Should "In God We Trust" stay on currency?

Started by Moondazed, February 11, 2009, 09:04:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Moondazed

NBC has a poll up asking if "In God We Trust" should be removed from US currency.  There's an email push amongst Christians to go and vote in the poll to preserve God in our society so I thought I'd throw it out there to others as well.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Dizzied

I can't see any reason to keep it.  Since when has belief in god been a requirement to use currency?

Isn't greed a sin anyway?   ;D

Zakharra

 I see no need to remove it. I'm not a christian, but I'm not anti-religious either. Each to their own. I prefer to think the phrase, 'In God we Trust' is talking to a generic 'god', so it can mean any diety.

*adds 'dess' after God on the money*

HairyHeretic

Doesn't Allah mean God? Try suggesting it get changed to "In Allah we trust" and see how far that 'generic god' angle gets you with the christian right  ;D

As far as they are concerned, its THEIR god, not yours. Yours isn't real, either, the way they look at it.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

 *nod* That's my thought to. It's not specifically saying -what- god. Of course those that are taking the 'separation of church and state' to the extreme are trying to remove any religious (mainly Christian) symbolism from all forms of government.

Avi

The Christian Right is absolutely insane... I'm a Catholic, and I try not to associate with people like that due to just how intolerant they are of others.  As far as "In God We Trust" is concerned... keep it.  It's a throwback to the founding of the country, and denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation is not something I personally would want to see.  It's an integral part of understanding the early, formative years of the United States.
Your reality doesn't apply to me...

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Zakharra on February 11, 2009, 10:48:09 AM
*nod* That's my thought to. It's not specifically saying -what- god. Of course those that are taking the 'separation of church and state' to the extreme are trying to remove any religious (mainly Christian) symbolism from all forms of government.

I can't say I have any real issues with that. The Law should be secular.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Valerian

Quote from: aviationrox on February 11, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
As far as "In God We Trust" is concerned... keep it.  It's a throwback to the founding of the country, and denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation is not something I personally would want to see.  It's an integral part of understanding the early, formative years of the United States.
That motto actually wasn't added to (some) U.S. money until 1864, and it wasn't on every piece of money until the 1950's.  There's a lot of debate over whether the people who founded the U.S. really wanted to set up a "Christian republic", and that would need its own thread and then some.  I'm more curious to know what brought this question up in the first place, since it seems like a pretty minor thing to be worrying about at the moment.  Is there some Controversy behind this?
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Zakharra

Quote from: HairyHeretic on February 11, 2009, 11:06:58 AM
I can't say I have any real issues with that. The Law should be secular.

The law is secular. The seperation of church and state was take beyond what it means in the Constitution. It was meant, in original context that the government could not set up a national church. That's now been takien to mean that there should be no religious influence and symbolism in -any- government organization or symbols at all. If the fanatic anti-Christians (which is what most of them are since they seem to have no problem with other religions being taught in schools) had their way, religious people would probably loose the right to vote since they are going to obviously want to put religion into law.

Oniya

Quote from: Valerian on February 11, 2009, 11:48:40 AM
I'm more curious to know what brought this question up in the first place, since it seems like a pretty minor thing to be worrying about at the moment.  Is there some Controversy behind this?

The first time I heard of it was when the Presidential dollars started coming out, and the motto had been edge-incised instead of being on the flat face of the coin.  There were people all up in arms about the fact that it had been 'removed', even though it had just been put in a different place.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jefepato

Neither religious phrasing nor symbolism should be present on anything government-created.  The country is secular.  (And seriously, the "it doesn't say which god" argument doesn't fly.  The folks who added it sure didn't mean it in a generic sense, and even if you think of it that way it still excludes everyone but monotheists.)

Now, having "In God We Trust" in tiny letters on our currency is incredibly trivial and doesn't much bother me.  But it really shouldn't be there.

Quote from: aviationrox on February 11, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
The Christian Right is absolutely insane... I'm a Catholic, and I try not to associate with people like that due to just how intolerant they are of others.  As far as "In God We Trust" is concerned... keep it.  It's a throwback to the founding of the country, and denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation is not something I personally would want to see.  It's an integral part of understanding the early, formative years of the United States.

