<< <i>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. >>
I always laugh when people believe in forcing something on others. How unfortunate I am one of the truly intelligent individuals in the world.
"I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending fat more numerous people who want it on the coin."
Whenever I hear something along these lines, I feel disheartened. The idea that the majority should rule is exactly what the constitution protects against. The true beauty of the constitution is that a minority of one will still the same rights as the overwhelming majority. No majority will ever be large enough to strip or hinder others of their constitutional rights. A state of neutrality toward religion is the best option for the government, period. For this reason, there should be no reference to any religion on a coin or in any other government issue.
Regardless of my religious affiliation, I feel that it is my duty as an American to fight for the rights of all Americans-no matter how contrary their beliefs are to my own. As soon as one group is allowed to hinder the rights of others, democracy has failed.
Please download this app to help fight cancer at 0 cost. At no extra cost to you purchases from Amazon and other participating retailers will benefit research!
All voices in America should be heard – whether we like the sound of it or not. Every opinion matters because none of us has a monopoly on truth. We may vehemently disagree with an idea or an opinion yet we should listen carefully to it anyway because it might contain some partial truth that we can learn from. We even gain from listening to ideas that are clearly and entirely wrong because it serves to give us a deeper confidence in what we already believe. This is why freedom of speech and open discourse are so valuable.
Regarding the motto issue, the phrase “In God We Trust” does not equate to the establishing of a religion. The motto does not say; “In Catholics We Trust” or “In Baptists We Trust.” The word GOD as well as the concept of GOD is not a religion.
That is why the founding fathers repeatedly and aggressively used the name and word “God” in speeches, letters, writings, debates, and practice (including the Declaration of Independence where GOD (Creator) is powerfully evoked). At the same time, the founding fathers avoided using words like “Catholic,” “Baptist,” and “Presbyterian.” They knew – and we should know – that GOD and religion are very separate things. The motto should stay on our coins – and it will. matteproof
<< <i>All voices in America should be heard – whether we like the sound of it or not. Every opinion matters because none of us has a monopoly on truth. We may vehemently disagree with an idea or an opinion yet we should listen carefully to it anyway because it might contain some partial truth that we can learn from. We even gain from listening to ideas that are clearly and entirely wrong because it serves to give us a deeper confidence in what we already believe. This is why freedom of speech and open discourse are so valuable.
Regarding the motto issue, the phrase “In God We Trust” does not equate to the establishing of a religion. The motto does not say; “In Catholics We Trust” or “In Baptists We Trust.” The word GOD as well as the concept of GOD is not a religion.
That is why the founding fathers repeatedly and aggressively used the name and word “God” in speeches, letters, writings, debates, and practice (including the Declaration of Independence where GOD is powerfully evoked). At the same time, the founding fathers avoided using words like “Catholic,” “Baptist,” and “Presbyterian.” They knew – and we should know – that GOD and religion are very separate things. The motto should stay on our coins – and it will. matteproof >>
<< <i>How about we do it with a vote across the country, the way it should be done as was done with the marriage ban? When the vote is over the 30% such as yourself who vote against it can be sent to internment camps. >>
That is exactly why government and religion is a dangerous mix.
<< <i> IN GOD WE TRUST...............................after more then a century and a quarter of use on U.S coins and currency, this motto now has as much significance on our coinage as any of the other required markings. >>
"Liberty" has been on coins a lot longer, and now they are taking it off.
<< <i> The beauty of this nondenominational motto is that all religions can identify, God being universal. >>
Non-religions do not identify.
<< <i> The only ones who really do disagree with the motto in its generic form are the atheists among us and they, by their own admission, are irrelevant (i.e. a living thing without a soul, aimlessly wandering the planet without a purpose.) >>
An Athiest would likely find that statement to be quite infuriating. That same derogatory statement, directed towards a non-athiest, would sound like this:
"The only ones who really do agree with the motto in its generic form are the non-athiests among us and they, by their own admission, are irrevelant (i.e. a living being with a pre-determined destiny and without a soul or free will because they are nothing but God's play toy puppet)."
Can you see how infuriating a statement like that would be to you ?
<< <i> I always laugh when people believe in forcing something on others. How unfortunate I am one of the truly intelligent individuals in the world.
"I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending fat more numerous people who want it on the coin."
Whenever I hear something along these lines, I feel disheartened. The idea that the majority should rule is exactly what the constitution protects against. The true beauty of the constitution is that a minority of one will still the same rights as the overwhelming majority. No majority will ever be large enough to strip or hinder others of their constitutional rights. A state of neutrality toward religion is the best option for the government, period. For this reason, there should be no reference to any religion on a coin or in any other government issue.
Regardless of my religious affiliation, I feel that it is my duty as an American to fight for the rights of all Americans-no matter how contrary their beliefs are to my own. As soon as one group is allowed to hinder the rights of others, democracy has failed. >>
Well, in a democracy, the majority usually rules. That's why things are put to a vote. If enough people felt strongly enough against abortion, that they voted in lawmakers that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others". If enough liberals get the support in numbers they need to outlaw guns, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others".
