rosborne969,
Thank you for answering. Isn't it likely though that we are known as a Christian nation because that is what the majority of the citizens claim to be?
Wouldn't be probably still be known as a Christian nation for this reason even if we did remove the word God from things?
yitwail wrote:r979 & P32890, i respectfully disagree. i came across a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article about a bill to put "In God We Trust" in classrooms, which the ACLU rightly opposed. but then it goes on to say,
Quote:But the ACLU and others note that while the motto appears on U.S. currency and in government buildings, in a ceremonial manner, the Supreme Court has distinguished between ceremonial religious expression in a general setting and religious speech directed specifically at public school students.
"Classrooms have always been treated differently," Frankel (legislative director of ACLU Pa chapter) said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05097/484170.stm
the reference to the Supreme Court indicates to me that the motto is constitutional on currency.
Ahhh, finally a legitimate challenge to the idea of removal. Thanks Yitwall.
Yes, the supreme court has determined that it is the "intent" of various words and icons which determine the effective constitutionality of these things. And in the case of currency, they have decided that the intent was benign, and allowed it. This is one of the reasons why I don't pro-actively push for removal. I support the concept of removal in discussion because I disagree with the supreme court as to the intent, and effect, of those words. However, I recognize that I have been overruled.
I also believe in choosing your battles, and this, and the pledge of allegience are battles that might backfire in congress and result in more harm than good (for the cause of separation of church and state). Many legal analysist believe that if the courts were to attempt to change the pledge, or change the currency that there would be a backlash from americans who feel attached to the history of those phrases (now that they are ensconsced), and would lobby their congressmen for changes to the law which would damage the first amendment.
Choose your battles wisely.
Momma Angel wrote:rosborne969,
Thank you for answering. Isn't it likely though that we are known as a Christian nation because that is what the majority of the citizens claim to be?
Wouldn't be probably still be known as a Christian nation for this reason even if we did remove the word God from things?
All the more reason to remove the words. Because we need to be seen as a secular nation in which all faiths, not just the majority, can claim equal ownership (non-ownership) of the government.
The Bill of Rights is specifically intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
rosborne979,
I understand what you are saying. But, tyranny? Can you honestly tell me that all these years that these phrases have been in place United States citizens have really felt under tyranny because of it?
Momma Angel wrote:rosborne979,
I understand what you are saying. But, tyranny? Can you honestly tell me that all these years that these phrases have been in place United States citizens have really felt under tyranny because of it?
How many straws does it take to break the camel's back?
Why start adding straws when it isn't necessary, and will eventually cause problems.
My point is Ros, if they have been in place all these years, why now the big fuss? What is it that changed so drastically that prompted this? I am really trying to understand your side here. These are questions that I don't want to assume answers for.
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"-Thomas Jefferson
Aren't the people who put "In God we Trust" on our currency, the same people who decided that there should be no established religion?? They didn't seem to have a problem with it.
rosborne979 wrote:John Creasy wrote:rosborne979 wrote:
But I read it as follows: Citizens have the right to do what they want in private or on private property, but the govenment must remain neutral (secular) in order for all citizens to be represented fairly.
It is neutral. It's not endorsing a particular religion.
Then you are in denial of reality.
Placing statements of that nature on public currency is very obviously an endorsement of religion in general. We need only change the words slighty to say "In God we do *not* trust" and watch all the religious people kick and scream, in order to see that the words *mean* something to people.
The founders of this nation did trust In God. That's why they put it there.
Dammit, I hate being wrong.
I still hold to the fact the our forefathers trusted in God though. BTW, I really wouldn't care if they took it off, but I don't really see the need to actively press the issue.
In fact, Salmon Chase received many letters on the subject of including theism on the coinage and the currency, that which is alleged to have been the first such letter was addressed to him by M. R. Watinkins, a "Minister" of the Gospel in Ridley, Pennsylvania, and read:
Dear Sir:
You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.
You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.
This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.
To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.
It is noteworthy that "the Reverend" Mr. Wilkinson apparently does not consider those who do not share his theistic point of view are not properly to be considered citizens--". . . to which no possible citizen could object." That passage refers to his proposal to put the word god on the coinage, the implication clearly being that those who would object are no citizens. It is disingenuous in the most charitable construction for any self-described christians to suggest that this usage is merely neutral. Mr. Wilkinson has the future viewing his nation as heathen if it does not openly avow theism.