In what sense was the foundation of the nation Judeo-Christian?  When the founding fathers (many of whom were not Christians) sat down to enumerate some rights, religious freedom was the first thing they came up with.

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Zakharra on February 11, 2009, 11:58:04 AM
The law is secular. The seperation of church and state was take beyond what it means in the Constitution.

Well, unless you've been chatting with those who wrote the constitution lately, then that would just be an opinion :)

Quote from: Zakharra on February 11, 2009, 11:58:04 AM
It was meant, in original context that the government could not set up a national church. That's now been takien to mean that there should be no religious influence and symbolism in -any- government organization or symbols at all.

So where is the problem in that?

Quote from: Zakharra on February 11, 2009, 11:58:04 AM
If the fanatic anti-Christians (which is what most of them are since they seem to have no problem with other religions being taught in schools) had their way, religious people would probably loose the right to vote since they are going to obviously want to put religion into law.

While I'm sure there are a handfull of anti religious types who would want to take things to that extreme, the steriotype of the equally fanatically christian would want to turn the country into a theocracy.

The Law, as I stated before, should be secular. It should not give favour to any belief. If laws are passed that give a higher status to one belief, or enforce the beliefs of one group upon others, then there is a problem. The law is no longer fair in that case.

I believe that everyone has the right to think, say, or do what they want, what their faith would have of them, right up to the point that it infringes on the beliefs of others. That's why the law has to remain separate from a particular groupings beliefs.

But since we seem to be moving somewhat OT here, should we split this off to a separate thread?
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

The Great Triangle

Given that the US dollar is a fiat currency, it seems perfectly appropriate to bring up the idea of trust on the currency.  Sure, it's not really backed by anything except a promise, but so long as people have faith in it, it has value.  Much like the idea of God, which is really a more poetic way of putting it than "In Ben Bernanke we trust" or "In the US Mint we trust", or perhaps "In the New York Stock Exchange we trust."
Meow!  I'm a kitty; made of fire.

Ons and Offs

Zakharra

Quote from: Jefepato on February 11, 2009, 12:11:21 PM
Neither religious phrasing nor symbolism should be present on anything government-created.  The country is secular.  (And seriously, the "it doesn't say which god" argument doesn't fly.  The folks who added it sure didn't mean it in a generic sense, and even if you think of it that way it still excludes everyone but monotheists.)

Now, having "In God We Trust" in tiny letters on our currency is incredibly trivial and doesn't much bother me.  But it really shouldn't be there.

In what sense was the foundation of the nation Judeo-Christian?  When the founding fathers (many of whom were not Christians) sat down to enumerate some rights, religious freedom was the first thing they came up with.

Even when it is a part of history? The colonies were founded, mostly as religious colonies. Religion was a strong component of their make up. Religion was a strong part of the nation and the founders were Christians or they believed in some form of religion. God was mentioned frequently in public addresses and speeches. Many of the state, federal and governmental seals and symbols have religious components to them. Should those be remade to remove that?

Quote from: HairyHeretic on February 11, 2009, 12:13:25 PM
1Well, unless you've been chatting with those who wrote the constitution lately, then that would just be an opinion :)

2So where is the problem in that?

While I'm sure there are a handfull of anti religious types who would want to take things to that extreme, the steriotype of the equally fanatically christian would want to turn the country into a theocracy.

3The Law, as I stated before, should be secular. It should not give favour to any belief. If laws are passed that give a higher status to one belief, or enforce the beliefs of one group upon others, then there is a problem. The law is no longer fair in that case.

I believe that everyone has the right to think, say, or do what they want, what their faith would have of them, right up to the point that it infringes on the beliefs of others. That's why the law has to remain separate from a particular groupings beliefs.

But since we seem to be moving somewhat OT here, should we split this off to a separate thread?

1The basic meaning is fairly straight forward. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


2 Yes, it is a problem, it denies the history that is behind the reasons for the seals and symbols that make up this nation. It's like rewritting history. Revising it to fit a political agenda

3 I have no real problem with that. That being said, it shouldn't deny a religios based/funded organization anything if that specific organization can do the job if it wins a bid for funding for something. As long as it's made sure the money is spent on what it's intended for, i'd have no problem with that. If a secular organization can do better, they should get  it. Religion should have no influence in that.

