Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

The only thing I can figure out about those against majority rule is that they want either minority rule or anarchy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Do what's right, regardless of whether or not it's what the majority want.

 

No. We want the rule of law which protects each individual from the mob. You can call that minority rule if you like, since the smallest minority is the individual.

 

I believe every individual in this country has a right not to be assaulted, insulted, categorized, or exposed to blasphemy by the coinage. Placing "in God we trust" is really no different then putting "science has shown god probably doesn't exist so we place our trust in commerce, industry and the ingenuity of man". Sure it's a little wordier and much more offensive to a larger group of people but it is the same concept; we now know everything and the answer is in Christ Who is the only way to heaven.

Frankly I find such things offensive no matter who states them or how they're stated. Neither my faithful side nor my skeptical side is unoffended by all statements which suggest we know everything.

This is the races' greatest weakness today; his superstition that we know everything. Our second greatest weakness is our newfound willingness to impose our answers on everyone else whether they want it or not.

 

I don't believe this country was fiounded on "religious values". Perhaps to some small degree the concepts it was foiunded upon originated in religion or faith but the founders were careful to keep religion out of the structure of our republic. Many of the people in this country had flown religious persecution in their homelands and the founders wanted this country to be a haven for all, regardless of religious beliefs. There is no specific exclusion of Hindus or anyone else anywhere in the writings of the founders.

I don't know who wrote it but it was in the paper today and I thought of this thread;

"To compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propogation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical".

Notice the author didn't suggest that it was OK to do this if it helped save his soul from eternal damnation. It is sinful. But more importantly (perhaps) is it flies in the face of our heritage and our Constitution.

 

We each have a right to do absolutely anything we want until such time as that right is revoked by law. This is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We all hope that every citizen has some sort of moral compass which assures he won't invent new misbehaviors from which we must all be protected by law.

But we have such rights and the right not to see blasphemy on the coinage was one until at least 1872 and was never formally revoked.

In other words you still have the right to stand on your computer or walk on your hands. You can enter into contracts that aren't in conflict with law if you're at least 21. You casn use telescopes unless they're pointed at area 51 or a neighbor's bedroom. You can use a microwave or a scissor. Everything that there isn't a law against is a God given right that government can't remove except through new law.

There are a lot of laws now and one can usually be dusted off for almost any behavior which is causing sufficient havoc. The problem is that most people do a lot more acting than thinking so new law keeps cropping up.

 

Isn't anyone in the least concerned that our pennies are so worthless that millions of people just toss them in the trash? Isn't anyone concerned that appeals to a deity are being thrown around and littering parks, sidewalks, and parking lots. How many of these are being trampled underfoot or driven on.

Have you looked at a handful of pennies. They're already a disgrace and having a reference to God does not improve them in the least.

Isn't anyone concerned when minting errors cause misspelling and different meanings in thisw motto? It seems religious people should be the ones screaming loudest to remove this motto.

 

This is an argument that spans the philosophies of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics so not only is there no way to accomplish such a discussion of it here, but it would also take us way off topic.

But in a nutshell yes, protect the right of individuals to their life and property and you've got it. If you violate the rights of another individual to his life and property you forfeit your own. The key here is that each and every individual has a right to life and property, so no, you can't just do what you want if it violates the rights of others. As long as no one else's rights to life and property are violated, then yes, do what you like.

 

I thought I was on your side on the first one. My two objections were stated and neither of them are constitutional issues.

For the second one I was only saying what I thought was "wise," as opposed to whether it was their "right" to. Of course private orgs can do what they want. (I also didn't mean to imply that AA has some policy to close with the Lord's Prayer. In general, every group can do what it wants. I think the serenity prayer is more popular around here but we're more "diverse" in general.)

I haven't lost any that I know of, I'm only echoing the sentiment that the courts are there to protect the minority.

True. What Jesus might think about combining the manifestations of "Riches" with an invocation of God is something only Christians should consider.

 

Between these extremes I suggest that "Higher Power" would be a good non-religious version of God. Can I ask where you learned that God existed before humanity?

 

Technically, it would still take a majority, 5 out of 9! Yet in terms of popular vote, yes that could be 299,999,994 to 6. (assuming the plaintiff is in favor too!)

Sorry about the edit, I answered the other part before.

 

I think those same "universal moral teachings" are generally the "religious values" that are universal to all religions, in common with being Socially Moral.

 

On a semi-related note, the National Day of Prayer has been ruled unconstitutional:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gd8532foDasi_HtAzi9JolkMVlqQD9F3PCE00

 

Instead of a day, would it be OK if the prayer were shorter? Say...4 little words?!

 

Doug,

Almost right, but not quite. I do not believe that I have freedom from religion. There is no way that I could be granted that without violating another person's rights. Freedom "from" would seem to imply to me that I would have the right not to ever have to come in contact with religion in any way. That's something I would never call for and I would fight for your right to worship freely, to display manger scenes on your lawn, etc. I just believe the establishment by the state that we all trust in god violates The Establishment Clause and I think regardless the government has no business touching any sort of sentiment with a ten foot pole. Yes it is a fact that the courts have sided with you. I just happen to believe and hope that the higher court will one day side with me.

 

Only individuals have God given rights. Corporations, committees, alliances etc etc only gain rights through the individuals involved and have no rights of their own. It's the same way with whites, blacks, Chinese, mobs, handicapped, atheletic people, and Walmart employees who all have no God given or Constitutional rights. These new rights have been granted by law and are not Constitutional.

You're right that no one has a Constitutional right from religion except to the degree that it is imposed by government who is supposed to stay entirely out of the issue. We are not suupposed to be required to paqss our catechism to vote any more than we should have to spend money with religious slogans.
This doesn't preclude anyone from getting a soapbox and thumping a Bible but he can't come into my home uninvited to do so.

This was the country the founders envisioned. Yes, it's a very different country now and a few of the changes have been for the better.

But this is exactly what the founders said and made into the law of the land. Men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Only those powers granted to the fed were supposed to be theirs. They have usurped almost all states rights. We are now bound by laws too numerous to even list. New companies are springing up in China largely because they have a lot fewer laws. Given time I'm sure they'll catch up.

 

I think it's ironic we keep bringing the founding fathers into this. They were smart enough to not include God or any reference to religion on this country's first coinage. Maybe they did this for a reason. They built a country from scratch, something today's people couldn't dream of doing, and their wisdom and insight was beyond anything we could envision today. I think their reasoning behind their careful placement of wordage on coinage could serve as a valuable lesson today...if only people learned how to expand their thought process.
Guy~