MSNBC: Live vote: In God we Trust

[AsburySkinsFan]

I was actually just reading up on it. It didn't appear on paper currency until then, but had been around since 1860's on some coins as a result of religious lobbying. Either way, its just another instance of religion forcing its way into the government. Its not like the founding fathers had it put on our currency thus a tradition, it is just like the Pledge where people decided to force God into something having nothing to do with the deity.

Yep, it showed up sporadically over the last 150 years or so on various coins for periods of time, all by religious influence, but it wasn't until the 60's that it was put on all US currency. Personally, I don't care one way or another because my God's name is Yahweh (Hebrew) or Elohim (Greek) or otherwise known by his incarnated name; Iesou. Now, when those start showing up on US currency I'll understand the fuss.

[Sebowski]

I had a post all thought up and half way typed, but then I thought, "why bother".

[81artmonk]

Every once in a while I agree 100% with you.

~Bang

What's that saying....even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[81artmonk]

Every once in a while I agree 100% with you.

~Bang

Why would anyone need that on money to validate their belief in their imaginary friends and waste time and effort keeping it there?

It's not a validation, but tradition. basically it started back in the civil war era. it was believed that because of the war, the nation was losing sight of it's religious upbringing so to speak. Thus suggested that the phrase be put on our national currency.

Here's the issue, back in the early days of our nation more poeple were Religious in nature and backed that idea. Thus it didn't bother people. Became part of our heritage and tradition.

So now that some people are up tight about it, we are going to erase it from our money in order to make them feel better?? Am I allowed to say let's be reasonable?

I'm simpley curious why every athiest who sees something religious becomes unglued and thinks that it's some conspirecy of our govt to cram religion down our throats. Could it be that our founders where at some point religious to some extent and believed it was appropriate for God to be included in our founding and acknowledged as part of our heritage. That doesn't mean our govt is trying to covert people, it's just history.

[techboy]

I'm simpley curious why every athiest who sees something religious becomes unglued and thinks that it's some conspirecy of our govt to cram religion down our throats.

There are several atheists in this thread that have no problem with the current situation (or at least don't care enough to change it). You're not helping your credibility much here.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm wondering why those who object to having "In God We Trust" on our currency would also suggest whiting out the "by their Creator" from the following text; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Especially since "their Creator" is specific to only certain religions namely Western faith traditions, and not Eastern faiths.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'd much rather "Federal Reserve Note" be taken off of our money instead.

End the Fed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'd much rather "Federal Reserve Note" be taken off of our money instead.

End the Fed.

True dat! For every dollar I get we owe the Fed part of it back just for the very fact that it was made, WTHeck!

[PokerPacker]

I'd much rather "Federal Reserve Note" be taken off of our money instead.

End the Fed.

Well there's a novel new direction to take the thread. Bravo, sir.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[RaleighSkinsMann]

Its American Money ....This country was built on christianity......IMO this shouldnt even be a topic...........

[Larry]

It's not a validation, but tradition. basically it started back in the civil war era. it was believed that because of the war, the nation was losing sight of it's religious upbringing so to speak. Thus suggested that the phrase be put on our national currency.

Here's the issue, back in the early days of our nation more poeple were Religious in nature and backed that idea. Thus it didn't bother people. Became part of our heritage and tradition.

So now that some people are up tight about it, we are going to erase it from our money in order to make them feel better?? Am I allowed to say let's be reasonable?

I'm simpley curious why every athiest who sees something religious becomes unglued and thinks that it's some conspirecy of our govt to cram religion down our throats. Could it be that our founders where at some point religious to some extent and believed it was appropriate for God to be included in our founding and acknowledged as part of our heritage. That doesn't mean our govt is trying to covert people, it's just history.

Let's see.

It wasn't on our money for 100 years.

Then it was put on some of it. By religious people wanting to push their views on people.

50 years after that, it was put on all our money. By religious people wanting to push their views on people.

Now, when people object, suddenly it's a sacred tradition, dating back to the founding of the country, and it's morally wrong for some people to impose their view on everybody, and things should never, ever, change?

Rrrriiiiigggggghhhhhhtttttt.