At any rate, we're talking about having a reference to God on a coin. Not sure how it relates to "Constitutional rights". Reading the coin does not force one to worship or believe. I think it's a very silly argument.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson sought to build a "Wall of Separation" between any religion or religious activity and the govt. Jefferson was a deist and dreaded the influence of religion in any govt-based activity. If you read Jefferson's biography you'll notice what he did in his home state of VA as a good example.
<< <i> "The only ones who really do agree with the motto in its generic form are the non-athiests among us and they, by their own admission, are irrevelant (i.e. a living being with a pre-determined destiny and without a soul or free will because they are nothing but God's play toy puppet)."
Can you see how infuriating a statement like that would be to you ? >>
God gave every human being a soul AND free will and with that the chance for everlasting life.
Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and that is all they will get (i.e. a short period of biological existence).
<< <i>An Athiest would likely find that statement to be quite infuriating. >>
I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born.
<< <i> I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born. >>
The problem is that athiests are often viewed upon as second-class citizens or worse (as clearly evidenced by many of the statements in this discussion). Would a Jew merely ignore a swastika ?
By your logic, is it not hilarious that non-athiests get worked up over matters of IGWT ?
<< <i>An Athiest would likely find that statement to be quite infuriating. >>
I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born. >>
For an atheist, it shouldn't matter if the references on coins are to "God" or the Trix rabbit. Why the hell should I care??
If you haven't noticed, I'm single and miserable and I've got four albums of bitching about it that I would offer as proof.
I like the simpler designs on coins so I voted yes. It can be there but shouldn't HAVE to be there.
Separation of curch and state is very important. In a church run state, like for example Iran, there is little room for people that don't have the state approved religion. In fact many of the people who came to America from England and Europe came to escape state religion.
<< <i> God gave every human being a soul AND free will and with that the chance for everlasting life. Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and that is all they will get (i.e. a short period of biological existence). >>
Why do you claim that athiests have no soul ? Do you even know if athiests themselves believe that they have a soul ? You don't know the answers because you're not one.
Everything and anything can have a soul at one level or another, even athiests.
It's pretty funny how the right wing religious nuts are so insecure in their own beliefs that they need to ram their beliefs down everybody's throat.
A true believer doesn't care what others think and is secure in their own belief as to not infringe on other peoples liberties.
If you want to pray, go ahead, nobody cares, but the world isn't going to stop just cause you want to.
Some one I know is like you nuts, not real nuts, but bad enough. He's all pissed because Wal-Mart won't say Merry Christmas to him, but says and does nothing when another Priest is hulled away for molesting another child.
If you want to live by principles and morals, then fine, but don't live on the latest talking points of the GOP.
<< <i>For an atheist, it shouldn't matter if the references on coins are to "God" or the Trix rabbit. Why the hell should I care?? >>
It's godwinizing, but I agree with dcarr -- it's rather like asking a Jew to not care about a swastika. It's just a symbol, after all... >>
There's a substantial difference between a swastika and the "God" reference in IGWT: Jews know that Nazis are real, and were harmed by them enormously. The God referred to on our coinage (from an atheist's perspective) is not real and therefore cannot rationally be offensive. You might think it's a silly thing to put on a coin, but that's a different argument.
If you haven't noticed, I'm single and miserable and I've got four albums of bitching about it that I would offer as proof.
<< <i>There's a substantial difference between a swastika and the "God" reference in IGWT: Jews know that Nazis are real, and were harmed by them enormously. >>
<< <i> I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born. >>
Would a creationist simply ignore a Darwin Fish logo if that was on the coins and bills rather than IGWT ?
Let's assume the IGWT motto doesn't establish religion anymore than the city names of San Francisco, etc. The question still remains: Why must it be on our coins and currency? It's not like a transient motif that survives one particular design, but is an established design requirement for all BEP product. For that reason, there should be a clear and unequivocably important reason for its requirement for inclusion. (The history of it is well-documented and hardly defensible today.) EPU is the core foundation of the United States. Liberty is the paramount virtue expressed in that foundation. Both of those should not be disturbing to any patriot of the nation. Any *real* pledge to the United States is one to the unity of our states and the virtue of an entitlement to liberty. Any attribution of our success to a vague conceptual deity is wrong, not inviting unity of its citizenry, and certainly outside the fringe of core fundamental American values. This government was not founded on collective faith and trust in anything more than the basic human rights deprived elsewhere in the 18th century western world.
<< <i>[Everything and anything can have a soul at one level or another, even athiests. >>
WRONG!!! A soul is not given out like candy at halloween. Only human beings receive a soul from God and then each person must have FAITH in God and live their life in such a way as to KEEP their soul for eternity.
