Poll: "In God We Trust" on coins?

OK, I can't help myself! Here's one more thought! There's been a lot of talk about how the Founders would have voted but I haven't heard anyone ask this question: Would the man who said "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" vote yes in this poll? Let's hear some theories!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You can't. It would require a complete evasion of context and a proposal that the term is so meaningless that the word "taco" could be substituted without alteration of meaning.

 

Which brings up the point about why should the government not a private organization which does do work which the government supports and desires just because it is freely practicing speech based on free exercise of an establishment of religion? As long as the organization is doing what the government has deemed to be funding worthy, the religious practice should be irrelevant.

Now I admit that it should not be given a preference, but I don't think it should be prohibited either.

If a church is operating a soup kitchen for the benefit of all comers and simply says grace for those who serve or do believe, should they be denied assistance by government food programs who are trying to do the same thing at multiples of the price for the same result?

I know some think that is "Respecting and Establishment of Religion" and I don't think that meets the test.

 

Is it OK for the majority to foist a Health Care opinion upon the few ? Yes.

Is it OK for the majority to foist an Appropriations Bill opinion upon the few ? Yes.

Is it OK for the majority to express themselves with a national motto In God We Trust which is clearly in line with the Constitution and the actions of the Founding Fathers ? Yes.

 

That is exactly right. I couldn't agree more.

And even a Minority Of One is enough to overturn the actions of 299,999,999 if the majority action is found unconstitutional.

So I repeat Doug's question - what constitutional principle is breached with IGWT on coins ?

 

I would have answered "no" to all of those questions and even pointed out that the majority of Americans weren't in favor of #1, but those are different subjects.

 

Of course you can.

Whatever this God is, It Is What It Is regardless of what humanity thinks or doesn't think. It existed before humanity, and before religion. So clearly God Was What It Was without religion.

In spite of our imperfect understanding, The Perfect Divine will be what it is. Religion is people trying to relate to the Divine; the imperfect trying to relate to the Perfect, the Ideal.

The only problem with religion is they let people like me in.

"If you understand, things are what they are.
"If you do not understand, things are what they are."

 

How, then, do you propose running the country ?

Clearly, we have Majority Rule. What is your plan for making decisions about what We The People do as a nation ?

 

By the rule of law.

 

Not ignoring it at all. I had chosen not to answer after being accused of "choosing to misinterpret"(emphasis mine) you. However, I'll merely iterate my belief that having the state establish that we trust in some supernatural deity is a violation of The Establishment Clause. I believe the courts to be in error about this and I believe that it will one day be overturned if the Supreme Court ever accepts a challenge to it.

(You can call me Jody BTW-I just used 1st initial and middle name as my ID because people tend to see "Jody" and aren't sure as to gender.)

 

Bills are passed to the President by majority rule.

The President signs bills into law.

The rule of law is majority rule.

Edit: Have you ever looked at word so much that it doesn't look like a word any more? "Rule" doesn't look like a word now.

 

I'm referring to the Constitution as being the greater law of the land, and it trumps(or at least should) any whims of the majority and/or the government. Just to cite a recent example, the Supreme Court as we all know just recently struck down portions of the McCain-Feingold finance law as a violation of the 1st Amendment. I'm referring to underlying law that protects the rights of individuals regardless of what the majority wants.

I hate it when words do that!

 

Most of our laws aren't even understood by those who sponsor them any longer. Or they come out of agencies and are considered necessary by experts. We the people have never voted on laws as we have representatives who are supposed to represent our interests and a Constitution which is supposed to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. Of course representatives are politicians and few ever get the boot for not representing the people. The Constitution has been amended and interpreted and shunted aside so much that we even have mottos on our coinage. Politicians don't get voted out of office for putting slogans on coins but they might for removing them.

 

off (coin) topic, but when a bill exceeds 10,000 pages, I doubt that there is anyone on the planet who can understand (or even have the time to read) it in its entirety.

 

I believe if I may say so that he is referring to his individual liberty not to be subjected to an idea of "God" promoted by the state.

I also understand the point of freedom of religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion, but I think that as more Americans move away from the western theologies and away from religion in general, it causes more and more of us to question why it is an essential part of our government and has our government over the years moved more toward religious values versus more universal moral values (those less based on religious teachings).