Federal Lawsuit Seeks To Remove ‘In God We Trust’ From U.S. Currency (2 Viewers)

[Donkey Derp]

You have to be really miserable at life to care about tiny letters printed on some money.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

You have to be really miserable at life to care about tiny letters printed on some money.

I definitely care more about the numbers, not the letters.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

You have to be really miserable at life to care about tiny letters printed on some money.

Look at this freaking guy.

 

[Politician Spock]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Just because faith is found so frequently doesn't mean faith is a human construct.

What is a human construct is mankind's tendency to make up explanations for things they don't understand. "Well... god did it" is a very popular explanation. The result of such is faith.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they get denied, move on. Pretty simple.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they denied, move on. Pretty simple.

 

[Donkey Derp]

Tried to venture into some movie and TV show threads.. Officer Pete malloy in every single one trolling. How does one have the time

He's a teacher and apparently a miserable person. What else would he do?

You have to be really miserable at life to care about tiny letters printed on some money.

Look at this freaking guy.

apparently you fit right in

 

[timschochet]

Just curious because I have no idea what the answer is: are expressions of religious faith or trust in God to be found on other currencies around the world?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Tried to venture into some movie and TV show threads.. Officer Pete malloy in every single one trolling. How does one have the time

He's a teacher and apparently a miserable person. What else would he do?

You have to be really miserable at life to care about tiny letters printed on some money.

Look at this freaking guy.

apparently you fit right in

Yeah, that's it. I'm miserable.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they denied, move on. Pretty simple.

Very compelling.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they denied, move on. Pretty simple.

Very compelling.

JFC I really need to explain how dumb what you said is?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just curious because I have no idea what the answer is: are expressions of religious faith or trust in God to be found on other currencies around the world?

In brazil

 

[parasaurolophus]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they denied, move on. Pretty simple.

Very compelling.

JFC I really need to explain how dumb what you said is?

Yes.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just curious because I have no idea what the answer is: are expressions of religious faith or trust in God to be found on other currencies around the world?

In brazil

I don't know how accurate these are, but here are several.

http://ask.metafilter.com/28351/Other-countries-with-mention-of-diety-on-currency

 

[Donkey Derp]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they denied, move on. Pretty simple.

Very compelling.

JFC I really need to explain how dumb what you said is?

Your time would definitely be better spent learning how to write above a third grade level. lol

 

[timschochet]

Just curious because I have no idea what the answer is: are expressions of religious faith or trust in God to be found on other currencies around the world?

In brazil

I don't know how accurate these are, but here are several.http://ask.metafilter.com/28351/Other-countries-with-mention-of-diety-on-currency

Interesting, thanks.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I agree it doesn't really make sense to be on there, but I really hate the fact that somebody filed a lawsuit about this.

Should they just ask nicely?

Yes. If they denied, move on. Pretty simple.

Very compelling.

JFC I really need to explain how dumb what you said is?

Your time would definitely be better spent learning how to write above a third grade level. lol

Well you got me there.

 

[tonydead]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Disbelief in the supernatural is a human evolutionary trait that is found in every single human. We're wired to question fantastical stories and things there is no evidence for as part of our defense mechenizm. It didn't have to be developed like faith is. We're wired to create solutions to problems too and faith is simply a byproduct of humans incorrectly trying to explain their surroundings and failing to give up on that explanation.

 

[tonydead]

And the fact we find fantastical explanations for things in the record in a lot of civilizations doesn't mean they had faith. It means the had big imaginations. Faith comes along after there is a better, more factualy proven explanation.

 

[Short Corner]

I am not a believer in God and I think it's ridiculous that those words being on currency bother anyone. So dumb. Who cares? I also bow my head at a wedding or funeral when asked to. Not hurting me one bit. People just want something to complain about.

There is a pretty good argument that the negatives of religion out weigh the positives. That causes some people to take a stance against religion and having religion take a part in government is a pretty big deal if that's what you believe.

It's nonsense. It's been there all along and does no harm. Just people looking for something to ##### about. Same reason we aren't supposed to say Merry Christmas anymore. Just ridiculous. And this is coming from an atheist.

I have never heard a non-Christian complain when I say Merry Christmas. I have several Christian friends that are offended when someone else says Happy Holidays.

 

[The Commish]

How do we accommodate a "non belief"?

We already do this for the non belief in Zeus, Apollo, Jupiter, and thousands of other gods. Just accommodate for the non belief of one more.

