In god we trust on money: yes/no [Archive]

Third Eye Open

8th July 2009, 10:46 PM

I can't believe there hasn't been a thread on this, but I couldn't find one. That most likely means that my searching skills suck, but here goes anyway.

Why is this still on our money? People say it is part of our history, but this was not even officially added to the money until the 50's (the same time it was inserted into the national anthem.)

The fact of the matter is, this alienates a large portion of the country. True, the majority is ok with it, but imagine that our money said "United States of America: We Are White." Well, the majority of America IS white. And we were even founded on the ideal that we were all white, non-whites were slaves or outsiders. We can all agree that this is crap, America is not a 'white' country, neither is it a country that 'trusts in god'.

I'm pretty sure, on this forum, what the results of this poll will be, but can ANYONE give me a good reason why this divisive slogan should not be removed?

NewtonTrino

8th July 2009, 10:49 PM

Nuke it from the currency please!

rjh01

8th July 2009, 10:54 PM

My thoughts
1. It implies we trust no one.
2. It does not define which god we trust. We can define James Randi as God.
3. It is a meaningless phrase. Try to get someone to explain it to you.
4. How far do you trust God?
5. What difference does trusting God make?
6. Is that god or God?

CurtisP

8th July 2009, 10:58 PM

Having the phrase on there doesn't hurt anyone, and there are for more important things to spend time and energy on. Like making sure the money continues to actually have value.

Third Eye Open

8th July 2009, 11:02 PM

Having the phrase on there doesn't hurt anyone, and there are for more important things to spend time and energy on. Like making sure the money continues to actually have value.

Not physically hurt no. It just makes me feel a little less a part of this country. I am not included on that phrase, it doesn't describe me. It's not a good thing to alienate 10% of the people in the country.

Piscivore

8th July 2009, 11:10 PM

Remember when the money used to say "NINA"? :)

shemp

8th July 2009, 11:36 PM

If anyone is offended by this phrase on their currency, they may feel free to send their currency to me and I'll dispose of it in an appropriate manner.*

*Hookers and Blow in Vegas.

ImaginalDisc

9th July 2009, 12:04 AM

E pluribus unum, is not only far classier, it's about unity. I still find it deeply stirring.

"In God We Trust" would proably sound just as trite to me if I were a Christian.

Agatha

9th July 2009, 01:43 AM

We have Charles Darwin on our £10 notes.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/bigbacksm.jpg

Aitch

9th July 2009, 02:13 AM

It's a misprint - they meant to put "in GOLD we trust". ;)

linusrichard

9th July 2009, 06:04 AM

I'm against it. It doesn't appear to do any harm, and maybe it doesn't directly, but those who don't believe in separation of church and state can and sometimes do use it as an excuse. For example:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fox-report-suggests-pentagon-policy

Skip to the end, or watch through to the end. The gist (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/fox-report-suggests-pentagon-policy) - the Pentagon has been approving flyovers for something called the "God and Country Rally," but this year they're not doing it. The Pentagon says it's against their policy to appear to endorse or favor any religious belief, etc. Fox News has a representative of the oppressed minajority (http://api.ning.com/files/frc8NM0M2nOJI20mdAXlCwW2J7Y1o91Q0ZsgtvBZISH6eqhqty S3O62i1YRC9HTZ7qvQYgfBhIFD-SSdke9rgLBj7mleOB8g/help_oppressed.gif) to whine about it for a while, and then the fair and balanced "journalist" interviewing him concludes with: "And by the way, the name of that rally was 'God and Country,' and the last time I checked, God was still on our money as well."

So I think, yeah, if we maintain this mistake of having God on our money, it gives a toehold to these people. So, no, it's not the most important thing in the world, but it's worth removing.

Safe-Keeper

9th July 2009, 06:12 AM

Remove it from the currency. Not for the reasons in the OP, but because it is Unconstitutional, the US is a multi-cultural country, God is not a god known to be in favour of democracy (in Feronia we trust would've been a different thing entirely:p), and because, as others have said, it is used by history revisionists to paint the us as a "Christian nation"/"country founded on Christianity".

trvlr2

9th July 2009, 06:41 AM

I could be OK with it, if , "All Others Pay Cash" , were added.

Sherman Bay

9th July 2009, 06:53 AM

maddog

9th July 2009, 06:56 AM

Lanzy

9th July 2009, 07:08 AM

I'm currently voting in the majority, get rid of it. Except years from now the old stuff would become collectors items, so I'd want to keep some around just in case.

