Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

Yes, but being descended from Abraham does not make one a Jew. The Jewish people trace their beginning to Jacob called Israel, grandson of Abraham through Isaac.

The Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham via Isaac's half-brother Ishmael.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As is anyone who despises Jews... Muslims... Hindus... Buddhists... Shintos (Shintoites?)... Sikhs... Wiccans... the list goes on and on like the Energizer Bunny.

 

I totally agree.

The only reason I phrased it the way I did is someone claimed some of the Founders "despised Christians"... as if somehow that's acceptable. It's not. I personally have seen no evidence any Founders "despised Christians".

Atheists in the Soviet Union who "despised Christians" were hateful and intolerant. I have personal friends in Russia who lost fathers and grandfathers to the Gulag. Their crime ? They had a Bible in the house.

Religion does not cause the problems of the world. People cause the problems of the world.

The vast majority of "stacking of bodies" is not done in the name of religion, though that's the way we're trained. It just isn't so. We don't call out Secularism as an entity the way we do religion, but the many root causes of problems are overwhelmingly secular and have nothing to do with religion.

 

Actually 900fine, being a decendant of Jacob makes one an Israelite, not a Jew. Jews are decendants from one of Jacob's sons, Judah.

Isn't it strange that the little brotherly squable between Ishmael and Isaac is still going on today, thousands of years later.

 

see pages 1-25

 

You are exactly right on this and have been all along. The law is the law. If you want things to be different, then change the law.

Neither of us are very different, Doug. We are both strong-minded and self-assured. We also both love to share knowledge and are willing to listen in order to learn.

My point was that everyone interprets things. Just because your interpretation agrees with the courts, doesn't make it right, it makes it law. If someone wants it changed, see above.

As our society has become, for lack of a better term, more enlightened (modern), we have cast aside the practices of the past, become more tolerant and more inclusive.

There were no hate crime laws in the 1940s, but there are now. The Civil Rights Act is another example of people deciding that the law was morally wrong. I have not put forth any of my own ideas about religion except maybe this one: everyone has a right to their own. what I have done, and consistently if I may add, is argue for the inclusion of everyone in the way that they are represented not only by our money, but by our government as well.

I want the buddhists and the scientologist, and the new agers all to feel that they are represented as well, not merely tolerated as bobbeth suggested.

 

Word/Phrase Choices

Quote:
Originally Posted by phubanks
what happened to the "separation of church and state" laid out by our founding fathers?

I'm often amazed at the specificity demanded by some, to deny the "truths" of others, while applying generalities to their "truths".

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

I trust that one applying intelligence/objectivity would determine that the above emboldened portion of the Constitutional First Amendment clearly defines a "separation" between government and religious establishment/choice.

I hope that through the allowed diverse religious choices, we can find a common denominator, in condoning the beliefs of others, when given the choice to freely accept or deny. In our environment of supposed acceptance, a Satanist can define their GOD, while an atheist or ????????? can deny, with impunity. I believe there are enough choices for total inclusion, while we may need to apply personal acceptance tolerance, in order to have our choice accepted. :bow:

 

Are these questions rhetorical? Or are you really seeking the answers?

 

No need to "shout" by bolding everything.....

Everyone's beliefs are accepted. The fact that the nation believes one way and makes that belief known through its motto, etc., doesn't negate the freedom that everyone has in the country to believe the way they want.

 

if you are suggesting that the nation (i.e.- the government) has a preference (believes anything) then you are violating the separation of church and state. That behavior is exactly what is prohibited in the constitution.

 

Believing in God and establishing a religion are two different things (read the first 25 pages of this thread). This is a quote from my earlier post when I discussed this point:

"Many of the founding fathers recognized the hand of Providence in the winning of our independence. A great many of our patriotic songs have reference to God:

• Star Spangled Banner: "And this be our moto, in God is our trust."
• America the Beautiful: "God shed his grace on thee"
• My Country Tis of Thee: "Our fathers' God to Thee, Author of Liberty, To thee we sing, Long may our land be bright With Freedom's holy light, Protect us by thy might Great God, our King."
• God Bless America: Enough said
• The Navy Hymn: "Oh Father, hear an humble prayer, For those in peril in the air! Amen."