What do we do though? That's my question. I know of no laws around Zeus....what does that legislation look like?

We shouldn't have to do anything. Non belief is the default position. I don't think anyone is proposing legislation to specially address the reference to the Abrahamic god on our currency, or Zeus for that matter. The goal should be to UNDO the legislation that put it there in the first place. It's pretty clearly a violation of our constitution, right? The only reason it got on there, and continues to be on there, is we were/are a predominantly Christian nation, and the majority voice lost sight of one of our founding principles and made a mistake in a period of fear and uncertainty. That is changing (the Christian nation thing), and we'll have to change with it as a country, painful though it may be. The founding fathers foresaw this sort of thing and realized the danger it presented. I'm so thankful I live in a country that was founded on principles that prevent us from going too far off the rails. Just look at some of the countries in the Middle East where the predominant religion has become ingrained in their politics and laws, and holding minority beliefs, or simply being accused of such, can get you gruesomely and summarily executed.

But there's nothing to say that "God" refers to the Christian God.....that's where this nation is going though it appears. There's nothing stopping an individual from saying that "In God We Trust" refers to Zeus. The Constitution tells us that we are protected from being forced, by the government, to practice religion X. I think it's disingenuous to say "If one believes murder is bad because X book of religion tells them so then we can't have laws against murder".....I hear that frequently in attempts to completely separate religion and government. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers were suggesting when they crafted the Constitution. Is that what you mean?

With things like gay marriage, especially in the state it's in right now, you'd probably have your best shot at making the point and I'd agree if I believed our government should be in the marriage business in the first place. As I said before, I just don't understand why it's such a big enough deal that they are wanting to spend all this money to have our currency changed. I catch it from both sides too. Non-believers tell me "that's because it doesn't offend you and it's about your religion so of course you're fine with it" and believers rail on me because I am not "fighting for God and your beliefs" blah blah blah.

Here's the reality...this isn't a Christian nation (at least as the Bible defines Christian....it's a myth. So when I see "God" in any shape/form in a government setting the last thing I am thinking about is the Christian God. The government certainly doesn't represent it....a lot of people in the faith don't reflect it (most of them are those who charge ME with not fighting for God). Why do I care what either group has to say about it (positive or negative)...and I'm a believer in God. If I don't care, for the life of me, I can't figure out why this would be a concern to any sort of non-believer / agnostic sort of person. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[spreagle]

In God We Trust would make sense if we still had constitutional money, but we don't. Government has taken away our God given, constitutional, natural right to honest money (constitutional money is the same as private property, and private property can't be seized without just compensation) and replaced it with pure socialized money (socialized money is everybody's property and goverment can seize the value of your money just by printing a lot of money for itself). If something goes wrong with the money it won't be the least bit God's fault, it will be man's fault. In God We Trust should be replaced with In Fed We Trust".

 

[dparker713]

In God We Trust would make sense if we still had constitutional money, but we don't. Government has taken away our God given, constitutional, natural right to honest money (constitutional money is the same as private property, and private property can't be seized without just compensation) and replaced it with pure socialized money (socialized money is everybody's property and goverment can seize the value of your money just by printing a lot of money for itself). If something goes wrong with the money it won't be the least bit God's fault, it will be man's fault. In God We Trust should be replaced with In Fed We Trust".

It most certainly can.

 

[dparker713]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Disbelief in the supernatural is a human evolutionary trait that is found in every single human. We're wired to question fantastical stories and things there is no evidence for as part of our defense mechenizm. It didn't have to be developed like faith is. We're wired to create solutions to problems too and faith is simply a byproduct of humans incorrectly trying to explain their surroundings and failing to give up on that explanation.

Curiosity and disbelief are not the same things.

 

[dparker713]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Just because faith is found so frequently doesn't mean faith is a human construct.

What is a human construct is mankind's tendency to make up explanations for things they don't understand. "Well... god did it" is a very popular explanation. The result of such is faith.

So faith is what, a Platonic Ideal? Of course its a human construct. And unless you think we've suddenly unlocked all the mysteries of the universe, its not going anywhere - especially among the uneducated.

 

[spreagle]

In God We Trust would make sense if we still had constitutional money, but we don't. Government has taken away our God given, constitutional, natural right to honest money (constitutional money is the same as private property, and private property can't be seized without just compensation) and replaced it with pure socialized money (socialized money is everybody's property and goverment can seize the value of your money just by printing a lot of money for itself). If something goes wrong with the money it won't be the least bit God's fault, it will be man's fault. In God We Trust should be replaced with In Fed We Trust".

