# Removing "In God We Trust"



## Poetic Device

I am interested in knowing what fellow Americans think and feel about this, but I would LOVE to hear from people outside America.  

How do you feel about removing "in God we trust" from our currency and such?  Do you feel that we are removing a piece of our history?  Do you feel that if we leave it on we are infringing on the first amemdment (freedom of religion)?  Do you think we'll be doing that if we take it off?  What's on your mind?


----------



## .   1

Get the merchants out of the Church.

.,,


----------



## Tu2Bene

I think it has to go.  Not everyone believes or trust in God.  Its exclusive.  PS I'm a practicing Catholic


----------



## .   1

Tu2Bene said:


> PS I'm a practicing Catholic


Kind of scary that you felt the need to declare that.
Seems to be an argument in favour of the proposition.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

. said:


> *Kind of scary that you felt the need to declare that.*
> Seems to be an argument in favour of the proposition.
> 
> .,,



Confused........... why is it scary _at all_?
I think generally people who say it "has to go" are usually the people who disagree with what the message is, all Tu2Bene said was that they are from the other side of the arguement.

Scary? I don't understand.


----------



## .   1

Alex_Murphy said:


> Confused........... why is it scary _at all_?


Scary that the need was felt to declare a personal belief system to discuss the wording on a dollar bill.



Alex_Murphy said:


> I think generally people who say it "has to go" are usually the people who disagree with what the message is, all Tu2Bene said was that they are from the other side of the arguement.


You read something that I didn't see.  
I didn't see any statement by Tu2Bene regarding those from the other side of the argument.
I saw a self declaration, that's all.  This requirement chilled me.  Is her opinion more or less valid than an agnostic?
Is an agnostic expected to declare?
Is a Baptist expected to hold contrary views?



Alex_Murphy said:


> Scary? I don't understand.


Me neither.


----------



## Tu2Bene

. said:


> Kind of scary that you felt the need to declare that.
> Seems to be an argument in favour of the proposition.
> 
> .,,


 

It _is _an argument in favor of the proposition.  We are a multi-cultural society made up of a lot of different forms of religion and spirituality.  It is unfair to people who don't believe in a god to have that stamped across their money.


----------



## .   1

Tu2Bene said:


> It _is _an argument in favor of the proposition. We are a multi-cultural society made up of a lot of different forms of religion and spirituality. It is unfair to people who don't believe in a god to have that stamped across their money.


Exactly.

.,,


----------



## Tu2Bene

. said:


> Scary that the need was felt to declare a personal belief system to discuss the wording on a dollar bill.
> 
> You read something that I didn't see.
> I didn't see any statement by Tu2Bene regarding those from the other side of the argument.
> I saw a self declaration, that's all. This requirement chilled me. Is her opinion more or less valid than an agnostic?
> Is an agnostic expected to declare?
> Is a Baptist expected to hold contrary views?
> 
> Me neither.


 
I said I was Catholic because I think it is assumed that those in favor of removing the language are atheist or agnositic.  What I am saying is that I personally do "trust in god" and I still think it is important to remove the language because we are a diverse society and the language is exclusive of many people.


----------



## koabr3gn

It needs to be removed, along with all the other religious rhetoric found in and on governmental property. 


(If you want to know why... I don't really care about separation between church and state when it come to having religious symbols on things.        I just want to piss off Evangelicals in anyway possible.)


----------



## karuna

I think it can stay. For historical and aesthetic reasons. I don't see it as a religous message at all. Everybody can read it and interpret it as he/she desires. If one believes in money then money is one's god but ultimately there is always some trust in something.

The Latvian national anthem starts with words "God bless Latvia" even though about 70 percent of citizens are atheists. Most of them have no problem with these words at all.


----------



## tvdxer

Oh please, 55% think it seems removed.

Personally I see no reason to remove it, at all.


----------



## Athaulf

Poetic Device said:


> How do you feel about removing "in God we trust" from our currency and such?  Do you feel that we are removing a piece of our history?  Do you feel that if we leave it on we are infringing on the first amemdment (freedom of religion)?  Do you think we'll be doing that if we take it off?  What's on your mind?



I view it as a purely practical question. As I have already commented in an earlier thread, people who are fighting against such completely innocuous symbols of religion in public life are among the greatest benefactors of the religious fundamentalists and those politicians and religious leaders who cater to that part of the electorate.


----------



## Kajjo

I would prefer constitutions, money, anthems and everything else of national character to be free of religious confessions. However, I do not see the text on money as a predominant problem of our time...

Kajjo


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> Oh please, 55% think it seems removed.


Personally, I don't understand what you are saying.
Come again?

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

I care very little if it stays or goes.  It is a leftover from an age in which viewpoints were narrower than those
many thinking people hold today, but I feel little pressure to eradicate all historical signs of what came before us.


