Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

If this were the case, wouldn't the Establishment clause have stated for the sake of clarity "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion"? The lack of the article is rather telling. Things seem to be put in the broadest terms possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's been my contention also. The framers did not choose their words hastily.

 

The OPERATIVE word is ESTABLISHMENT! religion is just an adjective and the article "of" is superfluous and thus not used.

 

That is certainly true.

And nowhere did they use the phrase "separation of Church and State" anywhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the other amendments.

There is a huge, vital, yet muddled difference between the notion of "establishment of a national religion" and "public practice of one's religion while conducting official state business". The former is prohibited, the latter is not.

This is clear, since the same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights performed public religious acts while conducting official state business. This is fact and beyond dispute.

There are hundreds of examples of this, including, but not limited to, being inaugurated with one's hand on a Bible, mentioning God in speeches, oaths, and the Declaration of Independence, and opening Congress with prayer.

The Founding Fathers performed those acts. No reasonable person would conclude they performed those acts yet intended to prohibit them.

 

I never said that any of these documents used that phrase. However, this is how Jefferson described the intention of the 1st Amendment, and I think he should know what its intent was.

You'll get no argument from me that a public servant should not be able to exercise the religion they personally practice just because they are a public servant. They may not go out and perpetrate it as the official practice of the United States. Putting IGWT on the currency perpetrates that this is official practice(trusting in god) of the United States.

 

He can certainly tell us what his personal opinion was.

But he is only one man.

In one letter, written one time to one group of people, one man used the phrase "separation of church and state". Even in that letter, there is much room for interpretation exactly what he meant.

But that is irrelevant.

For Thomas Jefferson's opinion to rule all is the tyranny he so vigorously opposed.

Let's stick to the Constitution, which was very carefully worded (as was so aptly pointed out). Never does it say "separation of Church and State". It prohibits the establishment of a state religion.

We have clearly succeeded in that prohibition, as anyone in America can do as they please. You are free to practice your faith in any way you choose, or practice none at all.

The Founding Fathers very clearly chose to practice religion - and a diverse set of views thereof. A complex picture indeed, as it should be.

 

I'll throw out a thought. I can't find the quote, so I have to paraphrase... Ben Franklin made a statement along these lines :

"What sort of God is so weak that He needs a government to prop Him up ? In this country, any given religion - or even religion itself - will succeed or fail on its own merits."

There were other similar statements made by other Founding Fathers.

I feel this is a very good picture of what the Fathers intended. Yes, individuals are free from the tyranny of the State forcing them to participate in something they don't like. But there's more.

When a religious structure is state-sponsored, it becomes corrupt and drifts away from it's core principles of goodness, charity, kindness, and forgiveness. This isn't because religion is bad - quite the opposite. It's because political power tends toward corruption.

In a sense, it's "Free Market Discipline" applied to religion. If a religious outfit colors outside the lines, most people will walk away. It's a self-regulating mechanism, in which We The People make our own choices.

Any thoughts ?

 

Well written. I completely understand people not wanting the motto on coins, but if they argue that is it because of the Consitution, the argument just doesn't hold water. "In God We Trust" is not establishing a church. I don't understand how people believe that it is....

 

What is "In God We Trust" establishing? What is its purpose?

 

Before I catch up on this thread there are a few points I'd like to make. The concept that the founding fathers were Christians and therefore it's acceptable to honor their God on the currency is wrong on three levels.

First we are hardly beholden to the errors or the ingenuity of the past. The founding fathers did have some very out of date beliefs. Most considered African slaves to be subhuman and incapable of caring for themselves or exhibiting any industry without supervision. While indentured servants were considered nearly human it was often profitable to work them to death because there was a steady stream coming from Europe anyway. Slaves were valuable property so generally enjoyed much better condition if not their freedom. The servants weren't really free either until (and if) they paid their debt. Only land owners could vote. These ideas may seem quaint and backward (at best) to us today but imagine how appalled they would be at the intentional discrimination against people today based solely on the fact that there ancestors couldn't have been slaves. Slavery was an unintentional evil in that they didn't know better.