It most certainly can.

5th Amendment Private property shall not be taken without just compensation. I was just reading thru though the legal tender cases (what a cluster#### that was) and it looks like they somehow used the "necessary and proper" clause to screw honest money. Anyways that doesn't matter, we have socialized money now and the God of socialism is Government, not God.

 

[dparker713]

In God We Trust would make sense if we still had constitutional money, but we don't. Government has taken away our God given, constitutional, natural right to honest money (constitutional money is the same as private property, and private property can't be seized without just compensation) and replaced it with pure socialized money (socialized money is everybody's property and goverment can seize the value of your money just by printing a lot of money for itself). If something goes wrong with the money it won't be the least bit God's fault, it will be man's fault. In God We Trust should be replaced with In Fed We Trust".

It most certainly can.

5th Amendment Private property shall not be taken without just compensation. I was just reading thru though the legal tender cases (what a cluster#### that was) and it looks like they somehow used the "necessary and proper" clause to screw honest money. Anyways that doesn't matter, we have socialized money now and the God of socialism is Government, not God.

Its not even close to that simple.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In God We Trust would make sense if we still had constitutional money, but we don't. Government has taken away our God given, constitutional, natural right to honest money (constitutional money is the same as private property, and private property can't be seized without just compensation) and replaced it with pure socialized money (socialized money is everybody's property and goverment can seize the value of your money just by printing a lot of money for itself). If something goes wrong with the money it won't be the least bit God's fault, it will be man's fault. In God We Trust should be replaced with In Fed We Trust".

It most certainly can.

5th Amendment Private property shall not be taken without just compensation. I was just reading thru though the legal tender cases (what a cluster#### that was) and it looks like they somehow used the "necessary and proper" clause to screw honest money. Anyways that doesn't matter, we have socialized money now and the God of socialism is Government, not God.

I don't get the reference to the 5th Amendment. There's no way that the Founders had any concept that the 5th Amendment should apply to regulatory takings.

My understanding of the "constitutional money" argument is simply that there is no enumerated power allowing the United States to emit bills of credit and that the Constitutional Convention explicitly struck that enumerated power. Of course, the idea that bills of credit somehow means "paper money" strikes me as silly.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But there's nothing to say that "God" refers to the Christian God.....that's where this nation is going though it appears. There's nothing stopping an individual from saying that "In God We Trust" refers to Zeus. The Constitution tells us that we are protected from being forced, by the government, to practice religion X. I think it's disingenuous to say "If one believes murder is bad because X book of religion tells them so then we can't have laws against murder".....I hear that frequently in attempts to completely separate religion and government. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers were suggesting when they crafted the Constitution. Is that what you mean?

I think it's pretty obvious that "God" refers to the Abrahamic god and not Zeus.

On the rest of what you said here:

1. We don't need religion to have morality. In fact, I would argue that basic, common sense, secular morality has far surpassed the morality taught by nearly all of today's major religions.
2. If the only thing stopping you from going on a murder spree is a 2000 year old book, that scares the #### of me.
3. I think the Founding Fathers had this covered in the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No religion required there, and you can't really murder someone without infringing on their basic human rights.

 

[tonydead]

Curiosity and disbelief are not the same things.

I didn't say they were.

 

[CBusAlex]

In God We Trust would make sense if we still had constitutional money, but we don't. Government has taken away our God given, constitutional, natural right to honest money (constitutional money is the same as private property, and private property can't be seized without just compensation) and replaced it with pure socialized money (socialized money is everybody's property and goverment can seize the value of your money just by printing a lot of money for itself). If something goes wrong with the money it won't be the least bit God's fault, it will be man's fault. In God We Trust should be replaced with In Fed We Trust".

It most certainly can.

5th Amendment Private property shall not be taken without just compensation. I was just reading thru though the legal tender cases (what a cluster#### that was) and it looks like they somehow used the "necessary and proper" clause to screw honest money. Anyways that doesn't matter, we have socialized money now and the God of socialism is Government, not God.

I see they still have wifi at the Bundy ranch.

