Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

Absolutely not unless what is objectionable violates that individuals rights. The issue here though is not whether it is objectionable or not, but rather whether or not it violates the 1st Amendment. Does a law, which was passed by Congress, putting a motto on our money which explicitely states a religious belief violate that amendment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This all reminds me of the joke about the wife, who fed up with her husband constantly being gone fishing said, "We're not having sex again until you get rid of that boat." He looked at her and said, "What's this 'we' crap."

IGWT? What's this "we" crap? Or perhaps as Ayn Rand said, "Speak for yourself brother."

 

Interesting perspectives one and all and thank you everyone for keeping such a emotional topic civil. It's nice to have such a conversation outside of the dreaded political confines below that usually devolve into bashing and poorly thought out opinions.
I will attempt to answer your question GD but back to the topic a little bit first. When we are talking about a motto of such overwhelmingly religious origins and our common currency, there are several principles in play at the same time. Some see it as a attack on their beliefs. Others see it as an attempt to force beliefs they do not share upon them. Still others see the greater principles of a government apart from organized religion. In essence, all three are valid viewpoints. If you simply look at this problem as a matter of majority rule, you invalidate at least some people's perfectly valid viewpoints because you have let simple raw numbers determine what is going to be considered right rather than letting reason and philosophical principles determine how to proceed.
Opinions sway like the wind and in time the majority catches up to reason but the harm that is inflicted in the interim never quite fades from social consciousness and haunts future generations that must look back at their ancestors and shake their heads at the thought of their short sightedness. Wouldn't following the path of well-reasoned principles rather than simple majority rule avoid such outcomes?
Now to answer your question GD. History is replete with examples of one person changing the course of history by going against the majority. That person is usually in a position of power but not always. Consider for example, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Christopher Columbus, Galileo, etc., all people that went against the majority and all were right. We no longer make blacks sit in back of the bus, peaceful resistance can replace violent overthrow, the world is no longer considered flat, and we no longer deny that the earth orbits the sun. What will we accept tomorrow?

 

Circular logic.

 

I was wondering how long it would be until this point was brought up. Exactly right, belief in God and religion are two separate issues. One can believe in God/gods without having religion, and one can have religion without belief in God/gods.

 

Beautifully stated! I wholeheartedly agree. :high5: :thumb:

 

Doug,

Regardless of how much we wink-wink and nudge-nudge(some Monty-Python humor for those who've seen the skit ), I think we all know which capital-letter-G God is being referred to on our money, but even if one accepts the word as a generic place-holder it still seems to me a stretch to say that it doesn't at least fall under the definitions (1) & (5) that you listed. Putting trust in any god is certainly an observance of faith. We would also have to dilute the word "god" to such a point that it becomes meaningless in order for it not to constitute a "belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..." Establishing a belief in a supernatural "other" is establishing a religious belief. This fact sheet from the U.S. Treasury regarding the matter clearly points out how deeply religious the origins of the phrase and the reasons for its being on our currency.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Here is what the sponsor of the bill in the House, which made it mandatory on all currency in 1955 had to say:

"At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God it will prevail."-Congressman Bennett.


I simply see no way to state with any conviction that the motto has no meaning, and where it does have meaning, it has religious meaning.

There absolutely were atheists then. One could compile a long and distinguished list. Also, though I know you meant no offense, to state that "there are no atheist in foxholes" is offensive to atheists. In essence it says their beliefs and assessments of the nature of reality are so superficial that they would be abandoned under certain circumstances. Though I've never been in a literal foxhole, I've been in a couple of metaphorical ones and I never once became a temporary theist during these circumstances. Likewise, when atheists question the sincerity of the beliefs of Christians or those of other religions, those people would rightly be offended.

For the record, I am an atheist and also for the record, the motto on our currencies does not offend me in the least. I just do not think it belongs there. Many of the values held by those of the Judeo-Christian faith are also held by me and I think we all have bigger fish to fry right now. But hey, the more we put on our coins the greater the chance that I have of finding something doubled!

 

Aren't you more or less trading a relatively minor principle, majority rule, for a much more sacred (forgive the spiritual connotations) principle of deference to all members of society regardless of their numbers? Isn't protecting the rights of the least of us at least as important as paying homage to the beliefs of the majority of our citizens? I always thought it was.

I don't find the motto offensive in the least even though I consider the possibility of a God as presented by any of the major religions highly unlikely. The higher principle that our government should not be advocating for any belief system or lack of a belief system does bother me because history is filled with examples of government manipulating belief as a weapon against certain members of their societies. Why would we want to risk that all over again?

Were the Salem Witch Trials really that long ago? Did Hitler not use the Jewish belief system to persecute the Jews? Are modern Evangelicals not using religion to justify their attacks on gays in this country? Religion in any form or any belief system can be used in conjunction with the power we entrust to our government to persecute any group if we go down that road. When we blur the edges of government and religion, we risk much more than offending a few in the minority.

 

I applaud the members of this forum for expressing their opinions on this topic in a mutually respectful and dignified manner.

 

I'll second that. It's great to be able to discuss these matters in an adult way that does not result in the thread being closed or people being reprimanded. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree to disagree in a friendly manner.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Everybody has heard this ad nauseum.

I choose to hang my hat on the second, less repeated portion of the first amendment.

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This means I can't be limited to my free exercise ONLY to within the walls of any building.

There is NO freedom from the voice of opposition, whether it causes discomfort or not as long as it does not prevent you from exercising a superior right. There are very few superior rights.

 

I don't think anyone here would argue against your free exercise of your beliefs. You're not printing the currency though(hopefully ); the government is. The argument is whether the Constitution prohibits the government from exercising such beliefs. Some are arguing this does constitute such exercise by the government, while others argue that it does not.

As for no freedom FROM the voice of opposition, that is correct. And, we're seeing opposition here without the government coming in and silencing it. The owners of the site could silence either side if they chose to because it's their private property. However, the government can not.

 

With 100 votes, we have 63 yes, 30 no, 7 no opinion.

 

I think those who merely voted "present" should run for public office. :hammer:

 

Wink Wink Nudge Nudge

I think the Wink Wink Nudge Nudge~
was Bennie Hill, not Monty Python.

KNow What I mean?

Should we call it to a vote or does this call for immediate dicsussion?

(A REAL Monty Python reference:kewl

 

Agreed. I will point out that the Constitution did not prohibit Congress from making religious statements, just from recognizing or respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION through the making of law. This was written when most states had an official religious institution with associated laws governing peoples belief in God.

Therefore, In the Catholic Church we trust WOULD be Unconstitutional as would in the Baptist Church we trust or in the Church of England we trust. These are ESTABLISHMENTS of Religion. Each of these had been Official State Religions which demanded deference from all citizens.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

I do like that Bennie Hill chap though.