In God We Trust (til when?)

It's easy to argue for a position you believe in. The test is to give a good argument for both sides.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Test of what though? Certainly one should welcome, carefully read, and then weigh all criticism. But I judge the above goes too far. Here is an old fashioned English view on this matter:

Macbeth, (Act II, scene III)

PORTER

Here’s a knocking indeed! If a man were porter of hell-gate, he should have old turning the key.

(A sound of knocking from offstage.)

Knock, knock! Who’s there, in th' other devil’s name? Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator.

W. Shakespeare

 

The OP stated "...I'd be happy to argue the underdog position!". It appears he would argue for the removal of the motto IN GOD WE TRUST, and give a good argument. I was wondering if he could argue as effectively for keeping the motto. As an issue it's of little importance to me. I guess I should have directed this at the OP himself.
(Love Shakespeare's work. Quotes for all occasions).

 

I'm not a big fan of changing anything that is part of our history. I don't feel enough folks care to make the changes.

 

Best comment yet. It should not go unnoticed that American history seems to be “evolving”.

 

I feel this thread was started for other reasons than just coin chat. (to stir things up) Its has become a political and religious platform.

 

That's an odd statement. After all, whatever policies you hate most, imposed by whatever administrators or legislators or judges you hate most, are also part of our history.

 

Fair enough. Yes, laws do need to be changed at times.
I don't see a need to change coins, remove religion from everything, take down statues, plaques, flags and pictures that don't harm anyone.

 

The people who put IGWT on our money were expressing the belief of the majority. It is still the wish of the majority. When it no longer is it will be removed or changed. Not one thing in the BILL OF RIGHTS gives people the right to not be offended or annoyed by other people doing legal acts. The people who attempt to criminalize legal acts are violating the precepts of the EX POST FACTO provisions. People who travel back into history and attempt to indict people based on current laws and social mores are doing the same thing.

 

Someone said that re-writing history is the first battlefield. I’ll leave the author’s name out.

 

“The first battlefield is to rewrite history… Take away the heritage of a people and they are easily persuaded.”

Karl Marx

Google for the context in which he was making these statements.

 

So, bring back polio, slavery, eliminate the vote for women...

 

...and sack those that are responsible.

 

A new, improved motto for our currency:

 

Didn't see that coming

 

I’m not judging his sentiments, and I’m sure his hopes were pure. I think he believed they were, at least. Lots of terrible outcomes arrive disguised that way, imo.

 

Well, those are a few of the things we had in the "Good Old Days". If you haven't seen "Midnight In Paris", it's a good watch.

 

some thing should be left a alone