<< <i>[Everything and anything can have a soul at one level or another, even athiests. >>
WRONG!!! A soul is not given out like candy at halloween. Only human beings receive a soul from God and then each person must have FAITH in God and live their life in such a way as to KEEP their soul for eternity. >>
So are you saying that if an honest moral person doesn't worship God then God will take their soul away ? If that is true then God is not worthy of worship.
As physicists know, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and space/time. There is yet another aspect to the universe and that is intelligence. Intelligence is the same thing as conciousness, which is the manifestation of a soul. There is a little bit of intelligence in everything (except government ) Even a rat has a soul at some redimentary level. The greater the enlightenment one attains, the higher the level of their soul. Everything, even a rock, has presence in the "conciousness continuum".
Only a man is arrogant enough to believe that his is the only one in posession of a soul.
Only a man is arrogant enough to refer to God as "Him" - as opposed to "Her" or "It". (Organized religion is controlled by men).
Only a man is arrogant enough to believe that he is god-like (man as created in the image of god).
Only man is arrogant enough to think that the entire unviverse revolves around him and the Earth.
The Roman Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for the remainder of his life because he challenged the Church's belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies circled the Earth. Galileo was enlightened. The Roman Catholic Church was not.
Wow, this thread is really cooking I consider myself a deist in the vain of Thomas Jefferson, so I am always skeptical of religion mixing wth politics (as in the president praying and receiiving "confirmation" to attack Iraq as he did on national tv a couple of years ago).
I think a valid argument can be made that money, at least in New Testament terms, is something that leads men to perdition and evil deeds, and can be argued that God's name should never be placed on something that has such a corrupting influence (again, I'm going from the New Testament view here).
Another argument can be made that since God was not placed on money during the time of the Founding Fathers, the very people who's ideals this country is wholly based on, then anything added after the fact could be viewed as politically oriented in nature.
Just food for thought
Cheers,
BigBen
PS- Here's a quote from the Bible in which I base the above arguments from:
"But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Timothy 6:9
<< <i>As physicists know, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and space/time. >>
That is actually redundant as space-time structure is the product of matter and energy, not to nitpick on such details too much.
<< <i>...soul... >>
There is no confirmation of the presence of a soul, an unphysical attribute. Yes, there seems to be an instrinsic nature to everything living. Certainly it is composed of both natural (in the purest sense of the term) and developmental influences. That it is governed by the protocols of natural selection and self preservation or those of an established religious faith seems to be the heart of a debate, with the former at least being subject to the scientific method of testing and peer review. This is getting way OT IMHO though.
<< <i>Another argument can be made that since God was not placed on money during the time of the Founding Fathers, the very people who's ideals this country is wholly based on, then anything added after the fact could be viewed as politically oriented in nature. >>
I rather like that perspective in terms of mottos on coins.
Hi Coxe. You said, …This government was not founded on collective faith and trust in anything more than the basic human rights deprived elsewhere in the 18th century western world.
The Declaration of Independence specifically states that all of the “unalienable rights” vested in people came specifically from GOD (Creator). The values that gave birth to America are founded on this premise that GOD granted those “unalienable rights” to all men (according to the founders in the Declaration and elsewhere in their communications). If the unalienable rights are given to man by GOD (as the Founders insisted), then the motto “In God We Trust” is simply an acknowledgement of that sentiment found in the Declaration. Therefore, to express it on our coins and currency is historically, ethically, and morally accurate.
You said; ”….Any attribution of our success to a vague conceptual deity is wrong, not inviting unity of its citizenry, and certainly outside the fringe of core fundamental American values.”
According to the Declaration of Independence, it is GOD (Creator) who supplies mankind with literal: LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness (according to the Founders). Therefore, GOD is clearly not some “vague conceptual diety” as you say, but rather he is a GOD so powerful and so Almighty that he has the very power and authority to give mankind literal LIFE, literal Liberty, and Literal happiness – in short - Literal existence! (according the Founders in the Declaration). Surely, there is nothing “vague” about such a GOD. Wouldn’t you agree? matteproof
If there is in fact a god of some sort, what if she is here posting in the CU forums? WHAT IF IT IS LAURA??? Man, alot of you will have alot of 'splaining to do at the pearly gates
"In Legend We Trust" <------ Just in case I'm right ...
matteproof, just to clarify, Thomas Jefferson was a deist who DID NOT believe in God the way many folks of his day did. Jefferson did not believe in miracles or of the divinity of Christ and did not believe in following anything but the four gospels of the New Testament. Jefferson believed that some ultimate intelligence was behind the world's creation but that was as far as it went. Jefferson, along with Ben Franklin, considered themselves scientists and historians and their closet religious affiliations were Uniterian Christianity (now considered by most mainstream churches as "liberal" churches).
<< <i>As physicists know, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and space/time. There is yet another aspect to the universe and that is intelligence. Intelligence is the same thing as conciousness, which is the manifestation of a soul. There is a little bit of intelligence in everything (except government ) Even a rat has a soul at some redimentary level. The greater the enlightenment one attains, the higher the level of their soul. Everything, even a rock, has presence in the "conciousness continuum".
