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

[hellbound-liberal]

MSNBC has a poll asking this question. It's really close 49%-Yes.

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

[Muttocracy]

1. I regret that I have but one vote to give toward freedom from state religion. nt

[Taverner]

2. YES

next question?

[BlooInBloo]

3. It's item #2334664235 on my list of things to care about, but sure.

[loveable liberal]

4. yes. nt

[Richardo]

5. Yay! Another wedge issue!

...made even MORE meaningless by being an internet poll, and made even more meaningless than THAT for having no 'Who gives a shit?' option.


I don't care if my money says "Ronald Reagan Died That the GOP May Live" as long as I can buy beer with it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. An email supporting the motto has been making the rounds

but, as I gently reminded the person who sent me, the email was rather exclusionary, as it exhorted all Christians to sign it.

[hellbound-liberal]

11. I like your sig line ayeshahaqqiqa! Don't see Sufism mentioned very often.

One of my best friends turned me on to the writings of Idries Shah when I was in college and he has had a profound effect on my life.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. Thank you

and hello to you! :hi:

[Dover]

7. Yes. I'm sure God would prefer to have his name on something of real value.

Like on an oil drum or something.

[hellbound-liberal]

13. LOL! Good one, Dover!

[gateley]

8. I for one am heartened that 49% of the respondents are saying yes --

since I was one of the ones discouraged by McCain's better-than-expected performance last night, and wringing my hands in fear the fundies were going to ensure his win.

Other than that, I don't care much either way.

Do you have an opinion?

[hellbound-liberal]

19. I voted Yes because I think the line between church and state has been blurred in recent years

and they need to be kept separate. As far as McCain's performance is concerned,and I have read a lot of posts on this subject, I think he did a good job of pandering to his base but Obama did a betetr job of giving honest, thoughtful answers. McCain parroted the right wing talking points but it seemed to be very well-rehearsed. Unfortunately, the corporate media will spin it as a win because they have very low expectations for him and the viewing public.

[jmowreader]

9. I have a more appropriate motto for the money

"On Loan from China"

[gateley]

20. Perfect! Ain't that the truth! nt

[ClassWarrior]

10. A poll about a petty hot button issue in order to divide us?

Sorry, but we have bigger fish to fry.

NGU.

[Popol Vuh]

12. NO

n/t

[Zhade]

58. So you support violating the Constitution?

NT!

[Popol Vuh]

61. If you don't want me in your face

keep your disgusting religion out of my face. Nothing against the constitution there.

n/t

[Arugula Latte]

65. Uh, I think you and Zhade agree, then.

[Popol Vuh]

70. I tried to go back and edit when I realized that, but, it was too late to edit

I think ALL references to any religion should be keep out of all public property.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. What question are you answering?

Your subsequent posts make me think you may have miscounted negatives.

[tbyg52]

14. Done.

I'm bored - I may start trolling for 4-rec threads soon.... ;)

Actually, I do care, and I want the "under god" out of the pledge as well.

[bluestateguy]

15. I could care less

Intellectually, the people who want it removed probably have a valid point, but I rank it at about #497 on my prioritized list of important issues.

[npk]

16. Look this is a nation of God fearing religious zealots

And anyone that doesn't like that can just pack their shit up and move.

[Zhade]

59. Um, sarcasm, right?

NT!

[tridim]

17. "patriotic significance"?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[depakid]

18. It should never have been put there in the first place

[gateley]

21. Agree. nt

[npk]

24. It's simple. Our founding fathers were religious zealots.

Plain and simple.

[Raskolnik]

28. Are you serious?

Do you honestly think that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et. al. were "religious zealots" by any stretch of the imagination?

I'm having a hard time believing that you could actually think that, so I want to make sure that you're not just being sarcastic.

[npk]

51. I thought the sarcasm im my post was quite obvious, but...

Apparently it was too subtle, like in my previous post.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Ooops

Sorry for the harangue, then...

[npk]

55. I should have added a sarcasm stickie to both posts

I was trying to illicit a response, and it worked.

:dilemma:

[Popol Vuh]

34. But, but

Then why do all the government buildings and monuments reflect paganism?

[PurityOfEssence]

40. You're joking or you don't know a damned thing about history

There is no mention of god in the Constitution. There are only two allusions to religion: one is in article 6 where it says that no religious test shall be used for holding office, and the other is to define the date at the end of the document. Even so, regarding the date, it is also expressed as so many years since the revolution, so it's also defined secularly; they were literally at a loss for how to define the date without endorsing religion, and they did so anyway, even though it's awkward.

When the Constitution was sent out, the states kicked it back, so the first 10 Amendments were written and it was sent out again. It is VERY interesting to note that the First Article of the Bill of Rights starts: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...". This isn't the establishment or preference of a PARTICULAR religion, this is THE CONCEPT ITSELF. By this Article, Congress can't endorse the concept of a supreme being AT ALL.