Trusting in whatever the word "God" may mean to a person is different from state support of any one religion or theology.  The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits creation of a state sanctioned religion.  It does not in any way forbid any religious practice.  To the contrary, it forbids laws which would impede religion.
It is silent on the topic of a personal belief in a deity.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;



Would it be better to have the point of contention disappear from coins and bills?  Yes, probably it would.
Is any politician in sight apt to propose such a thing?  I can imagine only one member of Congress, an Independent Senator from Vermont, who would have the guts to do so.  He seems to have more important issues on his agenda.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> I view it as a purely practical question. As I have already commented in an earlier thread, people who are fighting against such completely innocuous symbols of religion in public life are among the greatest benefactors of the religious fundamentalists and those politicians and religious leaders who cater to that part of the electorate.


All of the people don't read all of your posts all of the time.

Have you stopped to think that these people know exactly what they are doing.

In the 1920s a bloke in America was stuck with a warehouse full of avocados that he couldn't sell because no one knew what they were.
The avocado owner immediately fired of a letter of denial strenuously refuting the baseless rumours that avocados are aphrodisiacs.  Boing.
Empty warehouse.  Full pockets.  No lies told.
Everybody goes home happy.

.,,


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> I care very little if it stays or goes. It is a leftover from an age in which viewpoints were narrower than those
> many thinking people hold today, but I feel little pressure to eradicate all historical signs of what came before us.


Is God behind this push because His legal team told Him that He faces litigation if inflation gets out of control and He is seen to be endorsing the currency?

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> Is God behind this push because His legal team told Him that He faces litigation if inflation gets out of control and He is seen to be endorsing the currency?
> 
> .,,



President Theodore Roosevelt, a genuine conservative, was strongly opposed to trivializing "God" by putting such slogans on pennies and other coins.  Some of the more rabid proponents of a single religious viewpoint might check their scriptures for prohibitions against such uses of the name of their deity.  That's their business.  

Leviticus 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

So I suppose you might ask if coinage is sacred or profane.  

I still don't think there is much of an issue here.  I doubt a non-believer will come to believe because of the free advertising on coins and bills.  I don't really think believers, of whatever stripe,
depend on the reinforcement of having "God" in their change purse.  Atheists can take it as confirmation that some people believe in what doesn't exist.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Atheists can take it as confirmation that some people believe in what doesn't exist.


According to my High School Economics class that is a perfect definition of money.

.,,


----------



## ampurdan

I'd reword it to a S-V-O sentence, so that inmigrants don't feel the temptation to imitate this kind of speech.

"We trust in God".

I wonder if people would feel more represented by a sentence like:

"To luck we trust".

Seriously, from my foreigner, other-side-of-the-pond point of view, it's not that important. I would disapprove any proposal of using this words in new currency, such as Euro, though.


----------



## winklepicker

Just remember that the Nazi soldiers had something similar on their belt buckles.


----------



## ColdomadeusX

Seriously, I don't really care all that much- after all, it's all the same to me because I'm Buddhist. However, if you want a historically biased view then I say get rid of it because it's one of those things that's not going to be missed much- do we really need to see the phrase everywhere; no offence but if your god is so good like everyone says then shouldn't you be able to feel his presence wherever you are? After all, it's just a phrase and I never understood why you need it on currency (afterall, currency could be classed as the root of many evils).
But that's just my thoughts.

p.s. no offence to all you um, god believing, Christians, Catholics and whoever else out there.


----------



## .   1

For an excellent examination of the political misuse of this type of religious phrase see Bob Dylan's 'With God On Our Side'.

.,,


----------



## vachecow

cuchuflete said:


> Is any politician in sight apt to propose such a thing?  I can imagine only one member of Congress, an Independent Senator from Vermont, who would have the guts to do so.  He seems to have more important issues on his agenda.


I agree, I think that the government has several more important things to work on.  Changing something that doesn't directly affect people would be a waste.


----------



## TRG

I investigated the origin of the use of this phrase and according to this it was ordered to appear on all coins and paper money by an act of Congress in 1956.  This is surprisingly recent.  I expect that it will eventually be discontinued and I'm actually surprised that  more efforts are not currently underway to remove it. I doubt that Congress would repeal the law, but it's very likely that the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional.  Eventually we'll only have electronic money so it won't matter.


----------



## vachecow

That is surprising.  I figured it had been there for a lot longer than that.  It makes me wonder what they were thinking when they did that.


----------



## Poetic Device

Tu2Bene said:


> I said I was Catholic because I think it is assumed that those in favor of removing the language are atheist or agnositic. What I am saying is that I personally do "trust in god" and I still think it is important to remove the language because we are a diverse society and the language is exclusive of many people.


