They can always grind it off the coins that they possess. I think a black magic marker would take care of any problem with bills. Of course this would be defacing the money, but when was the last time anybody was bothered by that? Before long it will all be worth nothing anyhow.
I wonder now if some slithering atheist did something dastardly at the Mint in 1934 to effect the Light Motto (IN God We Trust) on the Washers that year.
You said, 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).
Thanks BigBen. I’m fairly familiar with Jefferson’s situation. He was a deist (perhaps) who believed very much in GOD in his earlier days. Like most Deists of that era, he did not believe that GOD interfered with the universe after he had “launched it.” Jefferson was undoubtedly influenced by the philosophies that inspired John Stuart Mill (author of “On Liberty”), Jeremy Benthem and probably John Locke too.
As the years waned, Jefferson seems to have abandoned “Deist” ideology. He appears to have viewed Jesus Christ as a “noble and just” person – but you are correct that he did not think upon Christ in the classic Christian sense. Perhaps this is because Jefferson was extremely influenced by “Unitarian” preachers (which itself is evidence that he was moving away from Deism). Significantly, Jefferson seemed to truly despise the Apostle Paul – a clear suggestion that Jefferson could not have been a Christian even in the most liberal sense.
My own view of Jefferson is that, in the end, he was just a typical “rationalist” from the so-called Enlightenment period. For all the talk about “Jefferson” the genius, I do not see anything unique and extraordinary about the man. As I see it, he was a typical thinker of his day – nothing more nothing less. His greatest moment was the Declaration of Independence – and surely this moment was not his alone (although he would have us believe it was).
Jefferson was too deeply influenced by “French” culture (I could make a case that he was more French than American) and his thinking and intellectual angst was largely rehashed French Revolution era liberalism. Most of all, I think Jefferson was “bored” in later life. I can’t blame him for this.
Finally, Jefferson committed a grievous and horrendous offense with his so-called “Jefferson Bible.” Here, he had the audacity to “cut out” and delete entire texts from the Holy Bible that he did not approve of. This was the height of arrogance. Not surprisingly, Jefferson engaged in this blasphemy around the same time that he refused to release his many slaves – even while Jefferson claimed to be opposed to slavery. The hypocrisy and delusions of Jefferson’s latter years (and a reasonable number of his earlier ones too) suggest that he was either a supremely arrogant member of the privileged aristocracy of his day – or – he may have been suffering from mental dementia. Thank you again for the terrific thoughts BigBen. matteproof
Hi Coxe. Thank you for the reply. I appreciate your thoughts.
You said, 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.
I hear you. However, the DOI is the defining document and sentiment that launched the nation. It explicitly expresses the Founding Fathers views about GOD in the historical, ethical, and moral (at the least) categories. Furthermore, it was the document and the sentiment in effect during the Revolutionary War – and America was victorious in that war under it, not the Constitution. Without the Declaration of Independence and its principles, there would be no America at all. That is what the motto “In God We Trust” justly celebrates (among other things).
The Constitution is also celebrated separately on a coin (as I recall it is the subject of the 1987 Constitution Silver Dollar and maybe on other issues too – I can’t recall).
Also, the Declaration of Independence features the specific expression of the “liberties” that represent America – our foundation so to speak – and therefore all future documents, laws, and concepts derive from it. That is why the Founders continued to express the idea of GOD in their many communications throughout the earliest years of our Nation’s history and even long after our blessed nation was firmly established: like Washington’s Thanksgiving Holiday Proclamation in 1789 which richly and abundantly evokes the name of GOD, and Lincoln’s Proclamation in 1863 which also richly evokes the name of GOD. There were many others too of course. Thanks again for your thoughts Coxe. matteproof
<< <i>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. >>
Why is it that all the anti-gun people continue spouting the same old tired arguement of it being a collective right? Why is it that they believe that in the 2nd amendment "The right of the people" means the "State" but in the other amendments it means the individual?
1st "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" So in this amendment the "State or collective" has the right to assemble not the individuals?
2nd "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
4th "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And in this one the "State" has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?
The framers drafted the Consitution in plain english and not the legal gargon of today which is probably why it is so hard for legal types today to understand it. Just my thoughts on the matter.
<< <i>2nd "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" >>
Geez, if we start up with gun control, this thread is going to get insane. However, you can have two polar extreme interpretations of that amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" could invalidate the personal right should it not be in concert within the context of a well regulated militia to support state security. Alternatively, perhaps any private army that could be a potential threat to state and federal miltary units is welcomed by the Constitution. In any event, I am not against any free person having any weapon, chemical, ... as long as he/she stays on the proper side of the law, not infringing on my nor anyone else's rights.
<< <i>I wonder now if some slithering atheist did something dastardly at the Mint in 1934 to effect the Light Motto (IN God We Trust) on the Washers that year. >>
Do you think your god is pleased with you for making such derogatory remarks about your fellow man ?
<< <i>I wonder now if some slithering atheist did something dastardly at the Mint in 1934 to effect the Light Motto (IN God We Trust) on the Washers that year. >>
Do you think your god is pleased with you for making such derogatory remarks about your fellow man ? >>
Hmmm...let's see, America removed God from the schools and they are crap now...if you really want to see the American dollar tank, go ahead and remove God from it too.