 

[tonydead]

But there's nothing to say that "God" refers to the Christian God.....that's where this nation is going though it appears. There's nothing stopping an individual from saying that "In God We Trust" refers to Zeus. The Constitution tells us that we are protected from being forced, by the government, to practice religion X. I think it's disingenuous to say "If one believes murder is bad because X book of religion tells them so then we can't have laws against murder".....I hear that frequently in attempts to completely separate religion and government. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers were suggesting when they crafted the Constitution. Is that what you mean?

I think it's pretty obvious that "God" refers to the Abrahamic god and not Zeus.

On the rest of what you said here:

1. We don't need religion to have morality. In fact, I would argue that basic, common sense, secular morality has far surpassed the morality taught by nearly all of today's major religions.
2. If the only thing stopping you from going on a murder spree is a 2000 year old book, that scares the #### of me.
3. I think the Founding Fathers had this covered in the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No religion required there, and you can't really murder someone without infringing on their basic human rights.

Only 3 of the big 10 commandments are even against the law. Some of the laws that various christian sects have campaigned against over the years violate what we understand today to be basic human rights. The basic human morality defined in the rules of our land today far surpass christian morality and very little of it can be claimed to be derived from christian morality.

 

[The Commish]

But there's nothing to say that "God" refers to the Christian God.....that's where this nation is going though it appears. There's nothing stopping an individual from saying that "In God We Trust" refers to Zeus. The Constitution tells us that we are protected from being forced, by the government, to practice religion X. I think it's disingenuous to say "If one believes murder is bad because X book of religion tells them so then we can't have laws against murder".....I hear that frequently in attempts to completely separate religion and government. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers were suggesting when they crafted the Constitution. Is that what you mean?

I think it's pretty obvious that "God" refers to the Abrahamic god and not Zeus.

On the rest of what you said here:

1. We don't need religion to have morality. In fact, I would argue that basic, common sense, secular morality has far surpassed the morality taught by nearly all of today's major religions.
2. If the only thing stopping you from going on a murder spree is a 2000 year old book, that scares the #### of me.
3. I think the Founding Fathers had this covered in the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No religion required there, and you can't really murder someone without infringing on their basic human rights.

I have never stated or asserted that religion is required for morality I believe the complete opposite. Not sure why you'd even go there. Morality is within us...it's ingrained in us IMO. I scoff at "Christian morality" or "Muslim morality" or "atheistic morality". It's morality....no need for a qualifier. Morality IS reflected in various religious texts, but I will never claim that a religion was the origin of that morality. To #3, I don't know what you're saying. I tried to expound on my POV but all that didn't seem to make the cut here.

ETA: And I will disagree that it's obvious what "God" represents in anything to do with our government, but that's for another thread.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But there's nothing to say that "God" refers to the Christian God.....that's where this nation is going though it appears. There's nothing stopping an individual from saying that "In God We Trust" refers to Zeus. The Constitution tells us that we are protected from being forced, by the government, to practice religion X. I think it's disingenuous to say "If one believes murder is bad because X book of religion tells them so then we can't have laws against murder".....I hear that frequently in attempts to completely separate religion and government. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers were suggesting when they crafted the Constitution. Is that what you mean?

I think it's pretty obvious that "God" refers to the Abrahamic god and not Zeus.

On the rest of what you said here:

1. We don't need religion to have morality. In fact, I would argue that basic, common sense, secular morality has far surpassed the morality taught by nearly all of today's major religions.
2. If the only thing stopping you from going on a murder spree is a 2000 year old book, that scares the #### of me.
3. I think the Founding Fathers had this covered in the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No religion required there, and you can't really murder someone without infringing on their basic human rights.

I have never stated or asserted that religion is required for morality I believe the complete opposite. Not sure why you'd even go there. Morality is within us...it's ingrained in us IMO. I scoff at "Christian morality" or "Muslim morality" or "atheistic morality". It's morality....no need for a qualifier. Morality IS reflected in various religious texts, but I will never claim that a religion was the origin of that morality. To #3, I don't know what you're saying. I tried to expound on my POV but all that didn't seem to make the cut here.

ETA: And I will disagree that it's obvious what "God" represents in anything to do with our government, but that's for another thread.

Sorry, I was trying to answer your question back to me: "Is that what you mean?" Sounds like we're in agreement that we can have moral laws without any reference to gods or religion. No need to legislate anything around a specific religion or non-religion. Just keep it all out of the government, follow the constitution, and we're all good.