 
See, here is where i am torn.  I agree with you on that one 100%.  However, I feel that it is a part of our history and because of that there is reason for it to stay.  Another EXAMPLE is the writing that is on the left side of the bill underneath the one eyed piramyd.  If I remember correctly, the translation is "Welcome new world order".  (Either that or one world order.  I don't remember...)  I feel exactly the same way about that because avid  Bible readers and whatnot will look at that and think end time prophecy; meanwhile it IS U.S. history...


----------



## Poetic Device

winklepicker said:


> Just remember that the Nazi soldiers had something similar on their belt buckles.


 
WOW!  That's messed!  However, keep in mind that their leader also wanted all Jewish people offed (while he himself was Jewish) and wanted a pure race of blond haired and blue eyed perople (while he had niether).  I just wanted to emphisise that they were ^%$!ed up.  Not that the U.S. isn't but still...  Does that make sense?


----------



## lizzeymac

It seems God started appearing on American money at the roughly same time as "One nation under God" was _added_ to the Pledge of Allegiance. I find God in the Pledge of Allegiance a far more significant problem.  I was taught that "...God" was added to the Pledge as a reaction to the Red Scare (Anti-Communist fear-mongering) being promulgated by Senator McCarthy.
I suppose if we are being scrupulous God should be removed from money but I think there are more important things to do & as TRG sensibly points out, electronic money will take care of the problem relatively soon.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> I investigated the origin of the use of this phrase and according to this it was ordered to appear on all coins and paper money by an act of Congress in 1956.  This is surprisingly recent.



I believe it was legally required for most coins since the 1880s, but paper money was added during the anti=communist/anti-atheist frenzy during the Eisenhower administration, when "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance to the flag.




> Despite historical opposition, the motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909 and on the ten-cent dime since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.
> 
> 
> _In God We Trust_ was first used on paper money in 1957 when it appeared on the one-dollar Silver Certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust


----------



## Brioche

Of course, when the US gets rid of "_in God we trust_", they'll also have to rescind the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the "_laws of nature and of nature's *God*_" and later says that.... "_all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable rights_".


----------



## ernest_

Poetic Device said:


> How do you feel about removing "in God we trust" from our currency and such?  Do you feel that we are removing a piece of our history?  Do you feel that if we leave it on we are infringing on the first amemdment (freedom of religion)?  Do you think we'll be doing that if we take it off?  What's on your mind?



All this religious rhetoric in bank notes and official documents is completely out of order. Were I American, I'd want it removed ipso facto. I wonder what all those who say it's not important would say if it was "We believe that Jesus Christ is a degenerate twat" what was on the notes.


----------



## winklepicker

ernest_ said:


> I wonder what all those who say it's not important would say if it was "We believe that Jesus Christ is a degenerate twat" what was on the notes.


Great idea. As long as the lynch mob follows you, not me!


----------



## xrayspex

_I care very little if it stays or goes. It is a leftover from an age in which viewpoints were narrower than those many thinking people hold today, but I feel little pressure to eradicate all historical signs of what came before us.
_
Cuchuflete said it for me, 100%.


----------



## fenixpollo

tvdxer said:


> Oh please, 55% think it seems removed.
> 
> Personally I see no reason to remove it, at all.


 Yes, dxer, your post is confusing.

Here's a reason for you: references to a single, Christian-style, capital-G "God" on money, in public documents, on monuments, in the pledge of allegience, etc., are all violations of the first amendment of the constitution, because they amount to government sponsorship of monotheistic religions. 





Athaulf said:


> people who are fighting against such completely innocuous symbols of religion in public life are among the greatest benefactors of the religious fundamentalists and those politicians and religious leaders who cater to that part of the electorate.


 I agree that religious fundamentalists use the hostility (see next quote) that they perceive that is being directed against them as fodder for their arguments...





koabr3gn said:


> I just want to piss off Evangelicals in anyway possible.


...but I disagree that there exist _completely innocuous symbols of religion. _
_


karuna said:



			For historical and aesthetic reasons. I don't see it as a religous message at all. Everybody can read it and interpret it as he/she desires. .
		
Click to expand...

And I fail to see how direct reference to the Judeo-Christian God can be anything other than a religious message._


			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> Of course, when the US gets rid of "_in God we trust_", they'll also have to rescind the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the "_laws of nature and of nature's *God*_" and later says that.... "_all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable rights_".


  Luckily, the Declaration of Independence ceased to be a legally valid document in 1783, when the Treaty of Paris formally acknowledged the former colonies' independence from Great Britain. Even if it were, however, we could amend the document to remove references to a monotheistic creator -- just as we can and should edit the currency, the Pledge, etc.


----------



## alexacohen

vachecow said:


> I think that the government has several more important things to work on. Changing something that doesn't directly affect people would be a waste.