That fool should hook up with that crazy Cindy Sheehan, they are perfect for each other, although they would just fight over who is the bigger attention whore.
You're a fool if you believe the original concept of separation of church and state meant what the Libs in this country have twisted it into. It was a simple concept of the government not establishing a religion and forcing people to succumb to its every methodical deed. (IE, what was happening in Britain at the time) And if anything, it was to keep the government away from the church, not the other way around. Many more people than not back then, were deeply, truly religious...not like the christian today, worldy tomorrow religious people around today.
Research American history and you will see, most of our truly great founding fathers, had a devout and quite personal relationship with both Christ and God. And this is exactly why our country adopted "In God We Trust." Because back then most really did believe that. Today however, that seems to be a different story.
morris <><
"Repent, for the kindom of heaven is at hand." ** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! ** Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY 28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST TEMECULA, CA 92590 (951) 757-0334
<< <i> America removed God from the schools and they are crap now >>
Let me get this straight. If they started saying a prayer again each morning the teachers would suddenly be able to teach and student test scores would soar?
<< <i>Research American history and you will see, most of our truly great founding fathers, had a devout and quite personal relationship with both Christ and God. >>
Except for those who did not. Though I find your statement that many had a "personal relationship" interesting as several like Jefferson and Washington were neither Bible thumpers nor regualr church goers. Washington's religous reference were often to "Providence."
<< <i>And this is exactly why our country adopted "In God We Trust." Because back then most really did believe that. Today however, that seems to be a different story. >>
IGWT was not on the coins minted in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, et al .
The issue is NOT about the coins. Foolishly, folks get into faith versus non faith arguments nd really, its a waste. The moment you argue about your faith, the moment you try to tell someone why your faith is what it is all about, you demonstarte a total lack of faith. Its not about feeling good and asking the big Santa in the sky to answer your every question. Its also not about the freaks who hate but say God says its OK. What a crock and this is why I stay far far far away from what todays Newsweek christianity has pumped out. It disgusts me as a christian to speak to these repugnant cretins. Now before anybody gives me the well Godly people dont detest people etc etc. Yes they do. Put down the Newsweek or Time and wakey wakey. I am no better or different than you in my belief.
If you really really believe that In God We Trust is some scheme to get people into Christianity or it is in some way unfair, then dont spend money. Give it all to me. Problem solved. This country is one of the best places you can be as far as religious tolerance. If you say what you do and you have never left the US for more than 30 days, you need to go get a clue because you are indeed very very wrong.
I’m not a religious person, and I don’t take kindly to Jehovah Witness types who try to shove religion down my throat. I tell them to go to hell, in nice way of course. Still if you don't come after me, I won't come after you. If I tell you "No thank you," and you bakc off, that's the end of it.
When it comes to the motto on coins and currency, I really don't care. I have a great deal of respect for the concept of tolerance. If somebody is doing something and it’s not hurting me or someone else, let it go. The motto has been on coins since 1864, and it’s not hurting anyone. If it makes people feel better, what’s the harm?
If it makes them act better, it's a benefit to society.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>IGWT was not on the coins minted in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, et al . >>
Excellent point. If it is so important to invoke the Deity on coinage, and if our founding fathers were so religious, then why didn't they think it important to do so at the beginning? They're the ones who wrote the original documents. Washington could have modified the Coinage Act of 1792 to include IGWT, but he didn't. Why? If this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were so religious, why did they choose to exclude the Deity from coinage?
<< <i>I’m not a religious person, and I don’t take kindly to Jehovah Witness types who try to shove religion down my throat. I tell them to go to hell, in nice way of course. Still if you don't come after me, I won't come after you. If I tell you "No thank you," and you bakc off, that's the end of it.
When it comes to the motto on coins and currency, I really don't care. I have a great deal of respect for the concept of tolerance. If somebody is doing something and it’s not hurting me or someone else, let it go. The motto has been on coins since 1864, and it’s not hurting anyone. If it makes people feel better, what’s the harm?
If it makes them act better, it's a benefit to society. >>
As a religious person, I applaud your reply. Damn straight. If you have not come to God in your course or your path, tell them to go get bent. I am sorry that was your experience. All are welcomed, none should be persuaded or confronted.
<< <i>If this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were so religious, why did they choose to exclude the Deity from coinage? >>
Did they CHOOSE not to? I have never seen any evidence of that.
<< <i>If this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were so religious, why did they choose to exclude the Deity from coinage? >>
Did they CHOOSE not to? I have never seen any evidence of that. >>
Yes they did choose not to do so. Note that every British coin of that era expressly thanked G-d (DEI GRATIA) on them prominently. Same goes for many other nations which were not as closely identified with the ex-colonies.
The motto only came to our coinage during the Civil War when the horrors of the war sickened and saddened so many people. For most people, only God's grace offered solace.
Our founding fathers chose to keep our coins simple. The additional wording was added later. Today I think that we have too many required phases on our coinage.
