public financing for the teaching of Christianity in schools and instead passed an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which ruled out tax support for religious instruction and religious tests for public office. Significantly, the new law was supported by a coalition of evangelicals, who-as a minority in a state dominated by Episcopalians-feared government interference with religion, and freethinking Enlightenment rationalists, who feared religious interference with government.

The influence of Virginia's law, enacted less than a year before the writing of the federal Constitution, cannot be overstated. The delegates in Philadelphia could have looked for guidance to a crazy quilt of conflicting state laws, rooted in religious prejudice and incestuous Old World church-state entanglements. Instead they chose the Virginia model, which, as Jefferson proudly stated in his autobiography, "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

TheRaven · May 10, 2006 10:27PM

The motto needs to stay on our coins.....

The greatest myth of our time is the "seperation of church and state" clause in the Constitution......

Should In God We Trust be removed from currency?[poll]

Comments

Leave a Comment