Only a man is arrogant enough to believe >>
Exactly right you are! From the very beginning mankind has believed it knows all and has all the answers regardiing everything. Believes in fact that he can outhink and outsmart God himself (or herself if you prefer).
But God can set the stage in any manner he pleases. God can give any amount of intelligence to mankind he wishes. God can sit and watch while mankind strives mightly to prove it is the ultimate intelligence in all of the universe.
What God really wants is FAITH from man. Faith that God does exist. Faith hat God is the one and only creator of everything seen and unseen, of everything known and unknown. God could have made it easy and provided absolute proof of His existance, but then the free will to do right or wrong and thus place ones soul alongside the Almighty would not mean anything at all.
Keep us posted as to when mankind has all the answers.
I agree about the faith part. Those with strong faith should not need to enforce by law that statement of faith to everyone. Kind of like self-confidence. Those who really have it don't need to tell everybody, it just shows. Anything more and that person looks like an insecure human.
matteproof -- "vague conceptual deity" is the term I chose to use as the justifiable form that appears in defense of the persistence of IGWT as a motto ONUG in the pledge, as opposed to Jesus or whatever specific flavor satisfies you.
The Declaration of Independence, as revered as it is and should be, is not the legal documentation that provides the real contract in this nation. You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The DoI was a letter of grievance to the king and an official notice of sedition and revolution.
<< <i>You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. >>
I have a first edition of The Federalist ... what a great read. In addition, I recently read Franklin's autobiography. Those two books sure make you want to go back in time and be a part of the magic
<< <i>You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. >>
I have a first edition of The Federalist ... what a great read. In addition, I recently read Franklin's autobiography. Those two books sure make you want to go back in time and be a part of the magic >>
Definitely. That's the bones of it all and it is a real shame that it gets the Entertainment Tonight, 1 week in 12 years of school exposure for most Americans.
<< <i>Definitely. That's the bones of it all and it is a real shame that it gets the Entertainment Tonight, 1 week in 12 years of school exposure for most Americans. >>
I used to practice constitutional law about 1,000 years ago. It was all required reading ... but I still love the period
<< <i>Well, in a democracy, the majority usually rules. That's why things are put to a vote. If enough people felt strongly enough against abortion, that they voted in lawmakers that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others". If enough liberals get the support in numbers they need to outlaw guns, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others".
At any rate, we're talking about having a reference to God on a coin. Not sure how it relates to "Constitutional rights". Reading the coin does not force one to worship or believe. I think it's a very silly argument. >>
DEMOCRACY DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO STRIP INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR RIGHTS. I really don't think you are familiar with the way this country works. A majority rules when it comes to elections, not when it comes to constitutional rights. The issue of people and abortion is very different than that of the issue of religion. The issue of religion is clearly stated in the constitution, where abortion is not. Abortion falls under something very different. The constitution acknowledges that there are certain rights that are not listed in the constitution. The right for a woman to control her body through abortion, and the right to privacy fall under this category. This category is open to the evolving (or de-evolving) sense of decency among the American populace. Their have been some struggles over the issue of what is and what is not decent in legislation and in the courts.
However, the rights that are named in the constitution can not be subject to the whims of the majority. A reference to God does in fact reference constitutional rights. The forced acknowledgement of a beliefe can not be constitutionally done. The ruling in W. Virginia v. Barnette reflects this. In this case, the issue was whether or not a Jehovah's witness had to salute the flag as he was compelled to through the rules of the school. The Jehovah's witness refused, because the flag salute and pledge was considered an act of idolatry (which was against his faith). The court ruled that such a policy would force students to profess a belief that could be contrary to their personal views, and as a result the policy was found to be a violation of an individual's liberties. By printing currency with a religious message on it, one is forced to utilize currency that acknowledges something other than their own beliefs. I do not think it is that much of a stretch to extend the Barnette case to this situation. Also, the court has ruled that government should treat all religions neutrally, neither aiding or hindering religious organizations.
As far as gun laws go, the intent of the "right to bear arms" is not so that each individual can own a gun. It is a collective right; a safety measure for states to create an effective militia equiped with proper arms. This helped quell those who opposed federalism due to the fear that the states would not have enough power.
I will end this long post with one more word. I urge you as an American to evaluate your stance again. I am pleaing that you will try to change your mind on the issue that the majority can regulate the rights of the minority. Whenever a significant amount of people believe such a thing, no good can come from it. I gravely ask you to think of what occured in Nazi Germany. The Nazi party took actions against Jews, Gypsies, and other groups. Was the majority just in taking away the rights of these minorities? Was the majority right to go as far as to take the lives of these minorities through the means of concentration camps? Please, if not to me or on this board then to yourself, please honestly answer these questions.
