Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

BTW, Doug:

would you be opposed to a US coin using the word Allah on a coin? and why or why not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not at all. Neither you nor I have a right to ask the government to convey our opinions to others even if it is a majority doing the asking. We have the right as individuals to freely live our lives in accordance with our beliefs and to openly practice our beliefs(yes, even supremacists as long as they don't violate another's rights). The government's proper function is to protect our rights, not to spread or represent our personal opinions.

Our rights are unalienable. They are not doled out to us by governments or courts. Governments and courts can choose to recognize them or not, but they can't logically deny their existence.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you, but this seeming belief that the courts are not only the arbiters of our rights, but also the source of them seems a bit dangerous to me.

I know someone has asked this before, but did the slaves not have individual rights just because the populace and the courts agreed with their slave masters?

The arguments seem to be that "the courts said it and that settles it." I don't disagree with you about what the courts have said, but I do disagree with the belief that their having said it makes it right.

 

I've been meaning to say this for a while and with your post, it is about the right time.

Look at the poll in this thread. It is over 2 to 1 for keeping the motto on our coins. Does that in and of itself make it right or wrong? Of course not because it doesn't even begin to address the philisophical and moral considerations involved in this issue but it does speak to the opinions, of people that log into CoinTalk, are mostly conservative, own computers, are probably a bit more affluent than the general population and from what I can tell mostly white guys. At least they are if the crowd of over 1000 people at the Lincoln Museum in Springfield for the release of the new penny is any indication of race and gender.

The point is that we have a case of a majority wanting to keep something one way but they are hardly representative of the entire country and probably feel much more passion for this issue than the general public. The reality is that most people probably don't give a rats behind what motto is or isn't on our coins. So what do we do? We look at this from a consistency perspective and do what is consistent with our country's other issues of the same import and not do what happens to be the most popular at the time.

 

interesting link, straight from the treasury dept.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

 

With infinite apologies to The Great Bird of the Galaxy:

The needs of the many do not necessarily outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

 

Upon what facts do you draw this conclusion ?

Yes, this board has a specialized audience which is not representative of the entire country. The truth is the country as a whole is far more in favor if IGWT than the 2:1 landslide we've seen here.

As only one example, here is an MSNBC poll. It is 8:1 in favor of IGWT, and MSNBC is well Left of center.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Wait... you say the reality is probably ?

Again... upon what facts do you draw this conclusion ?

I have seen many public debates with a great deal of passionate pro-IGWT opinions... which overwhelmingly outnumbered the negatives, as any reasonable thinker would have expected.

 

"As you judge others, so you too shall be judged."

Remember how some atheists attack believers, saying they have distorted Scripture to mean something contrary to it's original intent ?

Athiests have done the same thing with the Constitution. They have distorted it to advance an agenda clearly in direct conflict with the original intent, as revealed by its wording, the actions of the Founders, and consistent court interpretations.

In the Court of Public Opinion, they have attempted to add words to the Constitution. As they continually chant "separation of Church and State", they attempt to add Constitutional clout to a non-Constitutional phrase.

They do this in an attempt to change 200 years of US tradition, in which every President from Washington to Obama has talked openly about God in their official duties. This is proven by reading their actual words. It's clear many have failed to bother, because they don't like what they'll find... a refutation of their strongly held belief system, atheism and it's relationship with official affairs.

After all the talk talk talk is done, the following facts are clear :

• The Constitution says nothing about "separation of church and state". The Founders chose their words quite carefully; if that is what they had intended, that is what they would have said.
• The Founders practiced Public Religion in their public affairs. The examples fill mountainous volumes.
• The Bill of Rights very clearly prohibits the establishment of a State Religion, and equally prohibits restriction of free exercise thereof and nothing more. No reasonable person would claim we have established a state religion, as evidenced by the fact that 300 million Americans do as they please.
• Other than those few 1st Amendment words, the Constitution is completely silent on the topic of religion. They prohibited the establishment of a State Religion and restriction of free exercise thereof and nothing more.

Yet some twist, distort, and attempt to insert words into the Constitution to advance a personal agenda in direct conflict with American tradition and the overwhelming will of the people...

...which is a sin they are quick to complain about when others do it. Which, of course, is hypocrisy. And which group commonly stands accused of hypocrisy ?

 

I agree.

That is why it is so wrong for the few or the one to attempt to foist their opinions on the overwhelming majority, and even worse when they fabricate Constitutional arguments which aren't in the Constitution.

Sometimes we hear the phrase "shoving one's beliefs down other people's throats". ALL groups of people do that, including atheists. That is what is happening with this issue.

 

Lets see, again an MSNBC poll is a very select type of audience and even if the numbers are in support of keeping the motto to one degree or another, polls like this are not remotely scientific enough to determine the actual percentages. Look at the wording of the questions:

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

They not only force you to choose between two options, they then define the reasons for those two options. This is a fun poll not an accurate reflection of public opinion.

But my point is that regardless of public opinion, consistency with other philosophical principles is more important than how many people think we should or should not keep the motto on our money. That is all I have ever argued but the conversation keeps coming back to how many people believe what they believe. I advocate of addressing the philosophical principles behind our reasons for including the motto while many here are stuck on public opinion aspect. Philosophic principles will remain long after public opinion has changed, changed back, and changed again.

 

72 years, actually.

We see this quite a bit. Some use it to create an image that all this "God" thing in public affairs is a recent phenomenon.

It is not.

The Founders mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence (1776) before there was a United States (1789).

Every president from the beginning has mentioned God, Providence, etc.

It is not a recent phenomenon. It has been organic since before the beginning of the country.

IGWT has been on our coins for 146 years, starting 72 years after the Mint's founding. About a 2:1 ratio - about the same as our poll ! :smile

 

No, that is not true.

That is ONE dominant factor, but not the ONLY dominant factor.

We have consistently pointed out MULTIPLE dominant factors - the facts about the actual Constitutional language, the actual practices of the Founding Fathers, the total consistency of Constitutional Court findings, and the undeniable fact of the overwhelming weight of public opinion.

It's undeniable... yet denied.

 

Yes.

Face facts - the philosophical issues were debated by the Founders, placed in the Constitution, and the courts are arbiter.

And those opposed to IGWT have been defeated every time.

 

But it's okay for the majority to foist a religious opinion upon the few?

Why not make zero metaphysical statements on our currency? Then there is no opinion either way foisted upon anyone.

 

Then I ask you to provide a poll you find suitable.

Here's one by Gallup - as scientific as one can get. 90% are in approval of IGWT.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9391/Americans-Approve-Public-Displays-Religious-Symbols.aspx

 

I'm not sure you can take Religion out of God; and if you could, what "God" would it be?

1) Clearly my AA point is an impossible one to make. If an Alcoholic who's a Jew or an Atheist or a Muslim or a Former Catholic gets turned off to AA because it appears to them to be a Jesus Thang, thems the breaks, right?

2) No sarcasm, I was only considering the idea that IGWT and Goddesses should be treated the same; Both on or both off. I assumed you were sarcastic in calling for their removal but your point of logical consistency was appealing to me!

 

Very interesting poll! Personally, I believe what I do about IGWT no matter how many people agree or not. The solace for being in the minority on this issue was well pointed out on this thread, that (in theory at least) Minority Opinion Americans can never loose their Constitutional Rights. If at some point the Courts agree with some of the arguments the opposition expressed here, IGWT would be removed, even if 99.9% objected! I still think it's a bad idea as a Secular Democracy (fighting to Secular Democratize the world) to include it and, if I were a Religious Man, I probably wouldn't be in favor of putting God on the very object that I would want my friends and family to value LESS...