[Larry]

Its American Money ....This country was built on christianity......IMO this shouldnt even be a topic...........

True . . . False . . . Opinion (I agree.)

[bcl05]

I'm wondering why those who object to having "In God We Trust" on our currency would also suggest whiting out the "by their Creator" from the following text; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Especially since "their Creator" is specific to only certain religions namely Western faith traditions, and not Eastern faiths.

I think its an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Currency is a constantly changing entity. We come out with new quarters every few months, and the paper money has changed fairly significantly in the last few years. Changing minor details on money happens all the time without any issue.

The Declaration of Independence is a historical document, and altering that text in any way would be absurd.

[81artmonk]

There are several atheists in this thread that have no problem with the current situation (or at least don't care enough to change it). You're not helping your credibility much here.

C'mon, you know what I'm talking about. let's not take things to the extreme.

[81artmonk]

There are several atheists in this thread that have no problem with the current situation (or at least don't care enough to change it). You're not helping your credibility much here.

Let's see.

It wasn't on our money for 100 years.

Then it was put on some of it. By religious people wanting to push their views on people.

50 years after that, it was put on all our money. By religious people wanting to push their views on people.

Now, when people object, suddenly it's a sacred tradition, dating back to the founding of the country, and it's morally wrong for some people to impose their view on everybody, and things should never, ever, change?

Rrrriiiiigggggghhhhhhtttttt.

:doh: larry, larry, larry. You know what I mean and yet you still try to pigeon hole me as if I said something outrageous with my statement.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This country was built on christianity.

No, this country was built on Enlightenment principles by people of whom the majority of had a Christian heritage.

[techboy]

let's not take things to the extreme.

You first.

[Larry]

. . . begs one to explain why would that saying on your money bother you so much that you couldn't function in society. . .

I'm simpley curious why every athiest who sees something religious becomes unglued . . .

let's not take things to the extreme.

Yeah, it really sucks when people take things to the extreme, huh?

It's not a validation, but tradition. basically it started back in the civil war era. it was believed that because of the war, the nation was losing sight of it's religious upbringing so to speak. Thus suggested that the phrase be put on our national currency.

Here's the issue, back in the early days of our nation more poeple were Religious in nature and backed that idea. Thus it didn't bother people. Became part of our heritage and tradition.

So now that some people are up tight about it, we are going to erase it from our money in order to make them feel better?? Am I allowed to say let's be reasonable?

I'm simpley curious why every athiest who sees something religious becomes unglued and thinks that it's some conspirecy of our govt to cram religion down our throats. Could it be that our founders where at some point religious to some extent and believed it was appropriate for God to be included in our founding and acknowledged as part of our heritage. That doesn't mean our govt is trying to covert people, it's just history.

Let's see.

It wasn't on our money for 100 years.

Then it was put on some of it. By religious people wanting to push their views on people.

50 years after that, it was put on all our money. By religious people wanting to push their views on people.

Now, when people object, suddenly it's a sacred tradition, dating back to the founding of the country, and it's morally wrong for some people to impose their view on everybody, and things should never, ever, change?

Rrrriiiiigggggghhhhhhtttttt.

:doh: larry, larry, larry. You know what I mean and yet you still try to pigeon hole me as if I said something outrageous with my statement.

I can see one place where it looks like I might have misinterpreted your post.

I suppose that your phrase "back in the early days of our nation", might conceivably have meant "when our country was 100 years old".

Other than that, could you explain where I've mis-interpreted you?

[Larry]

Just a point about one of the points in this debate.

I've seen several people point out that frankly, having this slogan on our money really isn't important.

And they're correct. It isn't. I doubt that there's a single person in this entire country whose life has been changed in any meaningful way by that slogan being printed there.

OTOH, that cuts both ways, too. It will not be any great catastrophe to the fabric of our nation if it's removed, either.

In short, I'd point out that "it's really not important" isn't really a good argument for why it must be retained, either.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just a point about one of the points in this debate.

I've seen several people point out that frankly, having this slogan on our money really isn't important.

And they're correct. It isn't. I doubt that there's a single person in this entire country whose life has been changed in any meaningful way by that slogan being printed there.