And interesting side note was that President Theodore Roosevelt thought that the appearance of the Deity on coinage was blasphemous. He asked Augustus St. Gaudens to omit “In God We Trust” from the designs. Congress, strongly disagreed and mandated the motto for coins where the wording would fit in the design.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Remove everything from coins but the denomination! The brown round thing with 1 CENT is a penny. The bigger silvery round thing with 5 CENTS is a nickel. The smaller silvery round thing with 10 CENTS is a dime.
<< <i>The motto only came to our coinage during the Civil War when the horrors of the war sickened and saddened so many people. For most people, only God's grace offered solace. >>
Yes, indeed! And from 1864 untill recently the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was accepted by nearly all citizens as part of what this country was all about.
Sadly, times have changed drastically. Nowdays the U.S. is not nearly as religious or moral as it once was, and it clearly shows. You only have to read a newspaper, watch TV or listen to the radio to know what a swamp this country is turning into. It is no wonder so many folks in other countries detest what they see here. IT WASN'T ALWAYS SO!!
Atheists, don't even consider removing IN GOD WE TRUST from our coins!
<< <i>Hmmm...let's see, America removed God from the schools and they are crap now...if you really want to see the American dollar tank, go ahead and remove God from it too. >>
Looks like America wants to remove God from almost anything, including our currency.
"Sometimes we don't know just what to do when adversity takes over." -- Cannonball Adderley
It should be removed only because I think we as a species need to move beyond the idea of the supernatural as a whole. But I would not want that to happen unless everyone woke up and said: "Yes. This is silly! Let's take it off." Removing it by "force" is not the answer.
However, as our country continues its slide into mysticism and unquestioning faith of all kinds, I don't expect that will happen anytime soon.
<< <i> Nowdays the U.S. is not nearly as religious or moral as it once was, >>
I am not so sure about that. At the time IGWT was added we were killing each other in the Civil War, the Confederate states still had slavery, we were killing Indians in the West, we were discriminating against the free blacks, as well as the Irish and Chineese, the Mormons had moved to Utah only 20 years before to escape violence against them, women could not vote and had limited educational and professional opportunities, factories in the North employed child labor at low pay and in terrible working conditions, and adlut laborers did not fare much better.
<< <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. >>
No one is trying to change anything but the minority.It is the minority that is dictating universal change to accomodate their little cry baby whims. All of this will finally come to a vote , and be stopped as it was for the refrendum against queer marriage (not politically correct) but to bad. We are supposed to stand still and let the foundations of this country be torn apart, and say please can I have some more!
This is not a fight about the right and left as the Demosocialists have you believe but a fight of maintaining the moral decency and character of this country. This is an 80% christian country like it or not, that makeup is not about to change soon and this voting block is just starting to wake up.
Nazi Germany? Are you nuts?
The only thing I worry about is the Left that has been paving the way for socialism for many years now, letting these people into power scares me more than anything. Firearms? We the people, meaning the majority will decide the course of this nation. We are the country the (Voters) Individuals have an inalienable right to bare arms, whether if be to protect property or to protect the constitution and democracy from being disregarded. Militias are made up of you and me (citizens) who have a belief that the constitution should be followed, and not the moronic opinions of some commie circuit judge. All that is currently being accomplished is a deep divide against the majority of this country and the possibility of civil war and secession!
A majority in this country disapprove of the job Bush and Cheney are doing. If you feel so strong about going with the majority you need to change your icon.
<< <i>A majority in this country disapprove of the job Bush and Cheney are doing >>
LOL...and yet they would still do a beter job than a democrat.....If the so-called press would do a better job of reporting, the polls would show a different result.
<< <i>It should be removed only because I think we as a species need to move beyond the idea of the supernatural as a whole. But I would not want that to happen unless everyone woke up and said: "Yes. This is silly! Let's take it off." Removing it by "force" is not the answer.
However, as our country continues its slide into mysticism and unquestioning faith of all kinds, I don't expect that will happen anytime soon. >>
well its a dam shame muslims, christians, buddhists, judaeo ethics etc etc havent discovered your nugget of wisdom yet. Otherwise, the 4+ billion people who fall into those categories need to wake up and evolve. Thanks, it was getting a bit heavy there........Glad you were there to point it out
There's a small minority that wants the mystical Masonic symbols removed from the dollar bill. They think "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is a reference to some ominous New World Order. They haven't had much success.
Titles on some British coins include FID DEF - Latin abbreviation meaning Defender of the Faith. But the "faith" referred to is the Roman Catholic faith. The Pope gave that title to Henry VIII for defending the Catholic faith against the 'heresy' of Martin Luther. When Henry started the Anglican church the Pope demanded the title back, but Henry refused. So there's a inscription on British coins that shouldn't be there. Who cares?
<< <i>No one is trying to change anything but the minority.It is the minority that is dictating universal change to accomodate their little cry baby whims.
This is not a fight about the right and left as the Demosocialists have you believe but a fight of maintaining the moral decency and character of this country. This is an 80% christian country like it or not, that makeup is not about to change soon >>
Sounds exactly right to me!! Since when does the tail wag the dog? Who died and put the atheists in charge anyhow?
For the majority of "Christians" their hearts and minds are farthest from God when they're spending/counting their money. Ironic. I voted "yes" for that reason.