From a foreigner's point of view: I agree with Vachecow. More important
things to worry about...
I don't see why "In God we trust" should be written on any money, anyway. Shouldn't it be "In the Govermnent we trust?" It's the Government the one which guarantees payment, after all, not God... 
I saw an American piece of paper money only once. Underneath the "In God we trust" someone had written "all others pay cash".
Alexa


----------



## Etcetera

vachecow said:


> I agree, I think that the government has several more important things to work on.  Changing something that doesn't directly affect people would be a waste.


I agree here. 
Our government is currently thinking about changing the looks of the Banner of Victory (they don't like the hammer and the sickle). I truly can't understand if there are no other problems for them to think about.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> Here's a reason for you: references to a single, Christian-style, capital-G "God" on money, in public documents, on monuments, in the pledge of allegience, etc., are all violations of the first amendment of the constitution, because they amount to government sponsorship of monotheistic religions.



That depends on what you believe the First Amendment to be implying. The bodies that have the official authority to pronounce on the matters of the Constitution obviously disagree with you. Of course, you can always argue that the text of the Constitution says something plainly and literally, but this will only lead you to conclude that the government is violating the Constitution left, right, and center, and has been doing so since before the ink on the original constitutional documents had dried -- either plainly ignoring it, or contriving ridiculously strained and illogical interpretations. 

And if you're going to fight expensive battles to set things straight, then it's an insane waste of resources and political capital to struggle on issues like this one. My opinion is that American civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU are shooting themselves in the foot with an aggressive policy against the public presence of religion, because this way they are alienating many Christians that could be, if approached the right way, valuable allies in some really important struggles.


----------



## Athaulf

Poetic Device said:


> Another EXAMPLE is the writing that is on the left side of the bill underneath the one eyed piramyd.  If I remember correctly, the translation is "Welcome new world order".  (Either that or one world order.  I don't remember...)  I feel exactly the same way about that because avid  Bible readers and whatnot will look at that and think end time prophecy; meanwhile it IS U.S. history...



Curiously, nobody is taking issue with the motto _Annuit Coeptis_ on the Great Seal of the U.S., even though it represents a reference to a monotheistic God as direct as _In God We Trust_. It seems like the more extreme secularists are generally clueless about Latin. 

 This one, by the way, has been there ever since the 1780s.


----------



## ireney

Let's see who might object this "in God we trust" :a) believers in a polytheistic religion who probably would feel much better if an "s" was added b) atheists and maybe agnostics c) those who do not want to see the word God printed out in full.

How many of these (I belong to the second group by the way) actually feel it should be removed or edited? Not many I believe.

I don't really know if it can be considered part of the US heritage (I'm not saying it can't mind you, it just seems a bit strange to me) but I don't see any pressing reason for it to be changed.

I bet there are other things in the US currency (and in most currencies I bet) that if someone wants to take offence at or object to can. No Afro-Americans on the bills or coins as far as I remember for instance. Is this a descrimination?  From the Greek drachma ones only one had a depiction of a woman and all the rest had depictions of men. And so on and so forth 

All in all, even though I personally don't believe in any God to Whom to trust I don't see it as a problem.


----------



## .   1

winklepicker said:


> Just remember that the Nazi soldiers had something similar on their belt buckles.


I have no German but that looks more like 'God with us' rather than 'We trust God'  That really looks like der feurer telling God what to do.  Didn't get him very far in the end.  He still gets to play with worms like the rest of us.

There are sooo many myths and legends about what secret messages are hidden on US currency if you apply advanced Origami techniques to it or cut and paste it or transubstantiate it or eat it and excrete it and make paper with the by product.
Lots of people have invoked God over the years but He has remained mysterious and vengeful.  He gets us all in the end.  

.,,


----------



## CrazyArcher

Movinging the pro-christian aside, what if I practice a polytheistic religion?  Which of the gods should I think it refers to?  I voted for the 3rd option.

Personally I think that in the USA of today there's no place for any religious references in official documents and such, since it's obvious discimination. So what if it's been there for decades? Not everything coming from he past is good.


----------



## .   1

winklepicker said:


> Just remember that the Nazi soldiers had something similar on their belt buckles.


 


Brioche said:


> Of course, when the US gets rid of "_in God we trust_", they'll also have to rescind the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the "_laws of nature and of nature's *God*_" and later says that.... "_all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable rights_".


I am struggling to find a link between money and The Declaration of Independence.
Please explain?

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:


> How many of these (I belong to the second group by the way) actually feel it should be removed or edited? Not many I believe.
> 
> I don't really know if it can be considered part of the US heritage (I'm not saying it can't mind you, it just seems a bit strange to me) but I don't see any pressing reason for it to be changed.  All in all, even though I personally don't believe in any God to Whom to trust I don't see it as a problem.


 That's because where you live, it's no big deal to be an atheist.  In the U.S., there is a pro-Protestant, anti-atheist atmosphere that pervades the society.