JoeTheJuggler

9th July 2009, 07:09 AM

I don't find it "offensive and divisive", but I do think it should go. It's obviously an endorsement of one flavor of God and doesn't allow for atheists in the "we".

The courts have justified it by saying it's not religious in nature, but merely a matter of tradition. That reasoning fails on two accounts, it's false (it wasn't legislated to be on all our money until the Cold War Era) and if it were merely tradition then you could easily substitute something else that doesn't cause First Amendment issues.

It also feeds into this false idea that we are a Christian nation (or that our country was established on Christian ideas).

However, even on separation issues, I think there are other more important issues that should get more attention. (Faith based initiatives, for one. Obama's failure to ban discriminatory hiring in organizations that receive taxpayer money.)

JoeTheJuggler

9th July 2009, 07:11 AM

I don't care, personally. The thing is, if it came to a vote, taking it off would probably lose and lose big. So what's the point? Is there a point to kicking up a stir and losing big? Only if it gets the voice heard, but the other side isn't listening, so again, what's the point?

An issue like this shouldn't be decided by a vote. If it's unconstitutional, it's for the courts to decide.

Unfortunately, they've created this fiction that "In God We Trust" is not religious in nature and that it goes way back as a tradition.

CurtC

9th July 2009, 09:28 AM

Unfortunately, they've created this fiction that "In God We Trust" is not religious in nature and that it goes way back as a tradition.

And to add insult to injury, religious people in this country use the phrase being on our currency to bolster their argument that this is a Christian (or Judeo-Christian when they're feeling inclusive) country. So the court tells us to get over it because it doesn't have anything to do with religion, and Christians tell us it's proof that the country is religious.

It needs to go, both from the currency and as our official motto.

Beerina

9th July 2009, 12:04 PM

I'm currently voting in the majority, get rid of it. Except years from now the old stuff would become collectors items, so I'd want to keep some around just in case.

There were so many damned Roman coins put out you can still buy crappy ones for $10.

We've put out a hundred times more quarters. Especially the 50 individual state ones.

How many millenia you wanna wait to see what'll amount to a gross, negative return on your investment? :)

Maybe after humans have spread throughout the universe, and trinkets from "Olde Earth" are rare per capita, its value will skyrocket. Eat your Wheaties.

Safe-Keeper

9th July 2009, 12:11 PM

The reason it is still on the money is related to Ceremonial Deism. Basically, courts have said, "Get over it, it's not important, you're being trivial, don't waste our time, blah, blah...."Also, "it's not important, get over it, don't you have anything better to worry about?!" is a well-known cop-out argument used very frequently by people who do, in fact, care very greatly and just want everyone else to shut the **** up and leave the status quo alone.

autumn1971

9th July 2009, 11:03 PM

If I recall correctly, the Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War ordered the motto to be put on American coins. Given the content of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln probably objected, but also wanted to be re-elected.
On paper money, it was added after 1954. I used to keep a 1950 fiver in my wallet to show to people when they insisted that our money had "always" carried the motto.

CurtC

10th July 2009, 07:15 AM

Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, BTW, was Salmon P. Chase, who later became a supreme court justice, and who gave his name to Chase Bank. A lot of trivia in that guy.

One small correction - 1954 was when "under God" was added to the pledge. "In God We Trust" didn't appear on paper money until 1957. And I'd love to have a pre-1957 bill to carry around with me.

I always point out that the addition of "under God" to the pledge, the adoption of IGWT as the national motto, and its appearance on paper money are leftover remnants of the McCarthy era.

maddog

10th July 2009, 08:48 AM

An issue like this shouldn't be decided by a vote. If it's unconstitutional, it's for the courts to decide.

Unfortunately, they've created this fiction that "In God We Trust" is not religious in nature and that it goes way back as a tradition.

[sad sarcasm --> directed at government, not at JTJ] Yeah, and we all know how the SCOTUS is so rigorous about deciding EXACTLY on the basis of the Constitution... [/sarcasm]

In any case, let's say the SCOTUS decided that IGTW had to be removed from all currency. Then the Republican party would be taken over (even more) by the "Religious Right" insisting that "Good Christian Morals" need to be reinstated / reinvigorated within the country, and that the problem is all these godless liberals. And unfortunately, I suspect that would be a winning platform for them, for some period of time.

