Should "In God We Trust" Be Taken Off Of US Currency? What Would Follow?

I seriously doubt any foreign country would allow my to conceal carry my M&P45.

 

No one has dragged the issue off topic. The question was whether or not the motto should be removed, the answer is yes. Governments should be secular, and the Founding Fathers realized this and placed safeguards to prevents the government from becoming or favoring an establishment of religion.

This is rather evident by the absence of the word "god" in founding documents.

 

At was at this point that I originally asked the question "WHY ?", so I reiterate. WHY ?

Did someone put a special filter on your lighting system that could selectively block particular words from your view? The DOI was one of those founding documents.
http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12b.htm

 

Nope! Read my comment again. Is electronic transfer "gold and silver coin"? The point of the comment was to show as an example how the Constitution is in an abandoned condition.

Take that state payroll check to the bank and attempt to redeem it in gold and silver. Hopefully the people at the bank will be polite as they laughingly escort you to the front door when they see that you are being serious regarding the redemption request.

 

Prove it! Prove that the bank 'will be polite as they laughingly escort you to the front door'....You are making a positive claim..now prove it!!!!

 

I have already answered, the answer is obvious should you take the time to read the reply.

So? The DoI does not exactly dictate the means of government, the 1st Amendment states it very clearly.

 

Yes, I got that. My answer is still: And so? Just because part of, in this case, a legal document may become outmoded doesn't mean that other parts are, or even should become, obsolete.

Anyway, I doubt the contract clause in your constitution is not still valid in its entirety. But that's beside the point.

I doubt the bank is obligated to convert your pay check to other mediums of exchange than common currency. But that doesn't mean it can't be.

 

So you desire to use speculation as a form of refutation? Try your theory in actual practice and see what happens.

 

I disagree. True religion has been on the decline since we surrendered advisory authority over our religion to Congress.

 

Oh, you mean the surrender that took place in 1776, when the united states was formed. Prior to that, the colonies did maintain an Ecclesiastical court to handle matters of the church. Was it a surrender or was it by force of arms?

 

Maybe, you should say that religion became less central to the class that used it as an instrument of control. Religion was abandoned by those who did not have a political use for it any longer. (that would be upper class White Caucasians). Therefore, religion became privatized.

The Caucasian, White race is the most secuilar. The lower class White Caucasian held to it for "Godly" reasons.

African Americans still hold fast to staunch religious beliefs. Black African Americans still lead politically from a religious platform. Not using religion to control, but to motivate.

It helped that President Obama sent a clear message to "believers" about his religious views. All religious people of all faiths were listening. That is why his opponents tried to kill his campiagn through Rev.
Wright. Religion is still a major force.

Minorities, non-white people have veins running thru the collective culture which is religion. Not as one but separate. (Budha, Allah, Jesus, God) But still, the religion and the people are symbiotic.

What holds White Caucasian together, metaphorically, is their assumed status. White people no longer need God to control each other. Remember, the Constitution was created by White men. They were creating a nationalism for other White men. Not White women, not Negros, (although Black men were not always slaves and powerless), not Indians, not Asians. Later White people used religion to control anyone who was not a White male. Going further, much later, money and Patriotism served as the controlling force, especially, for Whites controlling the masses.

 

The word is "banned" and not "band" as the Rolling Stones is a Band (and their music was sometimes banned).

To the point, yes, In God We Trust should be removed from US currency and money. It represents the establishment of religion by government which is expressly prohibited by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

What would follow is the removal of "One Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegence which was a revision to the original Pledge in the 1950's by religious organizations in an attempt to establish religion as the foundation for the government of the United States.... which was expressly rejected by the authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

We would also adopt a national Motto that is more appropriate for the United States such as E Pluribus Unum "Out of many, one" which is actually appropriate for the United States.

I would suggest that many Americans would object to the adoption of the national motto of "One Nation under Allah" because it would be offensive and yet they fail to see that "One Nation under God" is equally offensive in a secular society.

 

R. Reagan was referring to powers like Russia.

Former President Reagan's legacy was ending the Cold War.

Http:/millercenter.org/scrolls/archive/speeches/detail/3409

Adress to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida that would come to represent Reagan's view of the Soviet Union. Reagan defends America's Judeo Christian traditions against the Soviet Union's Totalitatian leadershp and 'LACK' of religious faith; expressing his belief that these differences are at the heart of the fight between the two nations.