<< <i>Did they CHOOSE not to? I have never seen any evidence of that. >>
This is from the Coinage Act of 1792, describing what should be on our new nation's coinage:
SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That, upon the said coins respectively, there shall be the following devices and legends, namely: Upon one side of each of the said coins there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word Liberty, and the year of the coinage; an upon the reverse of each of the gold and silver coins there shall be the figure or representation of an eagle, with this inscription, "United States of America" and upon the reverse of each of the copper coins, there shall be an inscription which shall express the denomination of the piece, namely, cent or half cent, as the case may require.
Congress approved this, and it was signed by President Washington on April 2, 1792. No mention of a Deity is included. Yes, this was a choice. Congress could have included it, or the President could have vetoed it and sent it back with instructions to include IGWT or somesuch phrase. The fact that they didn't indicates that they did not feel it was appropriate.
If you're pro-IGWT, you need to come up with a better reason than the wishes of the Founding Fathers, because clearly you are in opposition to them.
<< <i>The beauty of this nondenominational motto is that all religions can identify, God being universal.[/quote]
Tell that to the Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc.
[quote]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.) >>
You think soul is defined by a belief in God? This is rather pitiful.
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>Atheists, don't even consider removing IN GOD WE TRUST from our coins! >>
Do you really think only atheists are against the IGWT motto and the ONUG in the pledge? How naive. There is a place for some things but not every place. G-d doesn't have a place in our government by its design anymore than ketchup does on ice cream. That is no offense against G-d or any believers in any particular flavor of deity/deities. Our nation isn't heading for destruction by excluding G-d from public policy and governmetal activities. If you care to believe the collective faith of the nation has any effect on its destiny, one would expect the actions of private citizens to far outweigh an affirmation and reminder of a simple majority's personal philosophical position.
<< <i>Atheists, don't even consider removing IN GOD WE TRUST from our coins! >>
Do you really think only atheists are against the IGWT motto and the ONUG in the pledge? How naive. There is a place for some things but not every place. G-d doesn't have a place in our government by its design anymore than ketchup does on ice cream. That is no offense against G-d or any believers in any particular flavor of deity/deities. Our nation isn't heading for destruction by excluding G-d from public policy and governmetal activities. If you care to believe the collective faith of the nation has any effect on its destiny, one would expect the actions of private citizens to far outweigh an affirmation and reminder of a simple majority's personal philosophical position. >>
So why does the President take an Oath of office that he voluntarily concludes with "So help me God."? The actual Oath does not have this phrase.......
<< <i>The beauty of this nondenominational motto is that all religions can identify, God being universal.[/quote]
Tell that to the Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc.
[quote]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.) >>
You think soul is defined by a belief in God? This is rather pitiful. >>
<< <i>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). >>
If they had meant God, they would have said God. They chose "creator" because it is an undefined, and potentially not divine, concept.
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>If you're pro-IGWT, you need to come up with a better reason than the wishes of the Founding Fathers, because clearly you are in opposition to them. >>
Look....I'm NOT PRO any thing or the such. You stated where they said what would be on there...Can you show me where it states that the coinage will NOT have "In God We Trust"? Or any thing similiar?....I'm just stating that back then, God was an accepted diety in the US...Not like it is not with all the NUTS, yes I said NUTS wanting to do away with God and anything associated with him...That's the way I feel..if you don't like it..then well.....too bad.
<< <i> 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. >>
I'm guessing you vote straight Democrat every election. I don't think this is an argument over IGWT, as much as an argument between a Christian Republican and an atheist Democrat. And I don't think either side can be won. I'll concede. Back to coin collecting (something we ALL can agree on)!
<< <i>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). >>
If they had meant God, they would have said God. They chose "creator" because it is an undefined, and potentially not divine, concept. >>
The Declaration of Independence, as I have previously mentioned, is not the legal foundation of our government. There was no government when it was penned. It was a notice of sedition and revolution. The Constitution took a long time to come together and was the product of an enormous amount of debate. To suggest that our government is based on the DoI is (1) a great example of the poor state of education in this country and (2) an insult to the founders of our nation and their true motivations. Yes, there were Christians among them, some quite devout in many different ways. The government that was reasoned by them all specifically was not Christian nor religious.
Again, it should be abundantly obvious that if they were comfortable even putting a reference to a deity on coins from the beginning, it would have been quite simple and ordinary to do so. After all, the rest of the western world had DEI GRATIS (or similar) on theirs then and for the preceeding several centuries. (I know some darksider will correct me for some small technicality and I welcome it.) The very FACT of its omission is poignant and adds clarity that is stronger than researching the archives of Mssrs. Jefferson, Franklin and Washington.
<< <i>I'm guessing you vote straight Democrat every election. I don't think this is an argument over IGWT, as much as an argument between a Christian Republican and an atheist Democrat. >>
What a patently ridiculous thing to say. For the record, I haven't voted for a Democrat in 10 years, and have never voted "straight Democrat".
<< <i>Hmmm...let's see, America removed God from the schools and they are crap now...if you really want to see the American dollar tank, go ahead and remove God from it too. >>
It's not the schools that are "crap" - it's the lousy care-less parents who are the "crap". The US Dollar may very well tank - regardless of what is on the coins & bills.