--And I say this as a Conservative (and Republican) -- I don't want the Religious Right taking over the last semblance of a refuge for fiscal conservatives / supply-siders / free-marketers. The whole IGTW issue would push fiscal conservatism to the back burner, and MY primary political concern would be relegated to behind the Religious Right, behind the liberals, and bottom-feeding along with the Libertarians.

And THAT would suck. Which is why I say "Who cares?" on the IGTW thing.

Third Eye Open

10th July 2009, 09:30 AM

I can see that this would be a very difficult thing to accomplish without majority approval (even though it shouldn't be needed), but I will continue to do my part by taking a sharpie to whatever bills are in my pocket at the end of the day! :D

Esperdome

10th July 2009, 06:22 PM

AngelicAtheist333

10th July 2009, 07:11 PM

I only read the posts until #3 (Will read after posting).

I remember a guy in the news that was atheist and didn't want his daughter reciting the pledge of allegiance because of the part "one nation under God". He did something about it and took it out of (her) school(s). When asked by a reporter what he planned on doing next, he said he was gonig to try and remove the "In God we Trust" on money. :D

Just thought I'd mention it. n.n

Tricky

10th July 2009, 07:15 PM

While I'm not crazy about it, taking it off would not be worth having to listen to the frenzied screams of Christians who would go nucking futz if it were taken off. They'd start making a concerted effort to pressure Congress to make all sorts of new and even more oppressive rules, and I don't believe politicians are ballsy enough to resist a concerted effort.

foxholeatheist

11th July 2009, 12:19 PM

Who cares? Besides, it's so wonderfully appropriate of the attitudes of most Christians in this country anyway.

Besides, complaining about small potatoes like this only makes the Godless movement seem petty and trivial. Pick your battles.

TimCallahan

11th July 2009, 09:08 PM

Some minor corrections: "In God We Trust" has been on coins ever since I can remember. It was in 1957 that "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Aleigence in a fit of centrist, official, non-deominational piety. Michael Nudow has got lawsuits in federal courts to get both phrases removed. I'm not sure its worth the trouble. As foxholeatheist says, we need to pick our battles.

Along the same lines as "In God We Trust," are the the days of the week and the months of the year. The reason Wednesday has a silen "d" embedded in it is that it used to be "Woden's day." Thursday was "Thor's day." As to months of the year, July and August were named after Julius and Augustus Caesar, both of whom officially became gods afeter ther deaths. May is named for Maia, the Roman goddess of spring, and June is named for Juno, wife of Jupiter. No one, except forthe tiny minority of us who are neo-pagans, worsimps any of these deities. However, their names serve as cultural artifacts.

Likewise, the pretentionus assertion in the pledge of aleigiance that our nation is "nder God" should probably likewise be treated as an artifact.

rwguinn

13th July 2009, 12:37 PM

If you go searching for things to be offended by, you will always be satisfied
"If you don't like can't you just let it pass" Hank Williams Junior.

Fundie athiests are worse than Fundie Baptists, and just as full of ****

Marduk

13th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Having the phrase on there doesn't hurt anyone, and there are for more important things to spend time and energy on. Like making sure the money continues to actually have value.

what if at some point in the future it became general knowledge that the God referenced was just a long dead king who knew how to fish large scale and had since that point become syncretized with the attributes of most of the other gods who had influenced the religious groups now promoting him, wouldn't that make the money worthless, it would be like saying "in dead guys we trust"
;)

maddog

13th July 2009, 01:30 PM

Fundie athiests are worse than Fundie Baptists, and just as full of ****

"worse"? No. Just as bad? Probably.

rwguinn

13th July 2009, 01:32 PM

"worse"? No. Just as bad? Probably.
Maybe it just seems that way, as I have (ahem--cough, cough) evolved a defense against Baptists...:D

Jeff Corey

13th July 2009, 01:41 PM

Some minor corrections: "In God We Trust" has been on coins ever since I can remember. It was in 1957 that "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Aleigence in a fit of centrist, official, non-deominational piety...
CurtC was correct about the Pledge, it was changed in 1954, I remember it. Reference:http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

rwguinn

13th July 2009, 05:22 PM

Of course, we could add the rest of the phrase to our coins...
In God We Trust.
All Others Must Pay Cash

bokonon

13th July 2009, 05:35 PM

I will continue to do my part by taking a sharpie to whatever bills are in my pocket at the end of the day! :D

You're not the only one. :D
I do this from time to time, when I'm feeling bored and mischievous. Usually, I cross out "God" and insert "Reason", but I'm considering crossing out "we" and substituting "the gullible."