Second, and more importantly, the founders were not so much Christians as they were pragmatists. Even the god fearing founders tended to put pragmatic considerations ahead of religious ones when it came to political considerations. How can it possibly be considered pragmatic to use mottos that exclude wide swaths of the population.

I seriously doubt ANY of the founders would be proud to know that the country would ever express such a concept in such a way.

The only valid reason to keep the motto mis that it would probably create a firestorm to remove it and this reflects very poorly on us and history will judge us harshly for it.

 

When people of our day visit an issue of a former day, there is a huge disconnect between the two, for one things the usage of language changes.

Back when the constitution was drafted the word respecting meant more along the lines of regarding, or in reference to, today when the word respect is used most have all the baggage of the RESPECT song and all the little gangsters fighting for respect, of their turf or of their peculiar symbols.

So it would be generally understood back then that the ban against making any law respecting an establishment of religion would be that no laws could be made regarding, or concerning any religious modes or establishments, today tho, with the new reading of the word respect, the clause can seem to say that congress cannot make any law that shows any respect or esteem for religion.

Next I would like to start a thread about the liberty vs license argument that knocked about during the turn of the last century.

 

I believe I read somewhere that G-Dub-Bush said God instructed him to invade Iraq.

"In God We Trust" right next to the All Seeing Eye (Horus), LoL. Too funny!

 

You can't step into the same river twice.

By the same token the God which is understood by Catholics today is not the exact same God that they had in 1955. That God would put you in limbo forever for eating meat on Friday. Many other changes have occurred.

The God Whom this country trusts is the God of the majority. It's the God of the major Christian religions not the God of Islam who not only use a different name for Him but won't even speak nor write it. It's not the God of Akenatun who elevated Re to the status of the sole God. It's not the God of Hindus and it certainly isn't the God of athiests and agnostics. It's not one of the Gods of any of the Pagan religions. It is the father of He Who died on the cross.

It is simply highly inappropriate for a free people to have such slogans and to force them on everyone.

 

I'm about the most areligious (ok, it's not a word but you get the meaning) person in the world, but even I know that's not true.

 

That's not true. If we took it off NO ONE would have their personal views represented. If we took it off only to replace it with "There Is No God" your argument would be valid, but taking off any and all references to metaphysical stances would mean that our currency represented no one individual or group's philosophical position on this matter and that is how it should be.

As for the Founding Fathers, I honestly agree with you there. We can all take out our plastic Founding Fathers action figures and have them in a p**sing contest of quotes and prior actions and still not come close to resolving the issue. The issue is not is but ought. What is now, or what was then does not answer the question what ought to be.

Also, stating that courts have upheld it may make it legally correct, but that still does not justify the ultimate rightness or wrongness of it. Hell, even the Supreme Court has upheld imminent domain laws, but when the government comes calling for your private property are you just going to step aside and say, "Oh well, the courts think it's right, so it must be."

 

I was wrong about

I was wrong about "Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink"

What "God" does this refer to?

What if Larry Flint improved on the design a bit?

(Don't look at it too long~It will make you go blind.)

 

Upon what do you base this conclusion ? Are you using "Age of Reason" Scientific Method analysis of fact, or is your conclusion based upon your personal opinions painted upon the Founding Fathers ?

Here is the text of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Indepedence :

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." (emphasis mine)
​

Why would the founders object to "In God We Trust" if they invoked the name of God in the Declaration of Independence ?

 

Who, then, is the authority ? Who is the final arbiter ?

I agree that courts are not infallible. Courts are like religion and atheism - they are imperfect because they are filled with us imperfect human beings.

But it's time to accept facts. The courts have consistently ruled in favor of "In God We Trust". That's fact. If the courts had ruled the way you want them to, would you challenge their authority ? I doubt it.

The reason they have ruled in favor of "In God We Trust" is because they find it falls well short of the establishment of a State sponsored religion, and well within the State's allowed expression of God in public affairs.