<< <i> Research American history and you will see, most of our truly great founding fathers, had a devout and quite personal relationship with both Christ and God. And this is exactly why our country adopted "In God We Trust." Because back then most really did believe that. Today however, that seems to be a different story. >>
The founding fathers chose NOT to put any reference to a deity on the money. That reference was added only after they were ALL DEAD.
<< <i> Yes, indeed! And from 1864 untill recently the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was accepted by nearly all citizens as part of what this country was all about. >>
No one complained about the Buffalo Nickel not having IGWT !!!
I really should not have read this thread. I do not like the fact that there are so many closed-minded people here for whom I have lost complete respect From now on, I stick to reading threads about coins.
Comments
That's exactly what I hope we're fighting against now.
"We believe that an invisible but all-powerful entity will take care of everything"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I wonder now if some slithering atheist did something dastardly at the Mint in 1934 to effect the Light Motto (IN God We Trust) on the Washers that year.
You said, 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).
Thanks BigBen. I’m fairly familiar with Jefferson’s situation. He was a deist (perhaps) who believed very much in GOD in his earlier days. Like most Deists of that era, he did not believe that GOD interfered with the universe after he had “launched it.” Jefferson was undoubtedly influenced by the philosophies that inspired John Stuart Mill (author of “On Liberty”), Jeremy Benthem and probably John Locke too.
As the years waned, Jefferson seems to have abandoned “Deist” ideology. He appears to have viewed Jesus Christ as a “noble and just” person – but you are correct that he did not think upon Christ in the classic Christian sense. Perhaps this is because Jefferson was extremely influenced by “Unitarian” preachers (which itself is evidence that he was moving away from Deism). Significantly, Jefferson seemed to truly despise the Apostle Paul – a clear suggestion that Jefferson could not have been a Christian even in the most liberal sense.
My own view of Jefferson is that, in the end, he was just a typical “rationalist” from the so-called Enlightenment period. For all the talk about “Jefferson” the genius, I do not see anything unique and extraordinary about the man. As I see it, he was a typical thinker of his day – nothing more nothing less. His greatest moment was the Declaration of Independence – and surely this moment was not his alone (although he would have us believe it was).
Jefferson was too deeply influenced by “French” culture (I could make a case that he was more French than American) and his thinking and intellectual angst was largely rehashed French Revolution era liberalism. Most of all, I think Jefferson was “bored” in later life. I can’t blame him for this.
Finally, Jefferson committed a grievous and horrendous offense with his so-called “Jefferson Bible.” Here, he had the audacity to “cut out” and delete entire texts from the Holy Bible that he did not approve of. This was the height of arrogance. Not surprisingly, Jefferson engaged in this blasphemy around the same time that he refused to release his many slaves – even while Jefferson claimed to be opposed to slavery. The hypocrisy and delusions of Jefferson’s latter years (and a reasonable number of his earlier ones too) suggest that he was either a supremely arrogant member of the privileged aristocracy of his day – or – he may have been suffering from mental dementia. Thank you again for the terrific thoughts BigBen.
You said, 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.
I hear you. However, the DOI is the defining document and sentiment that launched the nation. It explicitly expresses the Founding Fathers views about GOD in the historical, ethical, and moral (at the least) categories. Furthermore, it was the document and the sentiment in effect during the Revolutionary War – and America was victorious in that war under it, not the Constitution. Without the Declaration of Independence and its principles, there would be no America at all. That is what the motto “In God We Trust” justly celebrates (among other things).
The Constitution is also celebrated separately on a coin (as I recall it is the subject of the 1987 Constitution Silver Dollar and maybe on other issues too – I can’t recall).
Also, the Declaration of Independence features the specific expression of the “liberties” that represent America – our foundation so to speak – and therefore all future documents, laws, and concepts derive from it. That is why the Founders continued to express the idea of GOD in their many communications throughout the earliest years of our Nation’s history and even long after our blessed nation was firmly established: like Washington’s Thanksgiving Holiday Proclamation in 1789 which richly and abundantly evokes the name of GOD, and Lincoln’s Proclamation in 1863 which also richly evokes the name of GOD. There were many others too of course. Thanks again for your thoughts Coxe. matteproof
<< <i>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. >>
Why is it that all the anti-gun people continue spouting the same old tired arguement of it being a collective right? Why is it that they believe that in the 2nd amendment "The right of the people" means the "State" but in the other amendments it means the individual?
1st
"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"
So in this amendment the "State or collective" has the right to assemble not the individuals?
2nd
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
4th
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And in this one the "State" has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?
The framers drafted the Consitution in plain english and not the legal gargon of today which is probably why it is so hard for legal types today to understand it.
1969s WCLR-001 counterclash
<< <i>2nd
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" >>
Geez, if we start up with gun control, this thread is going to get insane. However, you can have two polar extreme interpretations of that amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" could invalidate the personal right should it not be in concert within the context of a well regulated militia to support state security. Alternatively, perhaps any private army that could be a potential threat to state and federal miltary units is welcomed by the Constitution. In any event, I am not against any free person having any weapon, chemical, ... as long as he/she stays on the proper side of the law, not infringing on my nor anyone else's rights.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>I wonder now if some slithering atheist did something dastardly at the Mint in 1934 to effect the Light Motto (IN God We Trust) on the Washers that year.
