And yet, thanks to the freedoms of this country we are free to try and try again. Change doesn't happen quickly, sometime doesn't happen at all, but in the end we free to re-raise the issue if it remains one that is important to us.
So many replies I wanted to make on this one but I'll just throw in my two cents like all the others here (I don't have the patience to go back and quote everything. * I am not a believer. I do not think the motto should be on the currency. * The political argument that the courts have settled it (the rule that the motto remains on the currency) holds no validity when the same religious institutions and people who are arguing it here still try to overturn laws made by the same courts because it fails to conform to their religious point of view. Pointing out the argument on the ruling for our motto holds no ground. * My own personal opinion here is that putting the motto on our money doesn't cheapen religion or bring the power of it down, religion does that on its own. * My own personal opinion is that the motto was put on the money out of hope AND imposed fear from religious influencers of the time, much like how it works today. * Someone recited the pledge of allegiance here. Again, do what you will and it doesn't offend me if you say god but my voice is so loud in my coin club that most people notice when I stop as they proceed to say the whole god part. Doesn't bother me, shouldn't bother you. (Just like the money, Right? ) * Just remember that the bank notes who proudly portray IGWT are used for many illicit, illegal, fun and frankly adult activities that make the world go round so for all I care, leave it on and see if when you get to your gates he's ok with that. In the mean time, I'll use it for everything that is legal, fun and frankly Adult! Don't get so worked up. It's only religion!
Sometimes that acronym (IGWT) gets me mixed up with this one.....LGBT. Maybe I should switch brands of scotch.......
Actually, the Constitution does try to guarantee freedom from GOVERNMENT IMPOSED religion; see the first ten words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." I say "try" because the Supreme Court is well known for ignoring logic and facts; see Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott, etc. Belief in God is part of our cultural heritage, not part of our legal heritage.
We had a great motto: E pluribus unum; "one out of many". A motto that united us. "In God We Trust" divides us.
We are and it's the beauty and flaw of our legal system. In the ends it's probably better to allow more tries than not enough, but the realistic fact is that unless something major changes (which it hasnt) nothing is going to change in the courts when the Supreme Court already recently allowed the Appeals Court decision to stand. The only real chance to get it off is for a complete redesign of coins to happen and for it to just be left off. It's such a minute issue that the majority of people wouldn't care if it was left off or notice and collectors would probably be to busy complaining about the design. No it doesn't. It's such a minute issue that I hope anyone who gets so upset to be divided by it seeks the help they need to live a happier life. If that divides someone from society then they were going to be divided no matter what because as I said literally everything offends someone somewhere.
Well.... I been staying out of this one because I am one of those bible thumping, handgun toting country boys that believes heaven is in Mayberry North Carolina and I didn't want to cross the line here..... We are living in an age of changing values. Is it appropriate on our legal tender? Yes, I believe so. It is a statement on a nations moral value system. Myself, I still like to believe I live in a nation of high moral values and any small inscription that happens to reinforce that is a good thing in my mind.
It's important to view that in regard to the next six words of that same sentence, "or prevent the free exercise thereof" which in my view banning the motto over the objections of a few would violate. Essentially, everyone has the right to express their own personal religious sentiments (including none at all if they so choose), including members of the government, or the government itself for that matter. Congress just may not make an official religion and then enforce its practice through the law, with legal penalties for refusing to comply. Without repeating myself too much, in summary my view is that the motto does not violate the establishment clause (there are no legal consequences whatsoever for choosing not to agree with or acknowledge the expressed sentiment), but removing it because some object to it (over the objections of those that put it there in the first place) would violate the free exercise clause. Of course if a majority of voters or congressmen decide to remove it, I wouldn't object to that in principle. I just would not want it to see it removed because it offends the sensibilities of a minority of people. That's now how religious practice or free speech is supposed to work in a country that constitutionally grants both. There is no such thing as a right to be protected from speech, religious or otherwise, that offends one's sensibilities. The price of living in a free society is that you may hear or see words you don't like from time to time. It's one I'm willing to pay.
I think part of my problem is that I've seen so many people hide behind words like these while exemplifying absolutely abysmal moral actions. I can't know what's in their hearts, but I can't ignore how they behave. Putting the words in ever more places, and attaching ever less significance to them ("it's just words, it offends only a few people") seems... unhelpful. To either "side".
I'm not following you on that last phrase. What does it mean for a government to express its "own personal religious sentiments"? How does a government do or express anything except through defining and enforcing laws, which are (supposedly) forbidden to establish a religion?
Oh yes. I do not disagree. I want to throw bricks at my TV when I wake too early to see television evangelists selling "healing water" or something similar on TV. But this whole thing leaves me with one recurring thought..... Fifty years ago you couldn't hear songs on the radio like Beatles Day Tripper or Dylan's Rainy Day Women because they were too "suggestive".... Today, those same songs are as tame as a kitten. The things I hear on the radio now are often so vulgar that I want to plug my ears..... So then who defines what is or is not offensive? In my mind it is usually those with an agenda at hand.
But it was always thus. I'm not old enough to remember Elvis being shown only from the waist up during a television performance, but I certainly know the story. And well before that, people were up in arms over jazz and its pernicious influence on our society. But at the same time, there are plenty of things you could broadcast without a qualm fifty or seventy-five or a hundred years ago, but that wouldn't fly today. It's not just a strict loosening of standards over time; some constraints are relaxed, but others are tightened. And, of course, those of us who internalized the old standards from childhood tend to be appalled when they shift.