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

It's interesting to see the supporters have 80% in that poll while the nay-sayers have 20%, out of 7789862 responses.

 

You are absolutely right. Which to me indicates that the law should not require or prohibit any form of religion. You have to understand that you referred to the "spirit of the constitution". This specific clause is generally accepted as a response from what many people had to endure from the Church of England. This Amendment deals with your overall freedom to believe the way you want to believe. So, again, I ask... how does having this written on a piece of paper impact your life or beliefs?

If it doesn't, then it is not a contradiction to the 1st Amendment.

 

The world back then was based on if you were with God or were with the Devil. Everybody wanted to be with God and it helped with getting Independence from England with a basis of "God" involved. It inspired the U.S. to be Independent why not keep it as a reminder of how far the U.S. has come.

 

Again I ask you why does anything have to effect your life to be against the constitution?



The right to bear arms does not effect my life directly as I do not own a gun, that does not change my stance that the right to bear arms should remain.

Forcing people to use money stating 'in god we trust' IS forcing religion upon people.

 

You obviously know nothing about the founding fathers do you? Many of the founding fathers were not devout Christians.

Yeah just as interesting as the supporters in this thread show they know next to nothing about the constitution or the history of the US. Shocker...

 

I respectfully disagree. How have your beliefs changed or been required to change by the use of the money that contains this quote? It more than likely hasn't, and no one has required that you do so. This is why you have to read the first Amendment properly, which I believe indicates that you can believe in anything you wish to believe and government should not require that you believe any certain way. I don't believe that "In God We Trust" violates that at all.

I agree... we are going in circles here. I think I have stated my case and will have to leave it at that. I just don't see that it is a big issue because:

A) It doesn't violate the "spirit of the constitution"
B) It isn't forcing you to alter your beliefs or day to day life in any way.
C) The majority of Americans would believe with the two situations above, and would likely support it being left for the two reasons above.

 

Nah I think it should stay. Why? Cause why change something that isn't corrupted? Don't like it? Use a CC

 

You are incorrect on so many levels. Again it does not have to 'force you' into a new religion.

Respecting an establishment of religion, is not anywhere near the same as forcing someone into a religion.

Majority rule also has nothing to do with the constitution, why anyone would bring that up is truly baffling.

 

To be clear, The Founding Fathers were about finding a sovereign country under God, not under a King.

 

No they WERE NOT!

Do some research that does not consist of religious sites would you?

 

I will ask again, and then I will have to leave the topic behind as I do feel I am merely repeating information that isn't being heard, and that doesn't do an of us any good:

If "yes," this is your contention, I'd say, you're wrong. "Respecting" meaning, with respect to, related to:

In other words, NO LAWS CONCERNING RELIGION. A law dictating the mint shall bear the term "IN GOD WE TRUST" is, by definition, a law concerning religion. It cannot be possibly construed any other way.

I've already expressed that I stand with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as to the "spirit" of the clause. Madison didn't even want a congressional chaplain, believing that this was an inappropriate mixing of state and religion ( private beliefs notwithstanding), and Jefferson very much believed in a complete wall of separation - a total cleavage - between private faith and public provenance for that faith.

Cheers, all.

 

Read up on the Church of England's history. I think you will get a better understanding of what is intended for the 1st Amendment from a religion point of view and the Constitution writers. I think there are two sides... the laws can't force you into a religion and they can't prohibit your relgion. There is nothing more said than that though from my view on the 1st amendment.

Sure it is. Do you deny that the Church of England was not a "respected" religion in the eyes of Henry VII? Hence the name as well. The Chuch of England was a "respected" religion among England lawmakers.

You are right. I just want to avoid the "because I don't agree with it I don't think it should be on there" type arguments. If this doesn't apply to you then feel free to ignore it. It seems like a lot of people tried to use that type of argument though.

 

The Colonialists were against the King of England. They were separating and they knew that God was on their side. Britain had their King and The Colonialists had their God.

 

You seriously need to do some research as you are absolutely clueless.

Yes some of the original colonialists were religious, that is far from the nation being founded upon 'god' or the our laws, our constitution being founded upon 'god'

You have said so many simply incorrect statements in this thread it's embarrassing in all honesty.

 

Eric, I'm sorry, but you haven't even got the notion right that the word "God" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Your approach here may make you feel better, but it has no standing historically speaking.

 

Umm you forget

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

which has nothing to do with 'forcing' or not 'allowing' you to practice your religion. It states Congress can not make a law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.

This has what to do with it exactly? You are seriously twisting the meaning of 'respecting an establishment' to equate to what you wish it would, too bad it doesn't equate to what you want it to be. IMO you are very poorly reading the intent of the constitution in this case.

 

FYI:

I found this to be interesting. Perhaps we just interpret the Constitution differently and will have to agree to disagree. But, there are terms used for the two differences.

 

That was not the issue. Many of the Founding Fathers were Christians and believed in freedom from an oppressive King (being a free Christian was important back then, Being free from oppression was important then and now). The Colonialists won their freedom, back then, with the belief of God being on their side. The Colonialists won and many of the Continential Army believed that God helped them defeat the King. That is worth remembering on something like U.S. currency, then and now.

 

Uh huh, and how about those founding fathers that did not believe in god? Shouldn't that be on the currency as well using your logic?

Not all colonialists believed in god...

Your points are nothing more than the same crap I've read over and over on far right wing religious pages, most of which have been debunked by actual historians.

 

Both IMO go against 'in god we trust'