I am sorry for using bold letters and caps, but it conveys how I felt. I apologize if anything in this message came across as insulting, but I do hope that you will hear what I have to say.
Please download this app to help fight cancer at 0 cost. At no extra cost to you purchases from Amazon and other participating retailers will benefit research!
<< <i>The Declaration of Independence, as revered as it is and should be, is not the legal documentation that provides the real contract in this nation. You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The DoI was a letter of grievance to the king and an official notice of sedition and revolution. >>
One (DOI) flows into the other (Constitution) and both define the nation we were/are. Additionally, the Articles of Confederation, now nearly forgotten, also was/is an important piece of our country.
It certainly was the founding fathers' intent that God be a part of the United States right from the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of Confederation and on to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
I always laugh when people believe in forcing something on others. How unfortunate I am one of the truly intelligent individuals in the world.
"I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending fat more numerous people who want it on the coin."
Whenever I hear something along these lines, I feel disheartened. The idea that the majority should rule is exactly what the constitution protects against. The true beauty of the constitution is that a minority of one will still the same rights as the overwhelming majority. No majority will ever be large enough to strip or hinder others of their constitutional rights. A state of neutrality toward religion is the best option for the government, period. For this reason, there should be no reference to any religion on a coin or in any other government issue.
Regardless of my religious affiliation, I feel that it is my duty as an American to fight for the rights of all Americans-no matter how contrary their beliefs are to my own. As soon as one group is allowed to hinder the rights of others, democracy has failed.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
How silly is this? I could care less what an aethist said a librarian told him. Produce the document.
Free Trial
... dang, I should be writin' commercials
and also, if we were trusting God so much, we wouldn't be having to pay with money in the first place.
This is such a funny issue
I vote NO, God needs entertainment dollars, too
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Regarding the motto issue, the phrase “In God We Trust” does not equate to the establishing of a religion. The motto does not say; “In Catholics We Trust” or “In Baptists We Trust.” The word GOD as well as the concept of GOD is not a religion.
That is why the founding fathers repeatedly and aggressively used the name and word “God” in speeches, letters, writings, debates, and practice (including the Declaration of Independence where GOD (Creator) is powerfully evoked). At the same time, the founding fathers avoided using words like “Catholic,” “Baptist,” and “Presbyterian.” They knew – and we should know – that GOD and religion are very separate things. The motto should stay on our coins – and it will. matteproof
<< <i>All voices in America should be heard – whether we like the sound of it or not. Every opinion matters because none of us has a monopoly on truth. We may vehemently disagree with an idea or an opinion yet we should listen carefully to it anyway because it might contain some partial truth that we can learn from. We even gain from listening to ideas that are clearly and entirely wrong because it serves to give us a deeper confidence in what we already believe. This is why freedom of speech and open discourse are so valuable.
Regarding the motto issue, the phrase “In God We Trust” does not equate to the establishing of a religion. The motto does not say; “In Catholics We Trust” or “In Baptists We Trust.” The word GOD as well as the concept of GOD is not a religion.
That is why the founding fathers repeatedly and aggressively used the name and word “God” in speeches, letters, writings, debates, and practice (including the Declaration of Independence where GOD is powerfully evoked). At the same time, the founding fathers avoided using words like “Catholic,” “Baptist,” and “Presbyterian.” They knew – and we should know – that GOD and religion are very separate things. The motto should stay on our coins – and it will. matteproof >>
<< <i>Let's not turn this into a debate about religion. >>
IGWT is always about religion.
<< <i>Nobody "wins" debates that pit logic against faith, and will only serve to offend someone. >>
I can relate to that.
<< <i>How about we do it with a vote across the country, the way it should be done as was done with the marriage ban?
When the vote is over the 30% such as yourself who vote against it can be sent to internment camps. >>
That is exactly why government and religion is a dangerous mix.
saying by jesus or some smart fellow that went like this.
give unto ceasar what is ceasar's, and give unto god what
is god's.
so, when you think like that, "in god we trust" does not belong
on coins, in my warped fantasy world of separation of church
and state.
everyone have a good day (PS, i am not a religious nut, i just
know good advice when i see it)
It doesn't matter to me.
Tom
<< <i>
IN GOD WE TRUST...............................after more then a century and a quarter of use on U.S coins and currency, this motto now has as much significance on our coinage as any of the other required markings. >>
"Liberty" has been on coins a lot longer, and now they are taking it off.
<< <i>
The beauty of this nondenominational motto is that all religions can identify, God being universal. >>
Non-religions do not identify.
<< <i>
The only ones who really do disagree with the motto in its generic form are the atheists among us and they, by their own admission, are irrelevant (i.e. a living thing without a soul, aimlessly wandering the planet without a purpose.) >>
An Athiest would likely find that statement to be quite infuriating. That same derogatory statement, directed towards a non-athiest, would sound like this:
"The only ones who really do agree with the motto in its generic form are the non-athiests among us and they, by their own admission, are irrevelant (i.e. a living being with a pre-determined destiny and without a soul or free will because they are nothing but God's play toy puppet)."
