tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
Whoever doesn't like it, that's their problem. I say let it stay.
Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?
- Thread starter Red Hat
- Start date
Piece Corps
New member
Show me where I said decisions handed down by the Suprreme Court were crap. It's the anti-religious groups that constantly howl about the "separation of church and state," which is to be found NOWHERE in the Constitution. The Constitution says that there shall be no law establishing a state religion, or prohibiting the free practice of any religion.
I seem to remember reading recently about Muslims being furnished prayer rooms in public schools so that Muslim students could adhere to their particular practice of praying (in school? God forbid!) multiple times a day. I also remember a court decision that granted Christian groups the right to meet in public school rooms outside of the school schedule. Seems to me that this goes against McCollum v Board I think that no one should be denied access or given exclusive access either.
In any case, the utterance of the name of God, or the appearance of His name on currency is hardly instituting a state religion. The problem is that the atheists and other like-minded people do not like to see any mention of God anywhere in public. And especially in government, like on money. If they had their way, churches would be prohibited from exhibiting any sign of faith visible to the general public, like crosses on steeples. No mention of Christ on Christmas outside a church sanctuary. And no Bible at a swearing-in ceremony. And as I said, this nation was founded by men (and women) who believed in God, and who initially came to this country so they could practice their faith unhindered by the government.
And as I also said, live with it. No one is forcing anyone to pray, worship God or Jesus Christ, or attend church. The Name of God on our currency does not make it unuseable, does it? If it genuinely offends someone, they don't have to touch it, do they?
gdcleanfun
Banned
I was going by what you said here. Piece, did you read what I wrote? I'm not against you, and I'm not for you. I'm neutral. Don't jump all over me, it's unwarranted. I don't believe that you read what I wrote. Oh well. Nothing new.
Piece Corps
New member
I read what you wrote and even quoted you. And I'm not arguing with you...I only said that I never mentioned the Supreme Court in my rant.
The rest of the post is for anyone out there who has a problem with the motto on our currency.
Glockster20
Clinging to God and guns
I say we keep it.... I voted NO on the poll and it is still 85% against removing and 15% for it.
gdcleanfun
Banned
When you said that the issue did not stem from the Constitution you were correct. I didn't remember so I was attempting to find where it WAS from. It stems from the Supreme Court decisions. You said you never mentioned the Supreme Court in your rant. That's true. But it was my reading of what you DID write that made me think that you were calling everything else that wasn't in the Constitution, "Crap." You said, "Read the text and stop listening to the crap." I was addressing that only. Maybe we are both simply miss-reading each other. That's an everyday occurrence with the written word, without the face to face nuances of one-on-one conversation, so, nothing new there either.
leasantry:
Two concepts: 1) Power from within; 2) Power over (outside power).
The individual's Life Force is the example of Power within. The individual grants certain Powers to the Government, the Government is an example of Power over (power over others).
Many people around the world and throughtout history are programmed to 'worship' (obey, cater to, rely on, etc.) External representations of Power. Some say the "God is Within", or "The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit" and so on.
When Individuals and Nations relinguish their Personal Power and become directed from the outside - they dishonor their True Being and become enslaved. Governments rely on this phenomenon to wrest more and more Power from the Individual. Those individuals and groups of individuals who allow and promote being ruled by outside power ay have a belief system whereby 'god' is some outside entity or external force that needs to rule over others. Others have the concept that 'god' is within and are directed from within from all that is pure and wholesome.
So, if you are of the camp that believes that God (the Intelligent Life-Force) is something separate and outside of yourself then, by all means, promote the "in God we trust" thing. If you are of the other camp you may realize that plastering all these commandments and logos are unnecessary and may offend the individual's sanctity.
Pledge allegiance first to what is holy within before bending knee to what is external.
Even the airlines remind you to put the oxygen mast on yourself before you assist others with their oxygen mask.
The individual's Life Force is the example of Power within. The individual grants certain Powers to the Government, the Government is an example of Power over (power over others).
Many people around the world and throughtout history are programmed to 'worship' (obey, cater to, rely on, etc.) External representations of Power. Some say the "God is Within", or "The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit" and so on.
When Individuals and Nations relinguish their Personal Power and become directed from the outside - they dishonor their True Being and become enslaved. Governments rely on this phenomenon to wrest more and more Power from the Individual. Those individuals and groups of individuals who allow and promote being ruled by outside power ay have a belief system whereby 'god' is some outside entity or external force that needs to rule over others. Others have the concept that 'god' is within and are directed from within from all that is pure and wholesome.
So, if you are of the camp that believes that God (the Intelligent Life-Force) is something separate and outside of yourself then, by all means, promote the "in God we trust" thing. If you are of the other camp you may realize that plastering all these commandments and logos are unnecessary and may offend the individual's sanctity.
Pledge allegiance first to what is holy within before bending knee to what is external.
Even the airlines remind you to put the oxygen mast on yourself before you assist others with their oxygen mask.
Red Hat
New member
It was originally from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. Definitely not a Constitutional doctrine. It's another legislation from the Bench.When you said that the issue did not stem from the Constitution you were correct. I didn't remember so I was attempting to find where it WAS from. It stems from the Supreme Court decisions. You said you never mentioned the Supreme Court in your rant. That's true. But it was my reading of what you DID write that made me think that you were calling everything else that wasn't in the Constitution, "Crap." You said, "Read the text and stop listening to the crap." I was addressing that only. Maybe we are both simply miss-reading each other. That's an everyday occurrence with the written word, without the face to face nuances of one-on-one conversation, so, nothing new there either.
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Separation of church and state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Constantine's Conversion, depicting the conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great to Christianity, by Peter Paul Rubens.Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]
The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