On your ETA - I think this probably is the right thread. Are you really going to make a case that the folks that decided to add "In God We Trust" to our currency were thinking of any being other than the Abrahmic god?

 

[Politician Spock]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Just because faith is found so frequently doesn't mean faith is a human construct.

What is a human construct is mankind's tendency to make up explanations for things they don't understand. "Well... god did it" is a very popular explanation. The result of such is faith.

So faith is what, a Platonic Ideal? Of course its a human construct. And unless you think we've suddenly unlocked all the mysteries of the universe, its not going anywhere - especially among the uneducated.

Faith is the result of assumptions. Without assumptions, faith does not exist.

 

[dparker713]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Just because faith is found so frequently doesn't mean faith is a human construct.

What is a human construct is mankind's tendency to make up explanations for things they don't understand. "Well... god did it" is a very popular explanation. The result of such is faith.

So faith is what, a Platonic Ideal? Of course its a human construct. And unless you think we've suddenly unlocked all the mysteries of the universe, its not going anywhere - especially among the uneducated.

Faith is the result of assumptions. Without assumptions, faith does not exist.

Science and logic are also the result of assumptions.

 

[The Commish]

But there's nothing to say that "God" refers to the Christian God.....that's where this nation is going though it appears. There's nothing stopping an individual from saying that "In God We Trust" refers to Zeus. The Constitution tells us that we are protected from being forced, by the government, to practice religion X. I think it's disingenuous to say "If one believes murder is bad because X book of religion tells them so then we can't have laws against murder".....I hear that frequently in attempts to completely separate religion and government. I'm not sure that's what the Founding Fathers were suggesting when they crafted the Constitution. Is that what you mean?

I think it's pretty obvious that "God" refers to the Abrahamic god and not Zeus.

On the rest of what you said here:

1. We don't need religion to have morality. In fact, I would argue that basic, common sense, secular morality has far surpassed the morality taught by nearly all of today's major religions.
2. If the only thing stopping you from going on a murder spree is a 2000 year old book, that scares the #### of me.
3. I think the Founding Fathers had this covered in the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No religion required there, and you can't really murder someone without infringing on their basic human rights.

I have never stated or asserted that religion is required for morality I believe the complete opposite. Not sure why you'd even go there. Morality is within us...it's ingrained in us IMO. I scoff at "Christian morality" or "Muslim morality" or "atheistic morality". It's morality....no need for a qualifier. Morality IS reflected in various religious texts, but I will never claim that a religion was the origin of that morality. To #3, I don't know what you're saying. I tried to expound on my POV but all that didn't seem to make the cut here.

ETA: And I will disagree that it's obvious what "God" represents in anything to do with our government, but that's for another thread.

Sorry, I was trying to answer your question back to me: "Is that what you mean?" Sounds like we're in agreement that we can have moral laws without any reference to gods or religion. No need to legislate anything around a specific religion or non-religion. Just keep it all out of the government, follow the constitution, and we're all good.

On your ETA - I think this probably is the right thread. Are you really going to make a case that the folks that decided to add "In God We Trust" to our currency were thinking of any being other than the Abrahmic god?

My ETA has no reference to money. I have no idea what any of them think about the Abrahamic God or if that's what it represents today. By actions, it's hard to say that's what it represents. If your question is what did it mean originally? Or if that is what they intended it to be at inception? Those are very different questions than my ETA and I'd agree with you. But from where I'm standing, that ship sailed long ago or things would be significantly different than they are today.

 

[BowieMercs]

Just curious because I have no idea what the answer is: are expressions of religious faith or trust in God to be found on other currencies around the world?

What difference does that make? If Germany goes out & tries to kill all the Jews, are you going to do that too?

 

[Politician Spock]

Faith, in something, is obviously the default position.

Huh?

Faith is a human construct that has developed in every civilization ever found. Atheism is the oddity, not theism.

Just because faith is found so frequently doesn't mean faith is a human construct.

What is a human construct is mankind's tendency to make up explanations for things they don't understand. "Well... god did it" is a very popular explanation. The result of such is faith.

So faith is what, a Platonic Ideal? Of course its a human construct. And unless you think we've suddenly unlocked all the mysteries of the universe, its not going anywhere - especially among the uneducated.

Faith is the result of assumptions. Without assumptions, faith does not exist.

Science and logic are also the result of assumptions.

True. But science and logic start with a few basic, non-controversial general assumptions and lets observation determine the result of the issue being questioned.