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> I am struggling to find a link between money and The Declaration of Independence.
> Please explain?
> 
> .,,



You will have to look hard for a legal link, because there is none.  The Declaration of Independence was written before the USA existed as a country.  It is not a government document.  The words in it are not required by any law.

The link is that both US coinage and paper currency and that Declaration make reference to a deity.

In the first case it is the result of a legal requirement.  The inclusion of such references in the earlier document was a reflection of the beliefs of the writer or writers, and the prevalent worldview in the American colonies in the late 18th century.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> In the first case it is the result of a legal requirement. The inclusion of such references in the earlier document was a reflection of the beliefs of the writer or writers, and the prevalent worldview in the American colonies in the late 18th century.


So I am assuming that despite money losing it's faith that the Declaration can remain Independent.

Cool.

.,,


----------



## TRG

fenixpollo said:


> That's because where you live, it's no big deal to be an atheist. In the U.S., there is a pro-Protestant, anti-atheist atmosphere that pervades the society.


 
In the U.S., it is no big deal to be an atheist. I am one and routinely have conversations with Christians about it. No one has ever expressed any ill feelings towards me because of it. It's true that the majority expresses religious beliefs, but I've never seen anything that could be remotely described as an anti-atheist atmosphere. How do you come to believe this?


----------



## fenixpollo

Didn't we have this conversation already?   Reactions I have encountered range from disinterest and acceptance to surprise, shock and attempts to proselytize: "Really? Have you ever been to church? If you were only exposed to God's truth, you'd understand..."  More than one person has actually said something like this to me.

Maybe I should stop living in "red states" and move to your neighborhood.


----------



## Brioche

TRG said:


> In the U.S., it is no big deal to be an atheist. I am one and routinely have conversations with Christians about it. No one has ever expressed any ill feelings towards me because of it. It's true that the majority expresses religious beliefs, but I've never seen anything that could be remotely described as an anti-atheist atmosphere. How do you come to believe this?



What about standing for public office?

Are there many avowed atheists, or even agnostics, in Congress or the state legislatures?

I cannot imagine an Australian version of the National Prayer Breakfast.


----------



## lizzeymac

Good point. Washington DC & it's inhabitants seemingly are very religious & I bet most of them would come out against removing God from the currency. I would be more impressed with their concern for keeping God on the currency if they could keep God in mind & moderate their behavior.

You really wouldn't believe the difference between most of the liberal blue states & most of the red/Bible Belt states  when it comes to the attitudes about religion/atheism, and the intrusive & somewhat hostile comments you might receive from "well-meaning" strangers.  My experiences are similar to TRGs but I believe fenixpollo is just telling it like it is in AZ.


----------



## TRG

fenixpollo said:


> Didn't we have this conversation already?   Reactions I have encountered range from disinterest and acceptance to surprise, shock and attempts to proselytize: "Really? Have you ever been to church? If you were only exposed to God's truth, you'd understand..."  More than one person has actually said something like this to me.
> 
> Maybe I should stop living in "red states" and move to your neighborhood.


Now that you mention it! Sorry.  I think we're getting off the subject anyway.


----------



## Flaminius

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Do you feel that if we leave it on we are infringing on the first amemdment (freedom of religion)?


I don't unless (begging for more information with zero knowledge of US penal code) spitting at, stomping on coins and other display of despise not causing actual damage constitute lèse-majesté.


----------



## MarcoMac

God started going to the voting booths in U.S.A. Some feel His presence cumbersome and think He is unfair in intruding in public/political matters. 
They're right.
Yet, the more He gets relevant, the more political men and parties will want Him enrolled in their own party, and they would do nothing that could piss Him off.
So it's a non-issue. 
Better fight for defending a possibly endangered State-church separation than go against Him directly.

As a linguistic problem, from "Deus vult" [God wants it - 1st crusade], passing by "Gott mit Uns", up to "Allah akhbar", everytime a party uses His name they mean "_since God is in our pocket, the one and only Truth is in our pockets as well. And everything we do is good, right and needs no justifiation 'cause the Others are wrong_".

"In God we trust" has not been used in such a way (as light propaganda, yes, but not as a property of a specific political agenda and/or society project). 
Shoud it be in the future (as some fear) I can't help [?I'll not be able to help??] but seeing that as a bad sign: a byproduct of a porcupine-like widthrawal in itself on U.S. culture part. I can't think of a use of His name in politics that went for the good (not necessarily bloody endings, though. Sometimes just bad ones)


----------



## federicoft

I think it should remain, as a sign of heritage and tradition.
I don't think this is state endorsment of religion: one is free to read in it what he prefers, or not read anything at all. And about replacing it with a patriotic motto or something similar, one is not supposed to be patriotic exactly as he's not supposed to be religious, so this wouldn't change the issue, which is irrelevant to me.


