MSNBC: Live vote: In God we Trust

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

Sorry, but this is really not a strong argument especially since our currency has been under-going restyling for the last decade and this promises to continue. Plus, even if we wanted to argue that we shouldn't be changing the currency like we are it wouldn't take much at all to just retool the mints with a die set that has a mold minus "In God We Trust" and release them into circulation as the previous currency is rotated out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

Religious wackos? That's a pretty broad brush that you're painting with there sir.

[Prosperity]

Religious wackos? That's a pretty broad brush that you're painting with there sir.

I never said all religious people were wackos, or most, I was referring only to religious wackos

[AsburySkinsFan]

I never said all religious people were wackos, or most, I was referring only to religious wackos

LoL! :rotflmao: Nice distinction.

[techboy]

Plus, even if we wanted to argue that we shouldn't be changing the currency like we are it wouldn't take much at all to just retool the mints with a die set that has a mold minus "In God We Trust" and release them into circulation as the previous currency is rotated out.

I think you might be underestimating the costs, but even a little is too much when there's no pressing reason to do so.

On the other hand, if they're going to be changing a coin anyway, then perhaps it makes sense to leave the slogan off.

[Larry]

Cost.

You gotta be kidding.

You want to perpetuate an unconstitutional government action, on the grounds that not printing a slogan costs money?

Granted, we're arguing about something that's trivial, here. And, if the government were mandated to remove that slogan from our money overnight, the cost, while really, really, small, wouldn't be zero.

(Although I do suspect that it is possible to do it in such a way that the cost is, literally, zero. I have no doubt that the printing plates and the dies that are used to make our money do wear out, and have to be regularly replaced. Simply replace them, as they wear out, with replacements that don't have the oh-so-offending phrase on them.)

IMO, "we've been doing it for 50 years" is a better argument that "it's not 100% completely free".

[Larry]

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.

"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Now, yeah, I know there's a whole lot of people who love to play the "well, the Constitution doesn't specifically use the word "waterboarding" (to pick a different example), therefore since it's not specifically, explicitly, forbidden, the government can do whatever" game.

But to me, the way it's supposed to work is that the "the government shalt not" parts of the Constitution are supposed to be interpreted broadly, not examined in microscopic detail to try to find a way to ignore them. Therefore, to me, the government is supposed to leave religoin the heck alone.

[bcl05]

You gotta be kidding.

You want to perpetuate an unconstitutional government action, on the grounds that not printing a slogan costs money?

Granted, we're arguing about something that's trivial, here. And, if the government were mandated to remove that slogan from our money overnight, the cost, while really, really, small, wouldn't be zero.

(Although I do suspect that it is possible to do it in such a way that the cost is, literally, zero. I have no doubt that the printing plates and the dies that are used to make our money do wear out, and have to be regularly replaced. Simply replace them, as they wear out, with replacements that don't have the oh-so-offending phrase on them.)

IMO, "we've been doing it for 50 years" is a better argument that "it's not 100% completely free".

So true. I'm sure the cost of adding a dumb-looking big purple "5" to the 5-dollar bill or having 50 different versions of the quarter would be VASTLY more than simply removing the god-talk.

[Larry]

So true. I'm sure the cost of adding a dumb-looking big purple "5" to the 5-dollar bill or having 50 different versions of the quarter would be VASTLY more than simply removing the god-talk.

True, but I intentionally didn't bring those up, because I think you'll find that the vast majority on this board thinks that those were stupid wastes of money, too.

(Well, OK, supposedly the re-designing of the paper money had a valid reason.)

[Midnight Judges]

I don't see a need for invoking imaginary entities on money, or in the pledge.

[twist]

I feel about the same as your average believer would feel if "there is no God" were printed on their money.

That said I have no political power to change it and won't for the foreseeable future so theres no point in worrying about it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

True, but I intentionally didn't bring those up, because I think you'll find that the vast majority on this board thinks that those were stupid wastes of money, too.

(Well, OK, supposedly the re-designing of the paper money had a valid reason.)

See I don't think that was stupid at all and the whole reason I didn't bring them up was because those changes were to thwart (don't get to use that word often) counterfeiters.

The issue with the quarters is that for 10 years they have bringing out the state quarters as such the cost would have been nothing to have removed it during that process. Well the cost financially, now the political cost for the person who suggested it well that's a whole other matter.

[PokerPacker]

See I don't think that was stupid at all and the whole reason I didn't bring them up was because those changes were to thwart (don't get to use that word often) counterfeiters.

The issue with the quarters is that for 10 years they have bringing out the state quarters as such the cost would have been nothing to have removed it during that process. Well the cost financially, now the political cost for the person who suggested it well that's a whole other matter.

