In God We Trust (til when?)

History is a valid legal argument as it's called precedent, but that's never been the basis anyways. It's a generic term that can mean whatever the reader wants it to. Furthermore anyone who wishes too can avoid using cash altogether to make sure they aren't offended.

The USA isn't allowed to have an official religion that doesn't mean it cannot ever be mentioned in a generic way. The Supreme Court building itself along with many of the government buildings have references to God in their decorations should we bulldoze all of them? Of course not.

There's no reason to start down the hypothetical road to try and shape it how you wish. There's sound legal basis for why the challenges have failed and will continue to do so

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Quid Pro Quo?

 

It would be unfair, to both parties. Government would be shooting itself in the foot by eliminating mortgage interest deductions, Interest=debt=print more money. It's the banks faults that we need interest rate deductions in the first place. Do you pay city tax too, I do.

 

Nope

 

This isn't quite as clever a revelation as you think it is. There is only one freedom, the freedom to ("freedom from" is another way of saying prohibited).

The founding fathers worded it perfectly clearly when they wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It took an act of congress (a law) to place the motto on our currency. Therefore, the key legal precept is whether doing so does or does not constitute a religious position. There's no question that had the proposed motto been "In Jesus We Trust" it would have failed the test but, according to the rulings so far, the word "God" is sufficiently vague to skate through.

I'm of the personal opinion (I could be wrong) that had this issue not come up until today that there wouldn't be a snowball's chance that Congress would be able to get this enacted. Obviously, the Democrats would block it but the underlying reason is the huge change in demographics. Not just the shift towards more secularization but also the expansion of minority religions. Only Christians - and then only a partial number of them - would be for the inclusion of IGWT while the rest would prefer another motto (or nothing at all). It's a much different situation than 1950's America.

Rasiel

 

Where's the dislike button?......Oh, there it is!

 

100 percent false.

You’re wildly mistaken if you think Christianity is the only religion with a God.

You also confidently ignored the founding fathers referencing God in multiple places in other documents and declarations they were a part of, they were just opposed to an official religion which none is being established or even endorsed by the motto

 

I'm entirely astonished that this thread has remained open into a second day.

Ah.

This thread certainly helps to clarify CoinTalk's policy of "no politics or religion". Not.

 

Just to throw this in the mix and I am not sure this is explicit in the Constitution but that the courts have held that there needs to be a separation of church and state. IGWT is generic enough that it would be hard to say that one religion is favored over another or favored over no religion with that statement on our coins and currency

 

Which other religions besides Christianity would you say would be pro IGWT? You could prove me wrong here, I'll be open minded. Not any significant portion of Jews, not Muslims, not Sikhs, Scientologists or Satanists. Maybe some obscure sect like Zoroastrians? I really don't know. Please enlighten me.

And I'm not ignoring the founding fathers personal beliefs. Granted, most of them were genuinely very religious, but what's that have to do with the Constitution? Again, to keep us on topic the focus of the thread is about whether or not the motto has legal merit.

Rasiel

 

You're just going off the deep end here and I am not going to get dragged into it. Many religions including ones you named have a God hence the generic use of it is perfectly legal.

It does and the courts have said it does over and over end of story.

 

Razz, yes, that's the prevailing argument. However, a generic religious message is still a religious message. It's already the law, for example, that public schools can't force students to have a moment of prayer even if there's no particular denomination enforced. That's because a prayer is by definition religious and exclusive of those who don't wish to participate. I see a close parallel here. How are these two fundamentally different?

Rasiel

 

@Suarez it sounds like you should have just as much a problem with the following holidays being designated federal holidays:

Christmas
Easter
Columbus Day
Martin Luther King Day
Thanksgiving

While we're at it how about Halloween? Veterans Day?

 

There's no parallel other than grasping at straws. The school issue is one where someone is forced to do something and this is ignoring your over-generalization of the issue, something being on money has no impact. No one forces you to use cash, no one forces you to read it.

The 8th circuit court of appeals already ruled on this exact issue and the claim was rejected and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case affirming the 8th Circuit court in 2019.

Again while the Constitution precludes an official religion at no point does it legally require religion to be purged from everything and ban generic statements.

 

Just wanted to make sure this one didn't slip through the cracks unnoticed.

 

What's there to notice about it?

 

Here's one you'll like "Rasiel"

"In Atheists We Trust"

As a side note:

Raziel (Heb. רזיאל "Secrets of God"), is an archangel within the teachings of Jewish mysticism (of the Kabbalah of Judaism) who is the "Keeper of Secrets" and the "Angel of Mysteries." He is associated with the Sephira Chokmah (the second of ten) in Olam Briah, one of the Four Worlds of Kabbalistic theory.

 

Yep, I happen to be Jewish.

I haven't said whether I'm for or against. For the purpose of the thread it doesn't really make any difference. I could be a conservative wanting to know both sides of the issue, a liberal concerned about how far other liberals are fighting what amount to trivial matters or maybe just a neutral scholar interested in the topic. Who cares? It's not about who I am but what I say.

Rasiel