----------



## fenixpollo

federicoft said:


> I don't think this is state endorsment of religion: one is free to read in it what he prefers, or not read anything at all.


 Please explain what else a person might read into the word "God" on the money, besides an endorsement of religion.


----------



## federicoft

fenixpollo said:


> Please explain what else a person might read into the word "God" on the money, besides an endorsement of religion.



For example he might just read nothing in it, if God doesn't represent nothing to him.


----------



## JazzByChas

IMHO, since America (the USA) was founded upon those beliefs, like "In God We Trust", I think it would be denying our cultural heritage.

Now, money is an economic tool, and as such could be considered religion-neutral.  But some religions believe that you trust God for your economic well-being, so money, like the law, usually has its origins in the religious beliefs of the society.


----------



## Poetic Device

Someone on here said something about not being offensive towards those who do not believe in a god.  Well, if we took it off, wouldn't we be indulting towards those who *do* believe in one?  Where do you draw the line with those accomodations (sp?)?


----------



## Poetic Device

ireney said:


> Let's see who might object this "in God we trust" :a) believers in a polytheistic religion who probably would feel much better if an "s" was added


Aren't there at least some who have a patron god?  Like how the Catholics have patron saints?


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> Aren't there at least some who have a patron god? Like how the Catholics have patron saints?


Don't all religions have their particular patron that they call God or similar?

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> Don't all religions have their particular patron that they call God or similar?
> 
> .,,


I don't know... 

__ 
\__|__/
___|
___|
__/  \

Do they? I used the Catholics as an example because they are the only ones that I _sorta_ know... I know that my religion doesn't have anything like that, but that is all that I can honestly say...

Good question.


----------



## JamesM

For anyone interested, click here for information on the history of the motto on U.S. coins as told by the U.S. Treasury.


----------



## ireney

Poetic Device said:


> Aren't there at least some who have a patron god?  Like how the Catholics have patron saints?




I'm not familiar with existing polytheistic religions but the old ones (now part of mythology) would actually name the god they trust for monetary reason the same as in the case of saints. You wouldn't expect a "In saint we trust" would you? It would be something like "In St Xius we trust". So we are talking about "in Mammon we trust" "in Ploutos/Plutus we trust" etc

Anyway, I am not sure "patron" is the right word for a god of a polytheistic religion who is the god of X. He/She/It is not exactly a patron eh?


----------



## fenixpollo

Poetic Device said:


> Well, if we took it off, wouldn't we be in*s*ulting towards those who *do* believe in one?


 No, unless we put "In God we do not trust" or "In no god we trust" or something that denied the existence of God. Having no reference to a particular god is not denying the existence of any one god, and is not insulting to people who do believe in one... it's just consistent with the First Amendment.  In other words, by not mentioning any god, nobody is insulted.


----------



## Poetic Device

However, if it WAS removed, wouldn't it be an infringement of the first amendment to those who believe?

Like I said before, where do we draw the line when it comes to catering to a specific group?


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> However, if it WAS removed, wouldn't it be an infringement of the first amendment to those who believe?


 
The right of free speech does not relate to the printing of a motto on money in any way that I can see. It is not the exercise of any individual's free speech to have "In God We Trust" on our money. I think that's a confusion of "popular will" with "free speech." Removing it from the money would not in any way prohibit anyone from using the motto "In God We Trust" wherever they wished. It simply would not be used on a government-issued form of currency. 

I think one of the great strengths of our system is that things can be deemed right and can be enforced even if they are not the popular will. While in this case this may be uncomfortable for those of us in the majority who believe in a god of some kind, it does provide a level playing field to some degree for those who don't, at least in government matters.

I would rather live in a country where things that are right are protected even if they're not popular than live in a country where things that are popular are protected even if they are not right.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> No, unless we put "In God we do not trust" or "In no god we trust" or something that denied the existence of God. Having no reference to a particular god is not denying the existence of any one god, and is not insulting to people who do believe in one... it's just consistent with the First Amendment. In other words, by not mentioning any god, nobody is insulted.


It could equally be changed to 'We do not trust no god' or 'In no god we do not trust' and you havent actually mentioned a god rather the absence of a god is not quite mentioned so who could be insulted?

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

Poetic Device said:


> However, if it WAS removed, wouldn't it be an infringement of the first amendment to those who believe?
> 
> Like I said before, where do we draw the line when it comes to catering to a specific group?


 I think we should draw the line by not catering to specific groups. I don't think that the Treasury Department should have catered to the Christian special-interest groups by putting the words "In God We Trust" on the money in the first place.

What I'm hearing behind your words is that the act itself of removing the slogan from the currency would be sending a message to monotheists that the government is judging their religion negatively, thereby violating the first amendment. That's probably a decision for the Supreme Court, but I don't see it as an aggressive move against a particular religion -- it's a move in favor of secularism in government, which was the intent of the Establishment Clause.