Do you think your god is pleased with you for making such derogatory remarks about your fellow man ?
<< <i>
<< <i>I wonder now if some slithering atheist did something dastardly at the Mint in 1934 to effect the Light Motto (IN God We Trust) on the Washers that year.
Do you think your god is pleased with you for making such derogatory remarks about your fellow man ? >>
One created in His image too!
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Geez, if we start up with gun control, this thread is going to get insane >>
To late..it has already gotten into the insane area I think..
1969s WCLR-001 counterclash
That fool should hook up with that crazy Cindy Sheehan, they are perfect for each other, although they would just fight over who is the bigger attention whore.
You're a fool if you believe the original concept of separation of church and state meant what the Libs in this country have twisted it into. It was a simple concept of the government not establishing a religion and forcing people to succumb to its every methodical deed. (IE, what was happening in Britain at the time) And if anything, it was to keep the government away from the church, not the other way around. Many more people than not back then, were deeply, truly religious...not like the christian today, worldy tomorrow religious people around today.
Research American history and you will see, most of our truly great founding fathers, had a devout and quite personal relationship with both Christ and God. And this is exactly why our country adopted "In God We Trust." Because back then most really did believe that. Today however, that seems to be a different story.
morris <><
** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! **
Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY
28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST
TEMECULA, CA 92590
(951) 757-0334
www.allvalleycoinandjewelry.com
<< <i> America removed God from the schools and they are crap now >>
Let me get this straight. If they started saying a prayer again each morning the teachers would suddenly be able to teach and student test scores would soar?
<< <i>Research American history and you will see, most of our truly great founding fathers, had a devout and quite personal relationship with both Christ and God. >>
Except for those who did not. Though I find your statement that many had a "personal relationship" interesting as several like Jefferson and Washington were neither Bible thumpers nor regualr church goers. Washington's religous reference were often to "Providence."
<< <i>And this is exactly why our country adopted "In God We Trust." Because back then most really did believe that. Today however, that seems to be a different story. >>
IGWT was not on the coins minted in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, et al .
CG
If you really really believe that In God We Trust is some scheme to get people into Christianity or it is in some way unfair, then dont spend money. Give it all to me. Problem solved. This country is one of the best places you can be as far as religious tolerance. If you say what you do and you have never left the US for more than 30 days, you need to go get a clue because you are indeed very very wrong.
Why not use all that energy and collect coins????
When it comes to the motto on coins and currency, I really don't care. I have a great deal of respect for the concept of tolerance. If somebody is doing something and it’s not hurting me or someone else, let it go. The motto has been on coins since 1864, and it’s not hurting anyone. If it makes people feel better, what’s the harm?
If it makes them act better, it's a benefit to society.
<< <i>IGWT was not on the coins minted in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, et al . >>
Excellent point. If it is so important to invoke the Deity on coinage, and if our founding fathers were so religious, then why didn't they think it important to do so at the beginning? They're the ones who wrote the original documents. Washington could have modified the Coinage Act of 1792 to include IGWT, but he didn't. Why? If this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were so religious, why did they choose to exclude the Deity from coinage?
<< <i>I’m not a religious person, and I don’t take kindly to Jehovah Witness types who try to shove religion down my throat. I tell them to go to hell,
When it comes to the motto on coins and currency, I really don't care. I have a great deal of respect for the concept of tolerance. If somebody is doing something and it’s not hurting me or someone else, let it go. The motto has been on coins since 1864, and it’s not hurting anyone. If it makes people feel better, what’s the harm?
If it makes them act better, it's a benefit to society.
As a religious person, I applaud your reply. Damn straight. If you have not come to God in your course or your path, tell them to go get bent. I am sorry that was your experience. All are welcomed, none should be persuaded or confronted.
<< <i>If this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were so religious, why did they choose to exclude the Deity from coinage? >>
Did they CHOOSE not to? I have never seen any evidence of that.
<< <i>
<< <i>If this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian beliefs, and if our founding fathers were so religious, why did they choose to exclude the Deity from coinage? >>
Did they CHOOSE not to? I have never seen any evidence of that. >>
Yes they did choose not to do so. Note that every British coin of that era expressly thanked G-d (DEI GRATIA) on them prominently. Same goes for many other nations which were not as closely identified with the ex-colonies.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
Our founding fathers chose to keep our coins simple. The additional wording was added later. Today I think that we have too many required phases on our coinage.
And interesting side note was that President Theodore Roosevelt thought that the appearance of the Deity on coinage was blasphemous. He asked Augustus St. Gaudens to omit “In God We Trust” from the designs. Congress, strongly disagreed and mandated the motto for coins where the wording would fit in the design.
Remove everything from coins but the denomination!
The brown round thing with 1 CENT is a penny.
The bigger silvery round thing with 5 CENTS is a nickel.
The smaller silvery round thing with 10 CENTS is a dime.
Et cetera!