Over the years, creeping bullshit has pervaded our lives under the guise of "ceremonial deism" and "anti-communism", but that's the way the founders wrote the thing. We can thank Lincoln for much of the god language on money and in the oaths administered to Congresspeople.

There is no "so help me god" at the end of the oath for the presidency as written in the Constitution; Washington added it himself and it's been custom since then. The Constitution actually gives the option to either swear or affirm, the latter word being added to specifically accomodate Quakers.

The founders were pretty visionary, but they were still the ruling class of the rustic enlightenment so still rather primitive. Nevertheless, it's important to note that they couldn't see that blacks shouldn't be property, and that women and free men who didn't own property should be entitled to vote. (It was 1836 before non-propertied men could vote, 1865 before slavery was abolished and not 'til 1920 that women could vote.) Even so, they realized in 1789 that RELIGION HAD NO PLACE IN POLITICS. The religious wars of the reformation were very much in their minds.

The Declaration of Indepencence has religious language in it, but it is a position paper, issued by a scared bunch of renegades to state their understandings to the King from whom they were dissolving their bonds. It is nothing but a position paper composed amid a dangerous war; the Constitution is THE LAW, composed soberly and at length six years after the end of the war and eight years after the real end of hostilities.

Our founders were NOT particularly religious. Washington was a Deist and had long since pulled out of the Christian Church. He even visited the Tuaro Synagogue in Newport R.I. to express thanks to the Jews for support like that from Haym Solomon, without which our Revolution was very shaky before the French came in. Jefferson couldn't stand organized religion and didn't much like Christianity. Franklin was a believer but a dedicated secularist when it came to government. Hamilton was a nightmare on the subject, but he was also a dick in many other ways and it's no accident that he was the only one of the bunch to get killed in anger. Adams was the most devout Christian of the bunch, and he didn't want it in government either, although he wasn't part of the convention.

Your point is absolutely false.

This country is far more religious now than it was at our founding. Estimates have it that no more than 7% of the population regularly attended religious services, and although that's a bit skewed since many lived in the wilderness where there were no meeting places, but it's still a hell of a statistic to throw out at the nuts who demand their distortion to be unquestioned.

If that's not enough for you, there's the treaty with the Bey of Algiers from 1796, negotiated under the Washington Administration and signed by Adams as President.

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Bear in mind that this was signed into law by the MOST RELIGIOUS of the major founding fathers, and I believe it passed the Senate unanimously, although I'll have to check.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

[baby_mouse]

90. Wow. See what happens when ya miss the sarcy tag?

Although your post was deeply revealing and useful, it was written in opposition to an imaginary foe.

but nemmind, great post.

[hootinholler]

29. Considering that it took from 1860 ish to 1950 ish to get it there, I agree.

I say go back to E Pluribus Unum!

-Hoot

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Why should we trust something so obviously incompetent when it comes to money?

Poor God is always broke...pass the basket.

[sui generis]

23. In Allah We Trust! In the Little Mermaid We Trust.

lullullulululululululululululuuu

jeeeeeeesus.

Yes, if you have a problem with Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or "God" or any other god-but-your-own on U.S. currency, then go to church and have all the god you want. We don't need the Little Mermaid to validate our economic system.

[valerief]

38. I think In Scooby-Doo We Trust is more Merkan. nt

[Dover]

41. In T. Boone Pickins We Trust

[valerief]

43. No, no. In Phyllis Diller We Trust. I just love Phyllis Diller.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2228001024/nm0226887
:bounce:

[lutherj]

25. If you think about it, the clear implication of having this motto on our

currency is that money is god. This seems to me an entirely appropriate motto for our country.

[CrispyQ]

31. I hadn't thought of it that way!

:rofl:

[Sanctified]

26. As a Christian I say...

Yes it needs to be removed, you should not have God written on anything that represents mammon nor should His name be used by the Government at all. Imagine what people will think when they dig up our quarters 2,000 years from now, they are going to think we worshiped our presidents like gods.

[Naturyl]

27. Yes, and here's why

Religious people ought to realize that putting God on money is an insult to God. And the rest of us ought to realize that it's an insult to the Constitution.

[Mojambo]

30. Of course. It's a no brainer. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

32. Haven't slept a wink since the late 50's thinking out this.

[valerief]

37. Afraid to speak up lest you get Madelyn Murray O'Hare'd? nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

73. LOL! Madelyn Murray O'Hair - now that's another story

:rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. Boycott Dollars! I refuse to spend another dollar until the motto is gone.

I refuse to toil another minute in pursuit of dollars as well.

Who's with me?!! Let's.... GOOOOOOO!

[RushIsRot]

33. Yes! HELL yes!!!!!!!!! Get rid of that stupid motto.

[KamaAina]

35. Yes. Here's why.

It was tacked on during the Civil War, you know, so god could save us from the Confederacy. :sarcasm:

Like "under God" in the Pledge, it was plastered on to paper money during the 1950s, so as to help distinguish us from the godless Commies. :sarcasm:

It's a historical relic whose time has passed. Take it off.