In addition, our money has reference to God (upheld in the courts) as well as our Pledge to the Flag. Congress opens with prayer. And many other items we can point to. "

If the above doesn't say that we as a nation (not the gov, per se, but the nation) "believe in God," I don't know what would.

 

Good stuff; I'll try to be quick! (I did notice though that no one wants to theorize whether God wants the motto on mammon!)

I thought I was asking shouldn't all Jews be Christians, which is very different from the inverse. Let me understand, First God did the Old Testament stuff. Then God sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for our sins. That's what Christians believe; and you're saying the Jews believe that "Their God" did that too? True, I'm naive but now I'm honestly curious about Theism. I'm thinking that all along I've been interpreting Same God as Same Understanding of God. From my perspective, I thought that God was defined in part by His/Her actions. "God created the earth, God created Man." If a Muslim says that God told his people to kill all the non-believers, that's the "Same God?" I am actually curious enough to follow up on the topic of what earlier religions think of later ones. Can you point me in the direction of anybody who has ever studied? I really don't know any!

 

Well done! (the poly-theists can simply insert their Favorite God!) I still think "Higher Power" would stop more arguing though. I know it doesn't sound as poetic, IaHPWT. On the plus side, it also would include atheists that believe in Natural Powers.

I too don't practice any religion, but I'm interested in the concept of, among others, Red Letter Christians. So c'mmon, give me an educated guess; what would followers of the words of Jesus think about putting a prayer on mammon! (Don't make me start another thread. I'll do it! I swear to God I will!)

 

I'm very uncomfortable with this for many many reasons.

The largest is that our concept of God came to us through a "pagan religion". It was the Egyptians who defined the meaning of God even though we consider them Pagan. Read the hermetic writing which predates the Bible and you'll see this concept was exceedingly well developed long before Christianity or any monotheistic religion was born.

To a large degree I believe the Egyptian Gods were mostly just various facets of The God. Akentaton even switched to a single God for decades before the people reverted to the old system. Yes, it was Ra that rose to ascendency but it was still God with all the attributes of God.

Which brings up the other point that seems to be brushed aside and that is that everybody has his own definition of what God is. To at least some extent this makes a religion a sort of average of what all its adherents believe. The Jewish God is Fear inspiring, the Christian God is all powerful, and the Muslim God is wrathful. There are many sects within each of these three main religions that each have a slightly different take on things.

It's only a form of modern superstition that allows each observer to see this as an appeal to his own God. Essentially we're just wired to take things at face value. Atheists will take the meaning to be something entirely different than will a Muslim or a Catholic. Where the Catholic might tend to take it as an expression of God's might on Earth or a Muslim as an exhortation to prayer, the atheist might see it as an affront to his sensibilities or the "childish" need for others to have confirmation of their faith.

This is a religious objection to the use of the motto. Some people will take it as justification for acts that are evil and entirely against the teachings of Christ, Muhammad, Osiris and everyone else.

I don't believe ideas that are so complex belong on coins and money. I don't think things which are inherently unknowable belong on currency. I don't believe that things that are wordy and wholly unrelated to the usage belong on money. I don't believe things that are exclusionary belongs on the currency of a great republic.

 

If anybody seriously has a problem with the motto "In God We Trust" on our money I will take any of the offending coins off of their hands. (I am not expecting many private messages asking for my shipping address.)

 

Exceptions To Motto

Your exceptions to the three letter word on money has been noted/accepted, and may possibly be the basis for a new Poll:
Poll: "In Gold We Trust" on coins?
Hopefully, there would be greater consensus, and fewer seemingly defensive posts. LOL

 

I still have to vote no.

This slogan is still opinion, complex, and wordy.

It's reasonable to expect Americans to understand "LIBERTY" and some still understand "E Pluribus Unum". Anyone who doesn't understand these ands erealize these do not constitute opinion in this country should turn in his citizenship. The same applies to ideas like "ONE DOLLAR", "THE UNITED STATES Of AMERICA", and the date.

Just facts. No opinion.

If you want opinion then put Jesse Jackson or Arnold Swartzenegger on the coins.

 

Truth to tell even some of these mottos still fail the wordiness test.

Why can't we at least abbreviate to USA or US of A. Instead of "TEN CENTS" we might use 10c.

Why do the coins have to be covered with verbiage to the detriment of artistic expression.