Secularism, by the way, is not the opposite of religion, but merely the absence of it.


----------



## JamesM

fenixpollo said:


> That's probably a decision for the Supreme Court, but I don't see it as an agressive move against a particular religion -- it's a move in favor of secularism in government, which was the intent of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Secularism, by the way, is not the opposite of religion, but merely the absence of it.


 
I agree with you that it's not a move against a particular religion, and I actually have no problem with it being removed.

Your other comments brought up some interesting questions for me, though.  I'm not sure that the Establishment clause was designed to guarantee the absence of religion in government, but a religion-neutral government; in other words, the government was neither to promote nor restrict the practice of any religion in the land, not guarantee the absence of it in any way.  While it's a fine distinction, I think there is a difference.


----------



## lsp

cuchuflete said:


> ...It is a leftover from an age in which viewpoints were narrower than those many thinking people hold today, but I feel little pressure to eradicate all historical signs of what came before us....





federicoft said:


> I think it should remain, as a sign of heritage and tradition.


Same arguments were made when the topic was the Confederate flag...a sign of the proud traditions of Southern heritage to some, a shameful emblem of slavery and segregation to many others. Leftovers from another age may be less neutral in this new age of (relatively more) enlightenment to some of our countrymen.


----------



## fenixpollo

JamesM said:


> I'm not sure that the Establishment clause was designed to guarantee the absence of religion in government, but a religion-neutral government; in other words, the government was neither to promote nor restrict the practice of any religion in the land, not guarantee the absence of it in any way.  While it's a fine distinction, I think there is a difference.


 Yes, theoretically, there would be a difference, if it was possible to have a religious presence in government without favoring one religion. I don't think that's possible, as far as the definition of religion goes. Cuchu is our definitions expert, but my understanding of "religion" is "a group of people organized around a set of spiritual beliefs".  I can't imagine a government in which a religion is present, yet in which no particular religion is endorsed; in other words, a government in which religion is present is a government in which _*a*_ religion is present.

On the other hand, it's possible to have a government that is religion-neutral, but in which spirituality is present. While it's a fine distinction, I think there is a difference.


----------



## JamesM

I think that when the constitution was framed, atheism was not yet a concept, as far as I know, so the assumption that people believed in some god was not an unreasonable one.  In such a mindset, it would be entirely possible to accept a common denominator of belief in a god while not promoting any one particular interpretation of that god.



			
				lsp said:
			
		

> Leftovers from another age may be less neutral in this new age of (relatively more) enlightenment to some of our countrymen.


 
I have to say that I don't this is a good tack to take as a reason for removing "In God We Trust" from our money.  The implication is that it is unenlightened to believe in God.  This can be interpreted as condescension.  I think it makes more sense to see it as a way to avoid promoting religion, including religion itself, as part of the government's function.


----------



## Keikikoka

fenixpollo said:


> On the other hand, it's possible to have a government that is religion-neutral, but in which spirituality is present. While it's a fine distinction, I think there is a difference.



I'm interested to know how you envision spirituality in government being present.


----------



## fenixpollo

Keikikoka said:


> I'm interested to know how you envision spirituality in government being present.


 I don't.

Seriously, though, an example that might placate people who want government to be religious might be a move to more vague language such as in the Declaration 





> ...endowed by their creator...


 which refers to the spiritual, without specifying which religion (i.e. mentioning a creative force, without showing preference for one or another religion's descriptions of that creative force). 





			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> I think that when the constitution was framed, atheism was not yet a concept, as far as I know, so the assumption that people believed in some god was not an unreasonable one.


 According to many sources, atheism in both Western and Eastern traditions has been around for millenia. Some of the founders, as well as Thomas Paine, identified themselves as "deists", who believed in a god, but only as could be rationally explained and proven by science. Atheism by any other name...

In the present-day US, most people still make the "reasonable" assumption, as you put it, that people should believe in some god. Doesn't make it any more right now than then.


----------



## JamesM

Deism is quite a long way from atheism, in my opinion. Deism includes the concept of God, although not necessarily a personal God. "In God We Trust" would not be offensive to a Deist, in my understanding of the term. 

I don't think there is any evidence that any of the founding fathers were atheists in the modern sense of the term or that they were even exposed to the concept. If you can provide information that says otherwise I'd be interested in reading it.

I did not say "should" believe in some god. I said the assumption that people did believe in some god was a reasonable one at the time. The assumption that any randomly selected American does believe in some god is still, statistically speaking, a valid one. Whether they should or not is a completely different area of discussion.