[valerief]

36. Good God, yes. I mean, just yes. Yes. Yes. nt

[yurbud]

42. why don't they have a "don't care'' option?

[Zhade]

60. So you don't care about violating the Constitution?

NT!

[Popol Vuh]

62. It looks as if you're on a mission to violate the constitution

There ain't NOWHERE in the constitution granting the state's use of the word GAWD.

Keep your disgusting religion out of my face... n/t

[verges]

71. I think they are

saying that having it there IS a violation of the Constitution. And that not caring about the issue is not caring about violating the Constitution.

[yurbud]

67. I live in a state where everything is named after Catholic saints

and I don't think that makes anybody Catholic.

[yurbud]

68. How many people have been converted by seeing ''In God We Trust" on money?

[donco6]

44. If it keeps people entertained, I say "no".

I see it sort of like a Binkie. It may not be good for the kid, but it sure shuts him up.

[Dover]

45. I think it ought to be treated as an Advertising Space

Kind of like DU's Grovelbot Big Board stickies.

[pokerfan]

46. Atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens

according to daddy *.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#bush">"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

[valerief]

47. I hate it when his earpiece falls out. He just doesn't know what to say then. nt

[galledgoblin]

48. sure, but I'm fine with it staying, too- it MUST be removed from the pledge, though (n/t)

[hlthe2b]

49. I propose a compromise: "In DOG we trust...."

let God cure the naysayers of their dyslexia.... :evilgrin: As for the rest of us, (my) DOG rules my world!

[Dover]

50. Like this?

[hlthe2b]

52. Cutie pie...

At least our $$ might be worth something....

[DFW]

54. It first showed up officially on the 2 cent piece in 1864

It replaced E Pluribus Unum as the national motto during the McCarthy era.

I can understand its being placed there during the height of the civil war.
Teddy Roosevelt demanded it removed from coinage (made some headway) in 1907,
and it was reinstated late in 1908.

It makes us look foolish, whether on our coins and currency, and positively
arrogant with it as a national motto. Justifying everything you do as "God's
will" is fine if you are refusing medical treatment for yourself, but perverting
the motto of our founding fathers to please religious activists runs contrary
to our constitution, not that adherence to the constitution has been of great
priority of republican administrations of late. I look upon the motto on coins
and currency as an embarrassing anachronism. I look upon it as the motto of the
country to be an arrogant and offensive move whose repealing is long overdue.

[Zhade]

57. Yes. It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, and there's no such thing as a "minor" violation.

NT!

[yardwork]

63. I never used to care but I'm so fed up with the politicization of religion

I'm voting yes.

[roamer65]

64. Change it to "In Gold We Trust".

Gold has quadrupled in value since the Moron stole the office. How's that for currency devaluation?

[roamer65]

66. Teddy Roosevelt didn't want it on coins as well.

The 1907 and 1908 No Motto Saint Gaudens $20 gold look much nicer without it.

[DFW]

80. The 1907 and 1908 St. Gaudens $10 coins, too

[Monk06]

69. Well since Bretton Woods was signed in 1944 who else but God could back the US dollar?

That and the post war US military funded by
the defacto declaration under BW that the US
was the world's reserve currency.

[ChazII]

72. Done.

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency? * 1166427 responses
Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
50%
No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
50%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

[cabbage08]

74. Done

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

* 1267556 responses
Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
52%

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
48%

[rucky]

75. Yes. I don't believe in trust. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

77. Use "Trustoleum", you paint right over the stuff with one coat!

[DailyGrind51]

76. No!

Where is a state religion being established here?

[madokie]

78. Yes 51% with 1288973 total responses

[DailyGrind51]

79. Oh, a "Bush mandate!"

[madrchsod]

81. yes it should be

[sentelle]

83. no...

They need to put the other half of the saying:

In God we trust. Everyone else must pay cash.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. Yes, but removing it should not be a high priority.

Yes, it's technically a violation of the constitution.

Yes, it's a bad thing.

No, it doesn't matter as much as any of the things that will actually change people's lives.

[terrya]

85. YES. Damn right it should be removed.

Thanks for posting this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

86. The phrasing is tricky - it's easy to read it as "should IGWT be on the US currency".

I suspect a lot of people will have answered the opposite of what they meant - I know I just had to edit a post to correct that.

[Iggo]

87. If I think way too hard about it....

...I suppose the answer is "Yes. It should be removed from U.S. currency."

But, c'mon...

[raccoon]

88. Yes. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

89. Yes. Mixing God and Mammon is never a good thing

At least that's what the Bible says.

[dysfunctional press]

91. just add an "L"..."in goLd we trust".

nt

[Xenocrates]

92. Take it all off!

Remove the motto, and Remove the Presidents too. Make all the coinage reflect Libery as in years past.

[blues90]

93. absolutely