"In God We Trust"

[Bill McBlueState]

Do you or do you not think it is constitutional to have a religious slogan on our currency?

[Acryliccalico]

1. Don't really care what they put on

the green paper. :kick:

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Really?

So I don't actually believe you. Shall we try a few extensions to "In God We Trust"?

How about "Jesus Christ is Our Lord and Master"?
How about "In Satan We Trust"?
How about "Slay all worshippers of islam"?
How about "George Bush Protects Us From Danger"?

You really don't care what they put on the money? Or you don't care if it is "In God We Trust"?

[Coastie for Truth]

4. I am not as cynical - how about

"In God We Trust"
"In Elohim We Trust"
"In Allah We Trust"
"In Krishna, Vishnu, and Ganeesh We Trust"
"In Confucious We Trust"
"In The Emporer of Japan We Trust"
"In Budda We Trust"
"In Appolo We Trust"
"In Thor We Trust"
"In Morrigan We Trust"
"In Elegua We Trust"
"In we trust"

[Acryliccalico]

7. It is just paper with a symbolic

statement on it. To be more accurate, you are right! I do not care if they put "In God We Trust" on it or not. :) :kick:

[immoderate]

22. Isn't the Constitution just paper with symbolic

statements on it? Aren't words all symbols that stand for ideas?

If none of those things have any importance then what are we doing here?

--IMM

[sellitman]

3. Anyone who wants to get rid of "unconstitutional greenbacks" .....

Send them here!!!!!

:evilgrin:

[zippy890]

5. don't care about it on money - & I'm an atheist

in fact, it seems rather quaint to have that phrase on coinage & bills.

[wryter2000]

9. Quaint

It was put on there in the 1950's. I guess that's quaint to folks who are younger than me. :)

[Greyhound]

14. Are you sure? I know 'under God' was added to the pledge then

but I thought it was on money much longer. Either way I don't support it.

[salvorhardin]

31. Yes and no

"In god we trust" has been appearing on coinage since 1864 when it appeared on the 2 cent coin, but usage has been off and on.

It wasn't until 1956 when "in god we trust" was declared the national motto of the U.S. amd has been included on all paper currency since 1957.

A good history is here:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Still, it is unconstitutional and violates the establishment clause. It should not be on the currency. It may seem small and inconsequential, but this is the first amendment we're talking about.

[wryter2000]

33. Thanks

I took an online quiz about separation of church and state once and got it wrong when I said it's always been there. It certainly came after all the founding fathers were dead and couldn't object.

(Now, someone will find a founding father who was alive in 1864 and make me look dumber than I already am. :))

[Greyhound]

45. Ditto

[seito]

6. Wedge issue

Personally, I have much more important concerns.

[Jane Austin]

10. I so agree with this. It's a wedge issue.

n/t

[wryter2000]

11. I'm with you

I don't like it, but it isn't worth fighting about. Newdow isn't doing the forces of rationality any favors and I wish he'd shut up.

[TahitiNut]

8. "God Save The King"

:eyes: Typical Tory bullshit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Why trust in God? Especially with money. He's always broke.

At least that's what the preachers, priests, rabbis, mullahs, and every other outfit tells the believers when passing the basket.

[Kansas Wyatt]

13. Isn't the Federal Reserve a privately owned bank?

Well, if it indeed is, "In God We Trust" may squeak by on a technicality. However, why isn't the U. S. Government coining and printing our money according to the Constitution, instead of a privately owned bank?

[Greyhound]

16. The fed itself is unconstitutional as well.

One of the Re:puke:s early groundworks for the current transformation of our country.

[salvorhardin]

39. Not technicality involved

In God we trust was made the national motto in 1956. That *is* unconstitutional.

[Historic NY]

15. I much prefer........

In God We Trust all others pay cash........please send all your unwanted gold & silver coins to me. Hard cash is the ticket, God told me.

[Bill McBlueState]

17. Alright, nobody asked whether you care.

The question was, "is it constitutional?"

And if it's not constitutional, as the vast majority of us agree, why is it so terrible for one of the thousands of lawyers in the US to take it to court?

[beam me up scottie]

19. I grok.

Newdow didn't invent this case, it's always been unconstitutional.

[stray cat]

18. And we wonder why fundies think we are after them

and we are only interested in nominating activist judges. There are a lot of things I am interested in changing rather than envigorate Americans against me on this issue. Fights like this are one reason the right wing fundamentalists became vigorously engaged in politics

[immoderate]

20. Why don't we become as vigorously engaged?

A fundie can hold public office. An atheist can't. Are you happy with that? Those little shits are walking all over us.

--IMM

[trotsky]

46. So you aren't interested in fighting for things like:

Rights for homosexuals, including the right to marry?

Reproductive rights, including the right to a safe and legal abortion?

Progressive taxation and a strong public school system?

Because all of these issues and more will envigorate a whole lot of Americans against you.

Yeah, this is why the right-wing fundies got into politics. And they're winning. Do you think we should fight back, or would that not be nice?

[MrSlayer]

21. Does it even matter?

Surely we have bigger fish to fry than this.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. Some people think upholding the constitution is important

even if it's unpopular. I'm not sure who you mean by "we"; Newdow appears to be going it alone.

[MrSlayer]

35. Upholding the Constitution IS important.

But this is just a stupid fight to have. Far more important than if the word "god" is on money is the loss of Constitutional rights due to things like the Patriot act.