<< <i>The motto only came to our coinage during the Civil War when the horrors of the war sickened and saddened so many people. For most people, only God's grace offered solace. >>
Yes, indeed! And from 1864 untill recently the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was accepted by nearly all citizens as part of what this country was all about.
Sadly, times have changed drastically. Nowdays the U.S. is not nearly as religious or moral as it once was, and it clearly shows. You only have to read a newspaper, watch TV or listen to the radio to know what a swamp this country is turning into. It is no wonder so many folks in other countries detest what they see here. IT WASN'T ALWAYS SO!!
Atheists, don't even consider removing IN GOD WE TRUST from our coins!
<< <i>Hmmm...let's see, America removed God from the schools and they are crap now...if you really want to see the American dollar tank, go ahead and remove God from it too.
>>
Looks like America wants to remove God from almost anything, including our currency.
However, as our country continues its slide into mysticism and unquestioning faith of all kinds, I don't expect that will happen anytime soon.
<< <i> Nowdays the U.S. is not nearly as religious or moral as it once was, >>
I am not so sure about that. At the time IGWT was added we were killing each other in the Civil War, the Confederate states still had slavery, we were killing Indians in the West, we were discriminating against the free blacks, as well as the Irish and Chineese, the Mormons had moved to Utah only 20 years before to escape violence against them, women could not vote and had limited educational and professional opportunities, factories in the North employed child labor at low pay and in terrible working conditions, and adlut laborers did not fare much better.
CG
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
No one is trying to change anything but the minority.It is the minority that is dictating universal change to accomodate their little
cry baby whims. All of this will finally come to a vote , and be stopped as it was for the refrendum against queer marriage
(not politically correct) but to bad.
We are supposed to stand still and let the foundations of this country be torn apart, and say please can I have some more!
This is not a fight about the right and left as the Demosocialists have you believe but a fight of maintaining the moral decency
and character of this country. This is an 80% christian country like it or not, that makeup is not about to change soon and this
voting block is just starting to wake up.
Nazi Germany? Are you nuts?
The only thing I worry about is the Left that has been paving the way for socialism for many years now, letting these people
into power scares me more than anything.
Firearms? We the people, meaning the majority will decide the course of this nation. We are the country the (Voters)
Individuals have an inalienable right to bare arms, whether if be to protect property or to protect the constitution
and democracy from being disregarded. Militias are made up of you and me (citizens) who have a belief that the
constitution should be followed, and not the moronic opinions of some commie circuit judge.
All that is currently being accomplished is a deep divide against the majority of this country and the
possibility of civil war and secession!
A majority in this country disapprove of the job Bush and Cheney are doing. If you feel so strong about going with the majority you need to change your icon.
CG
<< <i>A majority in this country disapprove of the job Bush and Cheney are doing >>
LOL...and yet they would still do a beter job than a democrat.....If the so-called press would do a better job of reporting, the polls would show a different result.
CG
<< <i>It should be removed only because I think we as a species need to move beyond the idea of the supernatural as a whole. But I would not want that to happen unless everyone woke up and said: "Yes. This is silly! Let's take it off." Removing it by "force" is not the answer.
However, as our country continues its slide into mysticism and unquestioning faith of all kinds, I don't expect that will happen anytime soon. >>
well its a dam shame muslims, christians, buddhists, judaeo ethics etc etc havent discovered your nugget of wisdom yet. Otherwise, the 4+ billion people who fall into those categories need to wake up and evolve. Thanks, it was getting a bit heavy there........Glad you were there to point it out
Titles on some British coins include FID DEF - Latin abbreviation meaning Defender of the Faith. But the "faith" referred to is the Roman Catholic faith. The Pope gave that title to Henry VIII for defending the Catholic faith against the 'heresy' of Martin Luther. When Henry started the Anglican church the Pope demanded the title back, but Henry refused. So there's a inscription on British coins that shouldn't be there. Who cares?
<< <i>No one is trying to change anything but the minority.It is the minority that is dictating universal change to accomodate their little
cry baby whims.
This is not a fight about the right and left as the Demosocialists have you believe but a fight of maintaining the moral decency
and character of this country. This is an 80% christian country like it or not, that makeup is not about to change soon >>
Sounds exactly right to me!! Since when does the tail wag the dog? Who died and put the atheists in charge anyhow?
<< <i>Who died and put the atheists in charge anyhow? >>
God.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
<< <i>
<< <i>Who died and put the atheists in charge anyhow? >>
God.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
<< <i>For the majority of "Christians" their hearts and minds are farthest from God when they're spending/counting their money. Ironic >>
But what if they are giving their money to charity or the poor?
CG
<< <i>Did they CHOOSE not to? I have never seen any evidence of that. >>
This is from the Coinage Act of 1792, describing what should be on our new nation's coinage:
SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That, upon the said coins respectively, there shall be the following devices and legends, namely: Upon one side of each of the said coins there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word Liberty, and the year of the coinage; an upon the reverse of each of the gold and silver coins there shall be the figure or representation of an eagle, with this inscription, "United States of America" and upon the reverse of each of the copper coins, there shall be an inscription which shall express the denomination of the piece, namely, cent or half cent, as the case may require.
