Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

Everyone thinks that the way that they think is correct. Most people aren't quite so "I'm right, you're wrong" about it as others. I think that when you place yourself in the company of "those who study constitutional law, and the courts" it shows an incredible amount of hubris.

I disagree in the strongest sense and since neither of us were there, let's just say that it's our opinion.

The wording of the constitution was left purposefully vague so as to leave some room for interpretation. It is NOT a rigid document. it is its flexibility that has enabled it to withstand the test of over 200 years and several leaps in technology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think that it's a ton of fun to soak something in gasoline, set it ablaze and walk away and watch the fire. This thread reminds me of doing just that.

 

I agree that it is flexibly but only through the ability to have amendments as for the part that is written it is Not and we disagree there.

IGWT stays cause I said so!
End of discussion lol

 

just as an example off of the top of my head:

Judicial Review is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, but it was the case of Marbury v. Madison that made it the law of the land. This was done through interpretation, not explicit wording.

 

I don't think men need religion to oppress his neighbors. Nazi Germany killed six million Jews since majority ruled. It wasn't so much a religious issue as it was one jealosy and prejudice. Look at what the Japanese did to Nanking. This has been going on since before Christianity and the formal concept of a single deity.

Everyone's God is necessarily different. Even within the same religion. In the same individual the concept of God will change over time as he learns and tries to come to grips with the concepts. What are the limitations of divinities and how do they originate? Do they necessarily answer prayers or wish lists? Is there an afterlife where we'll know Them and is it the same afterlife everyone shares. Obviously most Americans aren't going to get there and meet up with Muslims with 72 virgins since there's no room in that heaven if they're right.

Almost no one claims to "know" or have contact with God any longer so we can only know him through His works. So why can't everyone have the right to invent new ones. Mike Royko the columnist used to suggest there was a single God but he had no interest in the human race since we were just an unintended byproduct. He certainly wasn't concerned with individuals. Do you think Mike Royko's God is represented on the currency?

 

There are a couple of exceptions, the third and fourth largest religions*; Hinduism: 900 million practitioners, and Buddhism: 376 million... Seems like a lot to me! Reminds me of the caveat on the historical fact that "Communism is Dead"... with the minor exception of the most populated country in the world!
*Warning! Source is some website!

I'm with you 100% here! Aren't some of those inalienable rights the same ones that some politicians don't want to "grant" to illegal aliens?!

1) I can't help but find some irony in your first statement! As if people should only believe the Facts about God instead of merely following some Belief, perhaps one constructed purely on Faith (of all things!).

2) If the Lord's Prayer can be used in a Secular way, is there anything that can't be Secular?!!! (In the New Testament, that is...you already mentioned "Praise Allah" can't be...)

 

Kerosene is safer.

 

So you think Thomas Jefferson misinterpreted it when he stated that it was meant to establish a wall of seperation?

 

I would say "Everyone's view of God is necessarily different".
Another theological point is that within the Judeo-Christian view of God, there exists free will. Now that gives humanity the opportunity to really screw things up:whistle:.

Responding to jallengomez's comment: So you think Thomas Jefferson misinterpreted it when he stated that it was meant to establish a wall of separation?

In my opinion, I view that as a comment by one of the founding fathers in a personal letter, not as part of the debate on the floor of the first Congress when the Bill of Rights was being debated.

 

Cultural Tradition? you mean the same tradition of corrupt bible belt politicians who are elected on the basis of how vigorously they can wave the flag and thump the bible?

 

People will interpret the Constitution in whatever way fits their agenda or political allegiance. Take the IGWT issue. Many of the same people that want to strictly adhere to the meaning they give to the establishment clause and frequently state that absolutely nothing about the separation of church and state is attributable to this part of the Constitution are in many cases the same people that are equally sure that the Constitution also intended that corporations are equal to individuals with respect to the political process and that money equals free speech even though the Constitution mentions neither.
It really isn't a matter of what the Constitution says or doesn't say, it's really what you can throw out into the court of public opinion and get to stick that counts. The Constitution is reinterpreted on a daily basis and only fools think they are the true adherents to its original intentions.

 

I voted yes, but I am nearly impartial.... I do see a valid argument that it could discriminate against agnostics and atheists, and that it is not a separation of church and state.. but at the same time I hate to remove the tradition of the US Mint.... still I feel stopping tradition is more important than offending parties.

 

Ending the tradition of slavery was really really inconvenient for the plantation owners but we did what was right in the end regardless of who it offended.

I also don't think that atheists and agnostics are the only people affected. In my opinion it is due to that exact clause in the constitution that we have countless religions (both organized and not) and all but the ones that believe in God are excluded. If anything that is elitism.

 

OK. I'll give you this.

But isn't it true that since no one speaks to God that no one knows who He is or exactly what he thinks and it follows that everyone's God is different?It surprises me to no end to hear that people think the God of Islam is the same as the God of Akenatun or that worshipped by Baptists.

If everyone is worshipping the exact same God then we should be able to agree on ritual and ceremony ending war and famine everywhere.

I'm just not buying that this slogan represents even all the monotheists. I'd still be opposed to it if it did but not quite as opposed. It's still exclusionary and it's still hubris.

 

Hubris? Are you suggesting that people in power might not actually Trust in God? That they are somehow politically motivated? Unfathomable! For consolation, I'm sure there are politicians Praising Allah who don't mean it too! Wait, I didn't have to add that because anyone reading this would already assume that since God and Allah are the same, I was at once referring all falsely religious people... minus the Hindi and Buddhist...

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote the words which have been taken out of context by the atheists in modern time to reflect the opposite of what was intended. The rights of citizens should be separate from religion to protect the personal rights of man to PRACTICE their belief or lack of belief in the Supreme Being. It is not a PROHIBITION of the practice of one's belief while acting for the state. This is why the entire first amendment includes a prohibition on both the state mandate for any religious establishment AND state prohibition from FREE EXERCISE of ANY religious ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

The wall must extend to the second part of the phrase as well as the first. It's not hard to grasp the intent when you look at how the founders acted on this idea. They Opened Congress with prayer after swearing loyalty to the nation with their hand on a bible. They were free to be themselves separate and apart from any mandate or prohibition in regards to their religious beliefs and practices.

Atheists have twisted this to prohibit any exposure to others with different belief while acting for the state. It is this very exposure that Jefferson was trying to protect. The listener was then to be free to make of it what they wished.

 

Point of information.

Ask any average High School student or even a college participant to tell you what two coin inscriptions are on the national coinage. Eight out of ten won't be able to answer correctly. Try it, I did.

 

Students aren't unlike most when it comes to money. All they want to know is how quickly they can spend it. They have no appreciation for it beyond what it can get them.

 

You are correct in this, and I have never argued that the state prohibit or interfere with anyone's beliefs just because they hold public office. The motto does not constitute a case of someone praying while in office. It constitutes a case of the state making metaphysical claims on behalf of the country.

 

Of course a general statement reflecting something truthful (general Trust in God and not God per say) will never be universal. If we wait for a Universal statement, then the coins would be blank. I'm positive Liberty was unacceptable to some as showing deference to Greek and Roman pagan Gods. But they were acceptable in general. It's not unlike the motto added to some coins in the 1860s and to all in the 1950s.