March 8, 1983

 

--------------
Hypothetically, imagine that. You have an idea there. One year for every name of a religious leader and a leap year for the Atheist. (nothing printed that year or better yet don't circulate money so as not to offend Atheists) You are brilliant!

I bet no person would be offended. All inclusivity. Hey! Everyone would be represented. Don't forget, Satan too. For the Satan currency, maybe circulate bills with a 666 printed on them worth $6.66.

But then remember the USA would have to re-write the Constitution to declare "multi" God of all the people. During the year of the Koran you wouldn't separate church and state since Islam lives by the Koran 24/7. There is no separation of church and state in Islamic countries.

You think the name God is an issue? Please....

 

Reagan had it 1/2 right as it was freedom v totalitarianism but religion had nothing to do with it. Religious nations can also be totalitarian states (e.g. Iran and Saudi Arabia).

 

Which year does the Flying Spaghetti Monster get? We don't want to exclude the Pastafarians.

 

If Spaghetti Monster is, indeed, a God and is a spiritual or religious leader, then yes, Spaghetti Monster too, would receive representation. I think a make over might be required so as not to frighten the children and the elderly.

 

All "men" are created equal. Credited are not included.

 

My goodness: Is this the statement that you made:
"This is rather evident by the absence of the word "god" in founding documents."? Notice the use of the word "documents". PLURAL... not restrictive.. Therefore, the word "God" was used in the founding 'documents' as shown in the example that I previously linked to.

 

SECULARISM

1. a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters.
2. an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife. — secularist, n., adj. — secularistic, adj.
See also: Religion
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

The founding fathers rejected religion as a foundation of the nation....But, then there are our laws.

The USA lives by laws written down by: Hammurabi ruled for 42 years, 1792 to 1750 B.C., in the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule in the land."[5]

The Ten Commandments come from the Code of Hammurabi. The USA laws come from the Ten Commandments.

Then add BC Geco-Roman, Asian, and European to the above, you have the new world, the USA. The founding fathers were educated in all aspects of history. They had no intention of leaving the essence of God out.

Tell me. If you take a skirt and heals from a women and make her wear a pin stripped navy blue double breasted suit and tie, and a Fedora hat, and Wing tip shoes and have her smoke a Cuban Chocolate flavored cigar. Her essence is still female. She may be physically absent of her symbols, but her essence remains.

You can take "In God We Trust" off of the currency. The essence of the USA is not going to be secular but, Godly. So, what is that you are doing by taking God off the currency or out of a pledge. What about swearing on the bible in court?

Have you separated anything since the underlying essence remains?

 

I know you're going to catch it Shiva TD.

"High Heels"

 

"It's just magic!" isn't a reasonable explanation.

What part of "we the people" was unclear for you? Our nation is based on the rule of law made by its citizens, not the absolute dictatorship christianity describes.

The document is meaningless to me... so what point is there for me to swear on it rather than on the Constitution? Does that somehow make me less trustworthy as a testifier? Is that really equal protection under the law?

 

You are loyal to something.

That is an easy answer. Yes. It would make you less trustworthy. Not because you don't believe, but because you don't respect the rank of the book. In the military, a low ranking soldier has to salute an Officer, Commander, or General even if the General is a scum bag making passes at the lower ranking guy's wife. The lower rank has to salute because it is the rank and the stripes that command the attention, not the man. So, in turn, the high ranking officer must respect the gesture and return the salute. A salute can not be ignored under any circumstances.

Now maybe if a person swears on their life then that may be a good swap. "The whole truth and nothing but truth," or risk the lose of life.

I think I'd rather swear on a stack of bibles.

Somehow, I am certain that you are not required to believe in God, hence the bible. That is why people from other countries can be tried in America. That means you don't have to believe in the Constitution. However, what you must accept, is that they both can send you to Sing Sing prison choping big rocks into small rocks if you lie after swearing your oath.

 

You said Christianity is a dictatorship? I think your definition is off. In political dictatorships you are required to live by the law. In religion, you don't have to follow the laws. However, the are consequences for disobedience. By chosing to follow the Constitution, you are chosing to follow a man made doctrine. With Christianity or the Constitution you chose the level of importance in your life. If you disobey the Constitution the consequence can be death or prison depending on the severity of the wrong doing.

 

Are you accusing Christians of not living by the Bible 24/7? That's a harsh thing to say.