Nevertheless, I have no problem with removing "In God We Trust" from our money.  I don't see a reason that the government should make a statement on behalf of all the people in the U.S. when it obviously excludes a portion of those people, however small a portion.  It is because there is a portion of our population that does not believe in a god that this statement is no longer a neutral statement.  I can see how having this on our money is tantamount to a promotion of religion in general.


----------



## fenixpollo

JamesM said:


> I don't think there is any evidence that any of the founding fathers were atheists in the modern sense of the term or that they were even exposed to the concept.


 I agree that there is no evidence that they were Atheists in the modern sense, and I don't think it's worthwhile to debate shades of personal belief amongst the founders. Regardless of how religious they were, it's well established that certain of them did not trust religious instututions enough to want them to play an active role in government.

I want to take issue, however, with your statement that "they were not even exposed to the concept." The idea that someone's spirituality could include "not believing in a god" has been around for a long time.





			
				Benjamin Franklin said:
			
		

> Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.


 I realize that you didn't say "should", but my point was that now -- as well as in Franklin's day -- Americans tend to lump Atheists together with Infidels and other criminals. 

The fact that people assume that most of their neighbors do believe in God is related to (or results in) the assumption that they should believe in God.


----------



## JamesM

fenixpollo said:


> I want to take issue, however, with your statement that "they were not even exposed to the concept." The idea that someone's spirituality could include "not believing in a god" has been around for a long time.


 
Can you provide any example of a text that they might have been reading at the time that would expose them to this concept? I'm sure there have been individuals who have held such a view, but I don't think as a movement it was either present in America at the time or had gained sufficient exposure to have a well-known book on the subject. Many of the founding fathers were avid readers. If there were such a book, I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Franklin had read it, for example. I've never seen anything that would indicate there was such a thing. Can you provide other information?

[edit] Oops! Somehow I missed your Ben Franklin quote. If any of the founding fathers would have sought out other views, I think it would be he. He was a remarkable man, and well traveled, having lived in England and France for a good number of years. Obviously, he was acquainted with the concept. At the same time, though, his quote makes it clear that it was essentially unknown in the U.S. 



> The fact that people assume that most of their neighbors do believe in God is related to (or results in) the assumption that they should believe in God.


 
No. I disagree. It does not have to. It can, but it does not _necessarily _result in that connection. The same can be said for any strongly held world view, wouldn't you say? Certainly when I have had atheists tell me that I am living in a fantasy world because I believe in God they have been exhibiting the results of that same assumption, simply about a different world view. That is not a function of religion, but a function of human nature. I have also spoken with atheists who do not assume that, but accept that we disagree, just as I accept that we disagree. We can learn to allow room for people who have different world views. Some people, no matter what they think, will assume that everyone should think like them. Others won't.

I think one of the benefits of removing "In God We Trust" from our money would be to indicate that we recognize not all Americans think alike on this subject. I think our system works best when we encourage plurality.


----------



## lsp

JamesM said:


> The implication is that it is unenlightened to believe in God.  This can be interpreted as condescension.


The implication is that it is unenlightened to think that everyone does or should believe in God.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I don't think there is any evidence that any of the founding fathers were atheists in the modern sense of the term or that they were even exposed to the concept. If you can provide information that says otherwise I'd be interested in reading it.


My suspicion is that athiesm has been around longer than religion.
Do you have any evidence that they were not exposed to the concept of athiesm?  Did many of them know a bloke named Benjamin Franklin?
How is it possible to be exposed to the concept of religion and not be exposed to the concept of athiesm?
Yin requires yang.

.,,


----------



## .   1

lsp said:


> The implication is that it is unenlightened to think that everyone does or should believe in God.


Quite!

.,,


----------



## fenixpollo

JamesM said:


> Can you provide any example of a text that they might have been reading at the time that would expose them to this concept? I'm sure there have been individuals who have held such a view, but I don't think as a movement it was either present in America at the time or had gained sufficient exposure to have a well-known book on the subject. Many of the founding fathers were avid readers. If there were such a book, I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Franklin had read it, for example. I've never seen anything that would indicate there was such a thing. Can you provide other information?


 I agree with you that there was not an atheist "movement" as such before 1800, but atheist principles were evident in the Epicurean movement and were discussed and attacked in the works of Bacon. Franklin socialized with Hume and Diderot in Paris, and surely had read their works as well as those of other Enlightenment authors who valued reason over faith.


----------



## JamesM

fenixpollo said:


> I agree with you that there was not an atheist "movement" as such before 1800, but atheist principles were evident in the Epicurean movement and were discussed and attacked in the works of Bacon. Franklin socialized with Hume and Diderot in Paris, and surely had read their works as well as those of other Enlightenment authors who valued reason over faith.


 
I don't know if you caught my edit, but I saw (belatedly) that you had already provided the quote from Ben Franklin indicating that he was familiar with the concept.  Sorry for any confusion.


----------