[immoderate]

26. When the pledge was argued,

they pointed to the money and said, "You don't have any problem spending the money with god on it."

And when they require prayer and creationism in the schools they'll bring it up again, arguing that we have already accepted it. When will it be time to abandon medieval thinking in our country?

--IMM

[evirus]

23. eh dosnt matter

is it unconstitutional, most likely, but to me, its not sepcifing what god its talking about, it dosnt say "in the god we trust, so i dont think it refers to one specific god, just anyones god, people can have any god they want, the christian god, the islam god, heck luck or evolution could be someones god.


plus god is pretty much the only one you could trust with your money nowadays

[Bill McBlueState]

27. "God" spelled with a capital G

means the god of the Christians and Jews. Surely you don't think the people who proposed putting that on the money intended it to mean any old god.

Either way it excludes people who have no god-belief, or people who believe gods exist but don't trust them.

See the problems that arise when government establishes a religion? Which god we're talking about and whether it's trustworthy shouldn't be for the state to decide.

eta: And of course, this phrase excludes anyone who worships more than one god.

[dcfirefighter]

38. it's in ALL CAPS. which means the 'IN' of the Christians and Jews. n/t

[Cleita]

25. I don't care as long as the mint doesn't interfere with my

reproductive rights. :-)

[Exiled in America]

28. Don't care.

[brentspeak]

29. I don't know if the founders would have objected to it

They might not have advocated putting that phrase on currency, and they certainly would have objected to something like "In Jesus We Trust". But they were generally in concensus about the role and existence of a generic "God" in human thought and society.

[unblock]

30. i think it is unconstitutional, but it is a loser issue

politically, it's a good issue for getting the fundies riled up and voting.

i don't mind the guy pushing the case, let the courts do their thing. but i would prefer the issue to remain in the judicial branch.

it's no good for us if it crosses into the legislative and/or executive branches.

[Bill McBlueState]

43. that's pretty close to how I feel

I think it would be a bad idea for Dean to announce on Meet the Press, "Democrats are undertaking a major push to remove religious slogans from our currency," although the way DUers are responding to this issue, it's though that's exactly what happened.

But it's a great idea for one or a few of the thousands of lawyers in this country to fight something that's clearly unconstitutional.

[Deja Q]

32. The value of money is determined by peoples' faith in it. Nothing more.

And *co has hammered the final nails into the coffin; too many people have lost their faith in money. (maybe that's why people are spending more. They know the end is coming.)

[name not needed]

34. Don't care

[B Calm]

36. On your currency just write over In God We Trust with IMPEACH BUSH

[dcfirefighter]

37. "In God We Trust - All others call the Squad"

A little fire department motto around here - the Squads were organized to rescue trapped firemen, and were the first companies to be issued smoke masks and the like.

I think the nonspecific 'God' is sufficiently vague to pass muster. If it said 'Jesus' i'd agree, but get real - it's not giving 'The Church' any power to coin money or make monetary decisions, so I don't care.

[progressoid]

40. What Would Jesus Buy?

What purpose does having this on currency serve? Does it make believers think that God is an American? Or God supports the Federal Reserve? Is cash more righteous than credit? Perhaps spending is Christian?

[Swamp Rat]

41. I don't trust God.

:D

I prefer Goddess. :loveya:

[Oceansaway]

42. Done....

[PerpetualWinter]

44. Much like "Under God" in the pledge this is an issue of consistency...

in the application of the Lemon Test by the courts. Either you apply it to everything or you apply it to nothing. You can't just selectively apply it and use it when its a serious issue (Faith Based w/ proselytization) but not in an issue that only effects us on a symbolic level.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

47. The Moral Case Against the National Motto

When arguing against those who support this national motto, they typically come to the point that says that there is nothing wrong with the motto because it supports the majority view (their view).

My response is ultimately something like this:

Well, following the principle of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” I now have to ask the following:

Assume that atheists became a majority of the population. They sought to change the national motto to “We Trust In No God.” They put it on the money. It is posted on the classroom where your children go to school, and on the courthouse wall where you may find yourself the defendant in a trial (say, a trial in which the property for the church you belong to was vandalized by atheists).

By the arguments that I see here, you would consider this to be of no moral consequence. This change would simply reflect the fact that the majority trusts in no god, it would be true, and it would offer no reason for offense or concern on the part of Christians (or those who practice any other religion).

My guess is that you, and those who share your convictions, would violently protest this move. You would call it an affront and an insult to the Christian people who, though they are not the majority, are still good citizens who deserve a measure of respect equal to that of the Atheist majority.

I hold that you would be right to protest. I hold that it would be wrong for the government to adopt any motto that degrades and demeans peaceful citizens simply because they have decided to have faith in some God. If they make meaningful contributions to their society, help their neighbor when their neighbor is in need and do not threaten others, then it is wrong for the government to adopt a motto that excludes them, that brands themselves as “outsiders” to the body politic.

However, that’s just the type of person I am. I believe that moral principles are to be universal, and that we should, in fact, do unto others as we would have them do unto us. So, as you and your Christian friends protested such a move, I would be on your side, saying, “Come on, fellow atheists. Many of these Christians are decent people and they have a right to equal consideration and respect in the eyes of the government.”

However, that’s just the type of person I am.

What type of person, may I ask, are you?

Alonzo Fyfe
Atheist Ethicist Blog

[pro_blue_guy]

48. Here's a thought.

Why don't we add a couple of zero's to the dollar bill and call it even. LOL :)