Can you see how infuriating a statement like that would be to you ?
<< <i>
I always laugh when people believe in forcing something on others. How unfortunate I am one of the truly intelligent individuals in the world.
"I don't believe in changing it to appease the small percentage of those who are offended, in turn offending fat more numerous people who want it on the coin."
Whenever I hear something along these lines, I feel disheartened. The idea that the majority should rule is exactly what the constitution protects against. The true beauty of the constitution is that a minority of one will still the same rights as the overwhelming majority. No majority will ever be large enough to strip or hinder others of their constitutional rights. A state of neutrality toward religion is the best option for the government, period. For this reason, there should be no reference to any religion on a coin or in any other government issue.
Regardless of my religious affiliation, I feel that it is my duty as an American to fight for the rights of all Americans-no matter how contrary their beliefs are to my own. As soon as one group is allowed to hinder the rights of others, democracy has failed. >>
Well, in a democracy, the majority usually rules. That's why things are put to a vote. If enough people felt strongly enough against abortion, that they voted in lawmakers that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others". If enough liberals get the support in numbers they need to outlaw guns, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others".
At any rate, we're talking about having a reference to God on a coin. Not sure how it relates to "Constitutional rights". Reading the coin does not force one to worship or believe. I think it's a very silly argument.
<< <i>If 85% of the population believes in "god", then to be fair, 15% of the coins issued should look like this: >>
1969s WCLR-001 counterclash
<< <i>
WOW ... it is starting to sound like IRAQ in here. >>
Very Naive and misinformed.
<< <i>
<< <i>
"The only ones who really do agree with the motto in its generic form are the non-athiests among us and they, by their own admission, are irrevelant (i.e. a living being with a pre-determined destiny and without a soul or free will because they are nothing but God's play toy puppet)."
Can you see how infuriating a statement like that would be to you ? >>
God gave every human being a soul AND free will and with that the chance for everlasting life.
Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and that is all they will get (i.e. a short period of biological existence).
<< <i>An Athiest would likely find that statement to be quite infuriating. >>
I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born.
<< <i>I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. >>
Atheists are perhaps the last group that can be openly ridiculed and discriminated against. Even homosexuals get more respect these days than we do.
<< <i>
I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born. >>
The problem is that athiests are often viewed upon as second-class citizens or worse (as clearly evidenced by many of the statements in this discussion).
Would a Jew merely ignore a swastika ?
By your logic, is it not hilarious that non-athiests get worked up over matters of IGWT ?
<< <i>
<< <i>An Athiest would likely find that statement to be quite infuriating. >>
I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born. >>
For an atheist, it shouldn't matter if the references on coins are to "God" or the Trix rabbit. Why the hell should I care??
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
Separation of curch and state is very important. In a church run state, like for example Iran, there is little room for people that don't have the state approved religion. In fact many of the people who came to America from England and Europe came to escape state religion.
<< <i>
God gave every human being a soul AND free will and with that the chance for everlasting life.
Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and that is all they will get (i.e. a short period of biological existence). >>
Why do you claim that athiests have no soul ? Do you even know if athiests themselves believe that they have a soul ?
You don't know the answers because you're not one.
Everything and anything can have a soul at one level or another, even athiests.
<< <i>For an atheist, it shouldn't matter if the references on coins are to "God" or the Trix rabbit. Why the hell should I care?? >>
It's godwinizing, but I agree with dcarr -- it's rather like asking a Jew to not care about a swastika. It's just a symbol, after all...
A true believer doesn't care what others think and is secure in their own belief as to not infringe on other peoples liberties.
If you want to pray, go ahead, nobody cares, but the world isn't going to stop just cause you want to.
Some one I know is like you nuts, not real nuts, but bad enough. He's all pissed because Wal-Mart won't say Merry Christmas to him, but says and does nothing when another Priest is hulled away for molesting another child.
If you want to live by principles and morals, then fine, but don't live on the latest talking points of the GOP.
<< <i>
<< <i>For an atheist, it shouldn't matter if the references on coins are to "God" or the Trix rabbit. Why the hell should I care?? >>
It's godwinizing, but I agree with dcarr -- it's rather like asking a Jew to not care about a swastika. It's just a symbol, after all... >>
There's a substantial difference between a swastika and the "God" reference in IGWT: Jews know that Nazis are real, and were harmed by them enormously. The God referred to on our coinage (from an atheist's perspective) is not real and therefore cannot rationally be offensive. You might think it's a silly thing to put on a coin, but that's a different argument.
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>There's a substantial difference between a swastika and the "God" reference in IGWT: Jews know that Nazis are real, and were harmed by them enormously. >>
And atheists have never been harmed from God-folk?
<< <i>Are you honestly now comparing a swastika to our Motto? >>
No, I'm just illustrating the point as to why some things aren't simply ignored by certain people.