Futhermore, there is the insidious passage which reads: "This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters." In addition to reasserting the "heathenism" of those who would oppose such a measure, it asserts that a lack of piety were responsible for "national disasters." This is made espcially ironic in view of the many passages in the correspondence of Thomas Jackson--known as "Stonewall," and the most celebrated of Confederate military commandes, admired even at the North--who constantly harps on the necessity of piety among Southerners to assure the blessings of "Almighty God" upon his nation. Both sides in a horribly sanguinary war, at the base of which was a struggle over slavery, of human beings being held as chattel, claimed the special favor of their deity. I can not fully express the disgust this arouses in me.
Any contention that there is anything in the least bit neutral in this bit of theist frippery is little better than a lie. I will, however, as i suggested earlier, take a charitable construction, and ascribe the sentiment to either profound ignorance or a blindness to the effect of words and symbols on others.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:I still hold to the fact the our forefathers trusted in God though.
John Creasy - For the sake of argument, let's say that some of our forefathers DID trust in God. That does not mean that they would have desired anything that would smack of theocracy in the U.S.
It's a fact that they did, but I see your point. I must point out though that simply having the word God on a dollar bill in no way even comes remotely close to theocracy. I don't know why you would even bring that up.
Set, so one nutty reverend represents all of theists now??? This one man alone is the sole cause of "In God we Trust"?? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
Many of the founders were deists, not Christians. So to suggest that any reference to God is equivalent to the Christian God is plain wrong.
John Creasy wrote:Set, so one nutty reverend represents all of theists now??? This one man alone is the sole cause of "In God we Trust"?? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
I prefer that you do not address me as "Set."
You either miss the point, or are unwilling to see it. The gentleman who wrote the letter is exemplary of the attitudes upon which the measure was based. When Chase put the motto on the two cent coin, the Mint later responded that an 1837 act had established those mottoes and devices which could be put on the coinage, and that a supplementary act of Congress would be necessary to effect the change. There is a veritable blizzard of correspondence to the members of Congress on the topic at this point. You can find much "nuttier" arguments in that correspondence.
****************************
Of particular interest in all of this is the comment of Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (a Republican, before we get some conservative ignoramus dismissing him as a Democrat) made while still occupying the office of President of the United States. He was a member of the Dutch Reformed Chruch, and a devout christian all his life. He wrote in 1907:
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
I don't agree with his contention about the use in public places, but i find it interesting that a very well-educated and intelligent self-avowed christian objected to the practice on the basis of taste and sacredotal propriety.
Setanta wrote:John Creasy wrote:Set, so one nutty reverend represents all of theists now??? This one man alone is the sole cause of "In God we Trust"?? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
I prefer that you do not address me as "Set."
You either miss the point, or are unwilling to see it. The gentleman who wrote the letter is exemplary of the attitudes upon which the measure was based. When Chase put the motto on the two cent coin, the Mint later responded that an 1837 act had established those mottoes and devices which could be put on the coinage, and that a supplementary act of Congress would be necessary to effect the change. There is a veritable blizzard of correspondence to the members of Congress on the topic at this point. You can find much "nuttier" arguments in that correspondence.
****************************
Of particular interest in all of this is the comment of Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (a Republican, before we get some conservative ignoramus dismissing him as a Democrat) made while still occupying the office of President of the United States. He was a member of the Dutch Reformed Chruch, and a devout christian all his life. He wrote in 1907:
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
I don't agree with his contention about the use in public places, but i find it interesting that a very well-educated and intelligent self-avowed christian objected to the practice on the basis of taste and sacredotal propriety.
Fair enough. Like I said, I wouldn't actively oppose it's removal, but I don't see the need to advance it either.
so much stuff to comment on, but i'l keep it short and sweet
why are the christians so worried that god is being removed from everything, surely this just means that the end times are upon us and the ultimate culmination and affirmation of all you believe is coming to pass, soon you will all be called home and only us heathens will be left, so don't fight it, embrace it it's what you want
djjd62,
Speaking for this Christian, yes, it seems the end times are upon us; however, we don't know the exact time when Christ will return and, until then, we still have to live in this world.