Congress approved this, and it was signed by President Washington on April 2, 1792. No mention of a Deity is included. Yes, this was a choice. Congress could have included it, or the President could have vetoed it and sent it back with instructions to include IGWT or somesuch phrase. The fact that they didn't indicates that they did not feel it was appropriate.
If you're pro-IGWT, you need to come up with a better reason than the wishes of the Founding Fathers, because clearly you are in opposition to them.
<< <i>The beauty of this nondenominational motto is that all religions can identify, God being universal.[/quote]
Tell that to the Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc.
[quote]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.) >>
You think soul is defined by a belief in God? This is rather pitiful.
Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>Atheists, don't even consider removing IN GOD WE TRUST from our coins! >>
Do you really think only atheists are against the IGWT motto and the ONUG in the pledge? How naive. There is a place for some things but not every place. G-d doesn't have a place in our government by its design anymore than ketchup does on ice cream. That is no offense against G-d or any believers in any particular flavor of deity/deities. Our nation isn't heading for destruction by excluding G-d from public policy and governmetal activities. If you care to believe the collective faith of the nation has any effect on its destiny, one would expect the actions of private citizens to far outweigh an affirmation and reminder of a simple majority's personal philosophical position.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>
<< <i>Atheists, don't even consider removing IN GOD WE TRUST from our coins! >>
Do you really think only atheists are against the IGWT motto and the ONUG in the pledge? How naive. There is a place for some things but not every place. G-d doesn't have a place in our government by its design anymore than ketchup does on ice cream. That is no offense against G-d or any believers in any particular flavor of deity/deities. Our nation isn't heading for destruction by excluding G-d from public policy and governmetal activities. If you care to believe the collective faith of the nation has any effect on its destiny, one would expect the actions of private citizens to far outweigh an affirmation and reminder of a simple majority's personal philosophical position. >>
So why does the President take an Oath of office that he voluntarily concludes with "So help me God."? The actual Oath does not have this phrase.......
<< <i>
<< <i>The beauty of this nondenominational motto is that all religions can identify, God being universal.[/quote]
Tell that to the Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc.
[quote]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.) >>
You think soul is defined by a belief in God? This is rather pitiful. >>
well said
<< <i>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). >>
If they had meant God, they would have said God. They chose "creator" because it is an undefined, and potentially not divine, concept.
Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>If you're pro-IGWT, you need to come up with a better reason than the wishes of the Founding Fathers, because clearly you are in opposition to them. >>
Look....I'm NOT PRO any thing or the such. You stated where they said what would be on there...Can you show me where it states that the coinage will NOT have "In God We Trust"? Or any thing similiar?....I'm just stating that back then, God was an accepted diety in the US...Not like it is not with all the NUTS, yes I said NUTS wanting to do away with God and anything associated with him...That's the way I feel..if you don't like it..then well.....too bad.
<< <i>
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. >>
I'm guessing you vote straight Democrat every election. I don't think this is an argument over IGWT, as much as an argument between a Christian Republican and an atheist Democrat. And I don't think either side can be won. I'll concede. Back to coin collecting (something we ALL can agree on)!
<< <i>
<< <i>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). >>
If they had meant God, they would have said God. They chose "creator" because it is an undefined, and potentially not divine, concept. >>
The Declaration of Independence, as I have previously mentioned, is not the legal foundation of our government. There was no government when it was penned. It was a notice of sedition and revolution. The Constitution took a long time to come together and was the product of an enormous amount of debate. To suggest that our government is based on the DoI is (1) a great example of the poor state of education in this country and (2) an insult to the founders of our nation and their true motivations. Yes, there were Christians among them, some quite devout in many different ways. The government that was reasoned by them all specifically was not Christian nor religious.
Again, it should be abundantly obvious that if they were comfortable even putting a reference to a deity on coins from the beginning, it would have been quite simple and ordinary to do so. After all, the rest of the western world had DEI GRATIS (or similar) on theirs then and for the preceeding several centuries. (I know some darksider will correct me for some small technicality and I welcome it.) The very FACT of its omission is poignant and adds clarity that is stronger than researching the archives of Mssrs. Jefferson, Franklin and Washington.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>I'm guessing you vote straight Democrat every election. I don't think this is an argument over IGWT, as much as an argument between a Christian Republican and an atheist Democrat. >>
What a patently ridiculous thing to say. For the record, I haven't voted for a Democrat in 10 years, and have never voted "straight Democrat".
<< <i>Hmmm...let's see, America removed God from the schools and they are crap now...if you really want to see the American dollar tank, go ahead and remove God from it too. >>
It's not the schools that are "crap" - it's the lousy care-less parents who are the "crap". The US Dollar may very well tank - regardless of what is on the coins & bills.
<< <i>
Research American history and you will see, most of our truly great founding fathers, had a devout and quite personal relationship with both Christ and God. And this is exactly why our country adopted "In God We Trust." Because back then most really did believe that. Today however, that seems to be a different story. >>
The founding fathers chose NOT to put any reference to a deity on the money. That reference was added only after they were ALL DEAD.
<< <i>
Yes, indeed! And from 1864 untill recently the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was accepted by nearly all citizens as part of what this country was all about. >>
No one complained about the Buffalo Nickel not having IGWT !!!