Faith on the other hand starts with a lot of very specific controversial assumptions about an issue being questioned and ends with the same very specific controversial assumptions about the issue being questioned.

For you to compare the two is laughable.

 

[tonydead]

Because some of you don't even know why or what they thought "God" meant when they started putting it on the money:

The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognizing "Almighty God in some form in our coins" in order to "relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War. Treasury Secretary Salmon P Chase acted on this proposal and directed the then-Philadelphia Director of the Mint, James Pollock, to begin drawing up possible designs that would include the religious phrase. Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863.

As Chase was preparing his recommendation to Congress, it was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. Such legislation was introduced and passed on April 22, 1864, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the inclusion of the phrase on one-cent and two-cent coins.
An Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865, allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Because some of you don't even know why or what they thought "God" meant when they started putting it on the money:

The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognizing "Almighty God in some form in our coins" in order to "relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War. Treasury Secretary Salmon P Chase acted on this proposal and directed the then-Philadelphia Director of the Mint, James Pollock, to begin drawing up possible designs that would include the religious phrase. Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863.

As Chase was preparing his recommendation to Congress, it was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. Such legislation was introduced and passed on April 22, 1864, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the inclusion of the phrase on one-cent and two-cent coins.

An Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865, allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto

How does that answer it?

 

[tonydead]

Because some of you don't even know why or what they thought "God" meant when they started putting it on the money:

The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognizing "Almighty God in some form in our coins" in order to "relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War. Treasury Secretary Salmon P Chase acted on this proposal and directed the then-Philadelphia Director of the Mint, James Pollock, to begin drawing up possible designs that would include the religious phrase. Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863.

As Chase was preparing his recommendation to Congress, it was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. Such legislation was introduced and passed on April 22, 1864, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the inclusion of the phrase on one-cent and two-cent coins.

An Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865, allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto

How does that answer it?

Heathen - an adherent of religion that does not worship the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

To me it's clear that they meant the God of Abraham. Watkinson was Christian and Chase was Protestant Episcopal if you want to narrow it down further.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Because some of you don't even know why or what they thought "God" meant when they started putting it on the money:

The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognizing "Almighty God in some form in our coins" in order to "relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War. Treasury Secretary Salmon P Chase acted on this proposal and directed the then-Philadelphia Director of the Mint, James Pollock, to begin drawing up possible designs that would include the religious phrase. Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863.

As Chase was preparing his recommendation to Congress, it was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. Such legislation was introduced and passed on April 22, 1864, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the inclusion of the phrase on one-cent and two-cent coins.

An Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865, allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto

How does that answer it?

Heathen - an adherent of religion that does not worship the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

To me it's clear that they meant the God of Abraham. Watkinson was Christian and Chase was Protestant Episcopal if you want to narrow it down further.

Why does it even remotely matter? The establishment clause forbids establishment of religion. Full stop. Not a specific religion. Not preference for one religion over another. Religion.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Because some of you don't even know why or what they thought "God" meant when they started putting it on the money:

The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated November 13, 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognizing "Almighty God in some form in our coins" in order to "relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War. Treasury Secretary Salmon P Chase acted on this proposal and directed the then-Philadelphia Director of the Mint, James Pollock, to begin drawing up possible designs that would include the religious phrase. Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863.

As Chase was preparing his recommendation to Congress, it was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. Such legislation was introduced and passed on April 22, 1864, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the inclusion of the phrase on one-cent and two-cent coins.

An Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865, allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto

How does that answer it?

Heathen - an adherent of religion that does not worship the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

To me it's clear that they meant the God of Abraham. Watkinson was Christian and Chase was Protestant Episcopal if you want to narrow it down further.

Why does it even remotely matter? The establishment clause forbids establishment of religion. Full stop. Not a specific religion. Not preference for one religion over another. Religion.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Why does it even remotely matter? The establishment clause forbids establishment of religion. Full stop. Not a specific religion. Not preference for one religion over another. Religion.

True. I forget why we were even arguing that point. (Isn't that what we do around here though? )

 

[spreagle]

See, God was only supposed to be on the constitutional coinage. Get "In God We Trust" off the crappy fiat paper money. Get it off the crappy modern nickel clad coins too. No God wants His name on that manmade junk. God can stay on gold and silver coins.

The Ron/Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party hereby joins forces with the liberal heathens to get this done.