The Overlord

Quote from: HairyHeretic on February 11, 2009, 10:43:22 AM
Doesn't Allah mean God? Try suggesting it get changed to "In Allah we trust" and see how far that 'generic god' angle gets you with the christian right  ;D

As far as they are concerned, its THEIR god, not yours. Yours isn't real, either, the way they look at it.


Yeah it's sorta funny how that works out, how one group gets all uppity and enlightened and thinks they've got it all figured out. I think their god is smoke and mirrors too…sad thing about it, they're never going to be even open to the possibility of that. Amazing how some people can go through their entire life having handed their brain off to someone else so they can do the thinking for them.


As for the topic at hand, I don't find it a serious thing one way or another. Just remember that the slogan does not reflect the viewpoint of everyone here, and we'll get along fine.

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Zakharra on February 11, 2009, 01:04:44 PM
2 Yes, it is a problem, it denies the history that is behind the reasons for the seals and symbols that make up this nation. It's like rewritting history. Revising it to fit a political agenda

I think we're addressing different points here. You seem to be refering to the symbolism, I'm more thinking of the influence. That being said, I don't particularly like the idea of any group .. religious, social, business, whatever .. getting special treatment for them written into the law.

Quote from: Zakharra on February 11, 2009, 01:04:44 PM
3 I have no real problem with that. That being said, it shouldn't deny a religios based/funded organization anything if that specific organization can do the job if it wins a bid for funding for something. As long as it's made sure the money is spent on what it's intended for, i'd have no problem with that. If a secular organization can do better, they should get  it. Religion should have no influence in that.

Agreed. That should have no bearing on it at all.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

Quote from: HairyHeretic on February 11, 2009, 03:51:54 PM
I think we're addressing different points here. You seem to be refering to the symbolism, I'm more thinking of the influence. That being said, I don't particularly like the idea of any group .. religious, social, business, whatever .. getting special treatment for them written into the law.

There are groups that have tried and are trying to get religios symbols removed from city seals, monuments and the like. On the basis of 'Separation of church and state'. It's groups like that, that make me think they want to erase any mention of religion completely from society.

HairyHeretic

And there are groups that are trying to get more and more religious influence into society. Look at the Creationists and their constant attempts to get 'Intelligent Design' recognised as science.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

Quote from: HairyHeretic on February 11, 2009, 05:09:18 PM
And there are groups that are trying to get more and more religious influence into society. Look at the Creationists and their constant attempts to get 'Intelligent Design' recognised as science.

*nod* True. Religion expression should stop at the point it intrudes into my life when I do not want it. It's for each person to decide what they wish to follow. Common sense laws should be in, not ones that follow a religios view. 

<_<

No ban on same gender marriage.

>_>

*contemplates putting up a 'Evangelist Season is Open' sign in her yard*

Moondazed

The reason this came up is that some of the new dollars were printed without the text printed on the edge, which of course outraged the religious right.  Personally, I find the presence of that text offensive and misleading, because a secular country shouldn't have such things on its currency.  I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-religion-in-government.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

consortium11

Technically the federal reserve who prints the notes is a private entity (IIRC) and as such in theory it isn't a religion-in-government issue.

Emphasis on the words "technically" and "theory" above...

Moondazed

Currency is representative of the United States of America and tax dollars are involved in the creation of money, so it's an extension of government, imo.  Regardless of the Puritans and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, their vision of the country did not include religion in government (read the Federalist Papers, etc.), and I don't want my tax dollars going to anything that support the mixing of religion and government... not my religion or any other.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Trieste

... over 11 million responses just now, and 85% for "no". Anyone who might have voted yes, it's just not gonna happen, methinks.

Caity

I don't see what the big deal is.  I'm not particularly religious but if someone wants to give me their money because they're so offended by the "In God we trust" they are welcome.  ;)

Zakharra

Quote from: Trieste on February 11, 2009, 09:38:34 PM
... over 11 million responses just now, and 85% for "no". Anyone who might have voted yes, it's just not gonna happen, methinks.

Since the majority wants this, it must be wrong. After all, some think it is a violation of the church and state and must be striken.

I can see that being used as an agruement to get it removed.