OTOH, that cuts both ways, too. It will not be any great catastrophe to the fabric of our nation if it's removed, either.

In short, I'd point out that "it's really not important" isn't really a good argument for why it must be retained, either.

True, but at this point the burden of proof lies with those who want it removed.

[Larry]

True, but at this point the burden of proof lies with those who want it removed.

Because . . . . ?

BTW, I'm not certain I disagree with the point that I think you're trying to make. I've been fond of saying for some time that I wish people had a Statute of Limitations, whereby issues like the existence of Israel become settled, simply because it's been that way for so long. I usually propose that 50 years is a good place to set this Statute.

By that reasoning, the slogan on the money is a "done deal". It's been that way for 50 years. If you had a problem with it, you should have said so before now.

OTOH, I also keep remembering that our country has had a whole lot of other things that had "just been that way for a long time", and were wrong.

I do think that "we've been doing it that way for 50 years" isn't a completely meaningless argument.

But there's that whole "Constitution" thing.

As I understand it, the words on the money were put there at the same time, and for the same reason, that the words "under God" were put in the Pledge. The reasoning was that the Commies were a threat to our way of life. That one of the reasons why we were better than the Commies was because we were religious. And that, therefore, the government should help us defeat the commies by encouraging us to be religious.

Problem is, the Constitution prohibits the government from encouraging the people to be religious.

And yeah, despite the efforts of people after the fact to come up with some alternative history so they can justify it (like the "it was done in honor of our Founder's Judeo-Christian herritage" lie), that's the reason why Congress passed those laws: To fight communism by encouraging religion.

I'm having trouble reconciling my "50 year Statute of Limitations" rule with the Constitution, and with our nation's history.

[Prosperity]

Just a point about one of the points in this debate.

I've seen several people point out that frankly, having this slogan on our money really isn't important.

And they're correct. It isn't. I doubt that there's a single person in this entire country whose life has been changed in any meaningful way by that slogan being printed there.

OTOH, that cuts both ways, too. It will not be any great catastrophe to the fabric of our nation if it's removed, either.

In short, I'd point out that "it's really not important" isn't really a good argument for why it must be retained, either.

you are right, but I think when it comes to policy, it's best the let the religious wacko types people have some token things so that they are more likely to ignore the substantial progress made in other areas.

That's more of a political argument that what you were looking for probably

[techboy]

Because . . . . ?

Cost.

It's there now, it's not hurting anything (except maybe the feelings of people like Michael Neudnow ), and it would be expensive to remove it.

I see it as similar to the Republicans' obsession, a few years back, with naming everything from aircraft carriers (makes sense) and government buildings (irony) to bathrooms and waste plants after Ronald Reagan. It was silly, and it was a waste of money, but it's done, and to undo it would waste even more money.

Not worth it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Because . . . . ?

BTW, I'm not certain I disagree with the point that I think you're trying to make. I've been fond of saying for some time that I wish people had a Statute of Limitations, whereby issues like the existence of Israel become settled, simply because it's been that way for so long. I usually propose that 50 years is a good place to set this Statute.

I hear what you're saying, but when you are the one who is suggesting a particular change then you are the one who has to make the case for the change, and if by your own admission the slogan is not a big deal then why make the change at all? That's just change for the sake of change, and if we have a 50 year old tradition of something then I'm not really all for dumping it "jus 'cause". We deal with stuff like this in the church I call them "Edna's chairs", Edna donated the chair 50 years ago and now someone wants it gone but they really don't have a reason for it. I'm left with trying to balance the fact that no one uses the chair, and the reason its here is because its part of our heritage. Now if there was convincing reason as to why Edna's chair needs to be moved then sure lets discuss it and potentially discuss alternatives, however if its a "jus 'cause" then in my book Edna's chair stays.

Problem is, the Constitution prohibits the government from encouraging the people to be religious.

That's not the way that I understand it, by my understanding the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion; i.e. state church. The government all the time encourages the citizenry to attend their houses of worship, we especially did so after 9/11. What's more is that I've never heard a State of the Union speech that didn't end with "God bless America". By the argument of some those things should have prohibited on the grounds that theya re unconstitutional.