I don't get how it thwarts counterfeiters. can't they just keep counterfeiting the old style quarters?

[Larry]

I don't get how it thwarts counterfeiters. can't they just keep counterfeiting the old style quarters?

He's talking about the redesign of the paper money. (In other words, he's agreeing with what I already pointed out.)

Although I do think that your observation applies to paper money, too. If the new bills are supposedly counterfeit-proof, then won't I just counterfeit the old ones? How long are the old ones going to continue in circulation, another 10-20 years?

[AsburySkinsFan]

nvmnd see Larry's post

[81artmonk]

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

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?

It was put on back in the 1800's around the time of the civil war. People back than didn't have issues with religious symbols or sayings in society. So it has become a part of our nations heritage. Now some people do have an issue with it and we should get rid of it.

My first point is that it's heritage and tradition. Second, that it isn't and wasn't a scheme to get people to conform to one religion. It was meant as a reminder to people who I might add, didnt' have an issue with it back than, who and what they believed in.

I would argue that even if it had been recently, so what. the number of people who find offense are so small that it isn't worth looking at. There is always going to be a small percentage of people who have an issue with something, doesn't mean we need to change it.

[Larry]

It was put on back in the 1800's around the time of the civil war.

Read the facts. It was added to some coins back then.

It was added to all money, including paper currency, in the 1960s. For the reasons that I've already told you.

I would argue that even if it had been recently, so what. the number of people who find offense are so small that it isn't worth looking at. There is always going to be a small percentage of people who have an issue with something, doesn't mean we need to change it.

So it's OK for the government to pass unconstitutional laws, as long as a majority, even a vast majority, thinks it's OK?

Edit: Just looking to try to find out when those words were added to which coins. Google'd "history Lincoln penny". First hit, "History of the Lincoln penny" says that those words were added in 1909, when the coin was first minted. But it also mentions something else, too.

In the end, it was decided to lower the placement of Lincoln's bust (and thus lop off some torso area below the shoulders) in order to have Lincoln's face appear more towards the center of the coin. This alteration resulted in a large amount of empty space at the top. According to Lincoln Cent scholar David W. Lange, in his excellent book The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents, U.S. Mint Director Frank A. Leach probably had the motto In God We Trust added to the penny design in order to balance the design elements. There was not a legal requirement at the time that this motto appear on the minor coinage, so adding it to the penny was entirely discretionary.

Same Google search also pointed me to the US Mint, which has the page Fact Sheet: History of "In God We Trust" Looks like the slogan was added to paper currency in '57. (Mostly. Some currency continued using older plates for a few years.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Read the facts. It was added to some coins back then.

It was added to all money, including paper currency, in the 1960s. For the reasons that I've already told you.

Yep and the use of In God We Trust was not consistent even on the few pieces of currency upon which it appeared, it was not until the 60's that it went on and stayed on every piece of currency.

[The 12th Commandment]

Muslims believe in God.

But in theory, it is not the same God, as the Christian God.

IOW - Allah is not the Christian God.

I believe the Koran is pretty specific that it is the same God. That's why they're supposed to support and be brothers with other people of the book, ie Jews and Christians.

[The 12th Commandment]

I watched the Freemason show on History last night and it was pretty interesting. A good number of the founders were Masons and one of their strong tenants (I think) is separation of church and state in order to prevent one religion from having dominance.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I believe the Koran is pretty specific that it is the same God. That's why they're supposed to support and be brothers with other people of the book, ie Jews and Christians.

Well the Koran is pretty specific about it, however its difficult to harmonize the Koran with the Testaments Old or New. The Koran claims connection to Abraham through Ishmael, but one might be tempted to think that God would be smart enough to tell people the same things.

[81artmonk]

Read the facts. It was added to some coins back then.

It was added to all money, including paper currency, in the 1960s. For the reasons that I've already told you.

So it's OK for the government to pass unconstitutional laws, as long as a majority, even a vast majority, thinks it's OK?

Edit: Just looking to try to find out when those words were added to which coins. Google'd "history Lincoln penny". First hit, "History of the Lincoln penny" says that those words were added in 1909, when the coin was first minted. But it also mentions something else, too.

Same Google search also pointed me to the US Mint, which has the page Fact Sheet: History of "In God We Trust" Looks like the slogan was added to paper currency in '57. (Mostly. Some currency continued using older plates for a few years.)

