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

If Congress has the authority to advise us to trust in God, does it not also have authority to advise us not to?

 

I believe the fundamental principle should be that the civil authorities have no authority whatsoever over our duty to the Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it.

There should be no advice from the government for us to trust in God.

The government has no authority to declare that the U. S. is a nation under God.

There should be no executive religious recommendations.

The government should not suggest that we obey religious commandments such as not to have gods other than the one who delivered the children of Israel from bondage in the land of Egypt, or the one to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.

 

Check out the legal term "Custom and Usage":
http://www.cannacare.org/bulletin/showthread.php?t=5671

The above site, provides numerous examples of how State activity can be accepted as Law even when lacking the formalities of law making process, via the Custom and Usage doctrine. On the other hand, it also shows examples of how State activity which has operated under the custom and usage doctrine, while the activity is unConstitutional, can be held liable for violating provisions of the Constitution.

The same is true with regard to the private person. Because the people have allowed these activities to go on for such a long period of time, the things you complain about have garnered the attributes conferred by custom and usage. If you think your rights are being violated and you don't defend those rights, then you are acquiescing to the deprivation of those rights.

 

No. Absolutely not. I find big stars offensive.

 

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

--James Madison
​

The American people, in 1865, just stood there and watched Congress assume advisory authority over religion. Now, theocratic like D. James Kennedy cite the practice in support of government directed by the Scriptures.

 

pffff......must be a skins of vulchers fan.

 

If you say so... I was not there in 1865 to witness what actually took place, but it sounds potentially conceivable. Your next statement is somewhat vague. You state that "...D. James Kennedy cite the practice...." .. My question is: What practice or the practice of what that will be "in support of government directed by the scriptures."?

 

I went to a lecture a few months ago the theme of which was that James Madison's understanding of Christianty was one of his main inspirations behind his belief that church and state should not be mixed.

An interesting take: That the US is a Christian nation precisely because it is NOT a Christian nation.

I'm not sure I entirley buy it. But accepting so for the sake of argument, it would seem to me that anyone with a Christianity akin to James Madison's would be required by the internal structure of his own beliefs to arge that the US is not a Christian nation. Perhaps it would be better to say that James Madison did not want to live in a Christian state precisely because he was Christian.

 

People (regardless of their station in life or regardless of their belief system(s)) do have a knack for telling some tall tales, now don't they.

 

Should it? Yes. Separation of Church and State, etc. Will it anytime soon? No. Is that intrinsically a bad thing? No. Not as long as we keep up the "Ceremonial Deism" excuse.

 

I think this has merits. Especially because it seems to work in the reverse as well. Denmark, for instance, is not a Christian nation precisely because it IS a Christian nation. Government and church is not separated and it has been splendidly argued as the main reason why we rank so high as far as absence of religious belief is concerned.

 

Wait just a minute. Let me get this straight.

Based on your statement (emphasized red text) then you could also say for example "Denmark, for instance, is not a nation precisely because it IS a nation"? Could you please explain that? I took the descriptive word Christian off, for the purpose of clarity (the descriptive word could be any adjective).

 

D. James Kennedy used, he's deceased now, the practice of using U. S. coins to advise the people to trust in God to argue for a Bible based government.

 

James Madison believed that "the separation between the authority of human laws (civil government), and the natural rights of Man (no civil authority over religion) excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded" was a "truly Christian principle."

He believed that God had separated Religion from Government.and that it was an aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty to give to Caesar what belongs to God.

 

You cannot get something straight as long as you crook it yourself.

 

Nothing will destroy true religion faster than joining it with government.

 

LEAVE THE CURRENCY ALONE

Obama and his Administration need to be "Taken Off" the Goverments Payroll.
.​

 

What's true religion? And what's untrue religion?

 

If you don't know the difference, then that proves that you also don't know anything about religion.

 

Your answer does not respond to the question. Am I now to conclude that you cannot answer that/those questions?

 

I am curious to hear the difference as well.

 

True religion is the discharge of one's duty to his creator according to one's conscience and convictions, not according to the bidding of the civil authorities. Any one who even listens seriously to a civil authority's religious recommendations - such as Texas Governor Rick Perry's sinful and impious suggestions/recommendations to pray - commits treason against the Almighty.

We need a President like Andy Jackson who told the Calvinists to go jump in the lake when they asked him to recommend that the American people pray for protection against the Asian scourge.

 

You probably won't get to find out what those differences are .. there is likely to be no response to those inquiry.

 

It corresponded very precisely to the question. A red roof is still a roof but that's utterly irrelevant if the color the issue. Thus, answering questions about the roof is not only unwarranted but as stupid an enterprise as the question itself.

 

And who is introducing the subject of a 'roof' ... no-one but you. Off-topic.