Usually, nobody notices, and they're passed without comment. For me, the exception seems to be Borders books stores -- don't know why those guys are scrutinizing the backs of the bills.

Does anyone combine editorial alterations with "Where's George" tracking? I'm saving that for retirement myself...

Ron_Tomkins

13th July 2009, 06:13 PM

It's a misprint - they meant to put "in GOLD we trust". ;)

Best reply ever¡¡¡ :D

Dan O.

13th July 2009, 06:25 PM

If we turn GOD into a universal curse word it will disappear from official use on its own. "Anyone that disagrees is full of GOD and they can GOD off", for example.

rjh01

14th July 2009, 12:24 AM

Please stop swearing you lot. Please do not take the Lord's name in vain. Or something like that.

zooterkin

14th July 2009, 12:53 AM

I've had a very careful look, but I can't find the words "In God We Trust" anywhere on our currency, so I guess it's already been done...

Dan O.

14th July 2009, 07:09 AM

Please stop swearing you lot. Please do not take the Lord's name in vain. Or something like that.

Too late. The GOD'tard that put the phrase on US money used the name "in vain" since the phrase is meaningless in that context. But it's not too late to establish a GOD'y real meaning for the word.

RenaissanceBiker

14th July 2009, 07:57 AM

... but I will continue to do my part by taking a sharpie to whatever bills are in my pocket at the end of the day! :D

You're not the only one. :D

I do this from time to time, when I'm feeling bored and mischievous.

I do it whenever the subject comes up here or other places I visit on the web. I'm going to do it now.

bokonon

15th July 2009, 07:18 AM

Too late. The GOD'tard that put the phrase on US money used the name "in vain" since the phrase is meaningless in that context. But it's not too late to establish a GOD'y real meaning for the word.
That's it. From now on, my sharpie revisions will read "In vain we trust."

patchbunny

15th July 2009, 08:14 AM

That's it. From now on, my sharpie revisions will read "In vain we trust."

I tend to put down "In Allah We Trust".

Miss_Kitt

15th July 2009, 03:43 PM

Put me into the "pick your battles" camp. Eventually, I think it should be phased out, but anything that would cost design / implementation / logistics money right now should be avoided. We're pissing away more than enough money on other stuff as it is.

Ironically, I bet a survey would show taht more Americans agree with "In Gold We Trust" than "In God We Trust". Just saying.

bokonon

15th July 2009, 07:17 PM

I tend to put down "In Allah We Trust".
I considered that, but it had a "Let's you and him fight" quality, and I want to be able to claim it and defend it if someone asks about the changes. I can't really endorse Allah trust...

Valiss

15th July 2009, 08:10 PM

I'm voting 'no thanks' on this one. The 50s was a crappy time for seperation of church and state.

New Jersey Alex

18th July 2009, 10:31 PM

Does anyone of a more religious bent than myself find it kind of offensive to put "In God We Trust" on the money? I mean, if we're all trusting God, why do we need money at all? (I mean that seriously.)

Some Tibetan monks go from town to town, and if they get fed by someone feeling charitable, they get fed. Otherwise, they go hungry. Now THAT'S trusting in God.

bokonon

18th July 2009, 10:40 PM

Some Tibetan monks go from town to town, and if they get fed by someone feeling charitable, they get fed. Otherwise, they go hungry. Now THAT'S trusting in God.
No, that's trusting in the kindness of strangers.

Honest-to-god God trusters would eschew anything but manna and rainwater.

foxholeatheist

20th July 2009, 12:34 AM

Bokonon, I demand that all your posts rhyme or I have no choice but to expose you for an imposter!

slingblade

20th July 2009, 01:11 AM

No, that's trusting in the kindness of strangers.

They worship Blanche Dubois in Tibet?

Man, the things you can learn here!

:p

Third Eye Open

21st July 2009, 01:17 PM

It does seem that lots of people tend to define god as 'good things happening' and devils or Satan as 'bad things happening'.

It really grinds my gears when people who are rescued from dire situations will thank 'god' for saving them when the person who did the actual saving is standing right there.

Even so, I don't trust in 'good things happening', I do hope they will though.