Well this is what my search came up with: us dept of treasary website.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=history+of+IN+GOD+WE+TRUST+ON+COINS&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=0&title=U.S.%20Treasury%20-%20Fact%20Sheet%20on%20the%20History%20of%22In%20God%20We%20Trust%22&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ustreas.gov%2Feducation%2Ffact-sheets%2Fcurrency%2Fin-god-we-trust.shtml

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.

So you are gonna knit pick that not ALL coins had that phrase. It was all started back in the 1800's

The words were shortened to In God We Trust and first applied to U.S. coins in 1864.

Just curious but how is In God We trust unconstitutional? I would challenge anyone to, with a serious face, explain that one without having to stretch that theory to it's very limits.

IMO congress had been keeping up with the original intent of those who purposed that slogan by enacting the paper currency.

I still am hard pressed to find anywhere in that history where that slogan is #1 imposing religion on people by the govt.

#2 infringing on anyones rights by having it on money

#3 isn't based on historical heritage rather than religious zealots trying to convert the unbleivers as you and others who oppose it are trying to imply

[81artmonk]

Read the facts. It was added to some coins back then.

It was added to all money, including paper currency, in the 1960s. For the reasons that I've already told you.

So it's OK for the government to pass unconstitutional laws, as long as a majority, even a vast majority, thinks it's OK?

Edit: Just looking to try to find out when those words were added to which coins. Google'd "history Lincoln penny". First hit, "History of the Lincoln penny" says that those words were added in 1909, when the coin was first minted. But it also mentions something else, too.

Same Google search also pointed me to the US Mint, which has the page Fact Sheet: History of "In God We Trust" Looks like the slogan was added to paper currency in '57. (Mostly. Some currency continued using older plates for a few years.)

I watched the Freemason show on History last night and it was pretty interesting. A good number of the founders were Masons and one of their strong tenants (I think) is separation of church and state in order to prevent one religion from having dominance.

If that were true and not an opinion of those scholars who put together that episode of the history channel, than why would we have so many references to God in the heritage and founding of our nation (ie constitution, coinage..ect). Wouldn't you think the founders would have lobbied to omit those references based on that theory you just posted??

But not only did they not omit them, they intentionally and delibritly included them.

[techboy]

You gotta be kidding.

You want to perpetuate an unconstitutional government action, on the grounds that not printing a slogan costs money?

No, I'm not kidding. Of course, if I was certain that the slogan was unconstitutional, I'd probably agree with you.

Then again, I don't really see how it establishes a religion or prohibits free exercise thereof. It talks about God, but it doesn't establish any particular religion.

If we consider the inverse mentioned in an earlier post, it might become more clear. Should Congress decide to print "there is no God" on the coins, that wouldn't prohibit anyone from the free exercise of a religion. I would be more than capable of going to church and worshiping God, regardless of what my money says, so that wouldn't be unconstitutional either.

I simply don't agree with your repeated assertions that the slogan is unconstutional, and saying it one more time won't make it so.

There's certainly no Court decision I'm aware of that defines it as such.

And frankly, Congress is so used to abusing the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses that just about anything is constitutional today, right?

Perhaps encouraging a belief in God promotes the general welfare? Money is certainly used in interstate commerce, right? And, if we can ignore the 10th ammendment when applying these constitutional loopholes to all manner of legislation, why not the 1st?

As I said, though, perhaps I've overestimated the cost, and frankly I'd have no problem with leaving the slogan off any coin that was going to be changed anyway.

I'm against spending even one extra cent on something like this, though, and that includes the costs of writing the legislation necessary to do it (with associated fees to make copies, and so on).

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Well the Koran is pretty specific about it, however its difficult to harmonize the Koran with the Testaments Old or New. The Koran claims connection to Abraham through Ishmael, but one might be tempted to think that God would be smart enough to tell people the same things.

I'm jumping into this convo late so forgive me if I'm misreading your post.

Obviously you know why the N.T. replaced the Old Testament. The Qu'ran came in because it was believed that man had so altered and corrupted the New Testament that it was no longer valid. God had the angel Gabriel appear to Muhammed to set the record straight once and for all. That is why Muslims of all etnicities and nationalities are supposed to learn Arabic: so the Qu'ran can forever remain the exact same as it was when it was told to Muhammed.

And Jesus is right there in importance with Muhammed in Islam. Maybe even more important. I mean he's supposed to battle the anti-Christ at the end times and everything. They just don't believe in the Resurrection and that he was the "Son of God".

It is the same God. Period. And honestly, I attended Jummah Prayer at a Mosque for a year as an observer and I didn't notice much difference in the message that I heard there than I heard in church throughout my life. Peace, love and happiness. Obviously some places are going to be preaching different things but that's true of all religions.