<< <i>
I hope so. It tickles me to see atheists get worked up over matters of religion. I think it's hilarious that they can't merely ignore symbols that have been omnipresent since the day they were born. >>
Would a creationist simply ignore a Darwin Fish logo if that was on the coins and bills rather than IGWT ?
<< <i>I think the Pubs wanna replace it with" In President Bush we trust."
I saw an interesting t-shirt today, Had a pic of George W. on it. Over the pic it said--- Like a Rock. Under the pic, it said---but dumber.
My Indian Name is: Runs With Beer
Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, says the holocaust isn't real.
Church and state must be separate in my opinion.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>[Everything and anything can have a soul at one level or another, even athiests. >>
WRONG!!! A soul is not given out like candy at halloween. Only human beings receive a soul from God and then each person must have FAITH in God and live their life in such a way as to KEEP their soul for eternity.
<< <i>
<< <i>[Everything and anything can have a soul at one level or another, even athiests. >>
WRONG!!! A soul is not given out like candy at halloween. Only human beings receive a soul from God and then each person must have FAITH in God and live their life in such a way as to KEEP their soul for eternity. >>
So are you saying that if an honest moral person doesn't worship God then God will take their soul away ?
If that is true then God is not worthy of worship.
As physicists know, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and space/time. There is yet another aspect to the universe and that is intelligence. Intelligence is the same thing as conciousness, which is the manifestation of a soul. There is a little bit of intelligence in everything (except government
Only a man is arrogant enough to believe that his is the only one in posession of a soul.
Only a man is arrogant enough to refer to God as "Him" - as opposed to "Her" or "It". (Organized religion is controlled by men).
Only a man is arrogant enough to believe that he is god-like (man as created in the image of god).
Only man is arrogant enough to think that the entire unviverse revolves around him and the Earth.
The Roman Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for the remainder of his life because he challenged the Church's belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies circled the Earth. Galileo was enlightened. The Roman Catholic Church was not.
I think a valid argument can be made that money, at least in New Testament terms, is something that leads men to perdition and evil deeds, and can be argued that God's name should never be placed on something that has such a corrupting influence (again, I'm going from the New Testament view here).
Another argument can be made that since God was not placed on money during the time of the Founding Fathers, the very people who's ideals this country is wholly based on, then anything added after the fact could be viewed as politically oriented in nature.
Just food for thought
Cheers,
BigBen
PS- Here's a quote from the Bible in which I base the above arguments from:
"But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
Timothy 6:9
<< <i>As physicists know, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and space/time. >>
That is actually redundant as space-time structure is the product of matter and energy, not to nitpick on such details too much.
<< <i>...soul... >>
There is no confirmation of the presence of a soul, an unphysical attribute. Yes, there seems to be an instrinsic nature to everything living. Certainly it is composed of both natural (in the purest sense of the term) and developmental influences. That it is governed by the protocols of natural selection and self preservation or those of an established religious faith seems to be the heart of a debate, with the former at least being subject to the scientific method of testing and peer review. This is getting way OT IMHO though.
<< <i>Another argument can be made that since God was not placed on money during the time of the Founding Fathers, the very people who's ideals this country is wholly based on, then anything added after the fact could be viewed as politically oriented in nature. >>
I rather like that perspective in terms of mottos on coins.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
The Declaration of Independence specifically states that all of the “unalienable rights” vested in people came specifically from GOD (Creator). The values that gave birth to America are founded on this premise that GOD granted those “unalienable rights” to all men (according to the founders in the Declaration and elsewhere in their communications). If the unalienable rights are given to man by GOD (as the Founders insisted), then the motto “In God We Trust” is simply an acknowledgement of that sentiment found in the Declaration. Therefore, to express it on our coins and currency is historically, ethically, and morally accurate.
You said; ”….Any attribution of our success to a vague conceptual deity is wrong, not inviting unity of its citizenry, and certainly outside the fringe of core fundamental American values.”
According to the Declaration of Independence, it is GOD (Creator) who supplies mankind with literal: LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness (according to the Founders). Therefore, GOD is clearly not some “vague conceptual diety” as you say, but rather he is a GOD so powerful and so Almighty that he has the very power and authority to give mankind literal LIFE, literal Liberty, and Literal happiness – in short - Literal existence! (according the Founders in the Declaration). Surely, there is nothing “vague” about such a GOD. Wouldn’t you agree?
"In Legend We Trust" <------ Just in case I'm right ...
Here's a quick link to his bio: LINK
<< <i>As physicists know, the universe is comprised of matter, energy, and space/time. There is yet another aspect to the universe and that is intelligence. Intelligence is the same thing as conciousness, which is the manifestation of a soul. There is a little bit of intelligence in everything (except government
Only a man is arrogant enough to believe >>
Exactly right you are! From the very beginning mankind has believed it knows all and has all the answers regardiing everything. Believes in fact that he can outhink and outsmart God himself (or herself if you prefer).
But God can set the stage in any manner he pleases. God can give any amount of intelligence to mankind he wishes. God can sit and watch while mankind strives mightly to prove it is the ultimate intelligence in all of the universe.
What God really wants is FAITH from man. Faith that God does exist. Faith hat God is the one and only creator of everything seen and unseen, of everything known and unknown. God could have made it easy and provided absolute proof of His existance, but then the free will to do right or wrong and thus place ones soul alongside the Almighty would not mean anything at all.
Keep us posted as to when mankind has all the answers.
<< <i>Keep us posted as to when mankind has all the answers. >>
OK ... keep us posted as to when god answers even one question ... and not through someone claiming to hear his voice in their head.
The Declaration of Independence, as revered as it is and should be, is not the legal documentation that provides the real contract in this nation. You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The DoI was a letter of grievance to the king and an official notice of sedition and revolution.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. >>
I have a first edition of The Federalist ... what a great read. In addition, I recently read Franklin's autobiography. Those two books sure make you want to go back in time and be a part of the magic
<< <i>
<< <i>You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. >>
I have a first edition of The Federalist ... what a great read. In addition, I recently read Franklin's autobiography. Those two books sure make you want to go back in time and be a part of the magic
Definitely. That's the bones of it all and it is a real shame that it gets the Entertainment Tonight, 1 week in 12 years of school exposure for most Americans.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Definitely. That's the bones of it all and it is a real shame that it gets the Entertainment Tonight, 1 week in 12 years of school exposure for most Americans. >>
I used to practice constitutional law about 1,000 years ago. It was all required reading ... but I still love the period
<< <i>Well, in a democracy, the majority usually rules. That's why things are put to a vote. If enough people felt strongly enough against abortion, that they voted in lawmakers that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others". If enough liberals get the support in numbers they need to outlaw guns, then "one group would be allowed to hinder the Constitutional rights of others".
At any rate, we're talking about having a reference to God on a coin. Not sure how it relates to "Constitutional rights". Reading the coin does not force one to worship or believe. I think it's a very silly argument. >>
DEMOCRACY DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO STRIP INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR RIGHTS. I really don't think you are familiar with the way this country works. A majority rules when it comes to elections, not when it comes to constitutional rights. The issue of people and abortion is very different than that of the issue of religion. The issue of religion is clearly stated in the constitution, where abortion is not. Abortion falls under something very different. The constitution acknowledges that there are certain rights that are not listed in the constitution. The right for a woman to control her body through abortion, and the right to privacy fall under this category. This category is open to the evolving (or de-evolving) sense of decency among the American populace. Their have been some struggles over the issue of what is and what is not decent in legislation and in the courts.
However, the rights that are named in the constitution can not be subject to the whims of the majority. A reference to God does in fact reference constitutional rights. The forced acknowledgement of a beliefe can not be constitutionally done. The ruling in W. Virginia v. Barnette reflects this. In this case, the issue was whether or not a Jehovah's witness had to salute the flag as he was compelled to through the rules of the school. The Jehovah's witness refused, because the flag salute and pledge was considered an act of idolatry (which was against his faith). The court ruled that such a policy would force students to profess a belief that could be contrary to their personal views, and as a result the policy was found to be a violation of an individual's liberties. By printing currency with a religious message on it, one is forced to utilize currency that acknowledges something other than their own beliefs. I do not think it is that much of a stretch to extend the Barnette case to this situation. Also, the court has ruled that government should treat all religions neutrally, neither aiding or hindering religious organizations.
As far as gun laws go, the intent of the "right to bear arms" is not so that each individual can own a gun. It is a collective right; a safety measure for states to create an effective militia equiped with proper arms. This helped quell those who opposed federalism due to the fear that the states would not have enough power.
I will end this long post with one more word. I urge you as an American to evaluate your stance again. I am pleaing that you will try to change your mind on the issue that the majority can regulate the rights of the minority. Whenever a significant amount of people believe such a thing, no good can come from it. I gravely ask you to think of what occured in Nazi Germany. The Nazi party took actions against Jews, Gypsies, and other groups. Was the majority just in taking away the rights of these minorities? Was the majority right to go as far as to take the lives of these minorities through the means of concentration camps? Please, if not to me or on this board then to yourself, please honestly answer these questions.
I am sorry for using bold letters and caps, but it conveys how I felt. I apologize if anything in this message came across as insulting, but I do hope that you will hear what I have to say.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
<< <i>The Declaration of Independence, as revered as it is and should be, is not the legal documentation that provides the real contract in this nation. You must reference the Constitution and its support in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. The DoI was a letter of grievance to the king and an official notice of sedition and revolution. >>
One (DOI) flows into the other (Constitution) and both define the nation we were/are. Additionally, the Articles of Confederation, now nearly forgotten, also was/is an important piece of our country.
It certainly was the founding fathers' intent that God be a part of the United States right from the Declaration of Independence to the Articles of Confederation and on to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.