"In gods and goddesses we trust"

[fangjian]

#2 It annoys me that we must change tradition in the name of not offending anyone. "In God we Trust" has been on our money since the mid 1800's at this point its more tradition then a support of one god over another. People just need to grow up stop looking for any attempts to make a victim class. If You dont believe in God fine but the $5.00 in your pocket still spends just like the guys $5.00 bill that Pastor has in his pocket. When do we stop changing things just because someone does not like it. We wont have any traditions left at this rate. Then again I somehow think that may be the plan of some.

Nothing wrong with changing traditions, or getting rid of some all together. Some traditions are just plain stupid and countries have become better since getting rid of them.

Instead of having mythology on our currency, maybe something like "Liberty and Justice for all" would be better for many reasons.

 

[Nomad]

seperation means the government cant sponser a church like what happened in england, everyone just forgets what that actually was intended to protect us from...

not to mention freedom OF doesnt equal freedom FROM

Actually, yes. Yes, it does. Freedom of religion implicitly includes the option of simply not believing any of them, as well.

 

[elder999]

Instead of having mythology on our currency, maybe something like "Liberty and Justice for all" would be better for many reasons.

The first one being that they're just as mythological and unattainable as you see the great bearded Superfriend in the sky to be.....:lfao:

Liberty and Justice for all... :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

Justice??!!!.....:lfao::lfao: :lfao: :lfao::lfao: :lfao: :lfao::lfao: :lfao: :lfao:



:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Technically speaking, yes, this is government sponsorship of a religious belief. They're putting "In God We Trust", a religious statement, all over dollar bills. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so no point saying it's not a duck.

However, it is still a very small and inconsequential duck. But it still is what it is.

 

[Carol]

The first one being that they're just as mythological and unattainable as you see the great bearded Superfriend in the sky to be.....:lfao:

Chuck Norris isn't dead, is he?????

 

[ballen0351]

Nothing wrong with changing traditions, or getting rid of some all together. Some traditions are just plain stupid and countries have become better since getting rid of them.

Instead of having mythology on our currency, maybe something like "Liberty and Justice for all" would be better for many reasons.

I guess I dont like changing things just to change things. If the word "God" offends you then you have serious issues. If you dont believe in God then the word shouldnt offend you since it does not exist to you anyway.

You add Liberty and justice for all and you have a new group of "Offended" people claiming that justice is not for all in this county.

God has been used since the begining of this country its in our Declaration of Independence. Should we take the white out to it and delete the words god and creator because its offensive to some? I for the life of me just dont understand why people are so sensitive in this country. Thats on all side of political and religious beliefs. I belive now its more of "Im going to piss the other guy off watch this" then it is Im offended by that.

 

[elder999]

The Church of England is the 'official' religion of England, not the UK. You won't find the Church of England in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they have their own.
!

Thanks for the clarfication, Tez-I'm one of those Americans who interchanges "Great Britain," and "England" all willy nilly, even though I know the difference.

The Church of Scotland is the Presbyterian church, but the Church of England does exist there in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and has since it's inception.The Church in Wales is part of the Anglican communion-basically is C of E, an was the state religion of Wales until early in the 20th century. The Church of England also exists in Ireland in the form of the Church of Island, and has since the inception of the C of E as well-it was the established church until the mid 19th century- with most of its adherents being in Northern Ireland.....though, as in England, not a lot.......

 

[Tez3]

Regarding the confusion on "government" and "Parliament"... I think I know what's going on. For us here in the US, when we talk about the "government", we're talking about the entire group that governs the country (or city or county or state...). So, when you here us say "government", we might mean the elected officials, we might mean the working people who do most of the actual day-to-day work of running the country, or we might mean the whole kit & kaboodle. When Tez and many others from the UK (and other countries) talk about the Government -- they're referring specifically to the collection of ministers, secretaries, and what-have-you that do the work of running the country -- but NOT the Parliament. I get the feeling it's more or less limited to what we'd consider the Executive branch here in the US.

Sounds about right as I don't know how the American 'government' system works. The government is restricted to the winning party in a general election. The winning party ( or parties as they are at the moment) are the only ones who can appoint ministers etc. The people who work in the departments are civil servants and continue in post whoever is elected, it's their job to enact whatever the government wants and needs doing, they are non political admin staff. Parliament will include the Opposition parties, known as Her Majesty's Opposition which actually is an important postition as they can limit what the government tries to do. The third part of Parliament is the monarch.

We also get confusion about religion here and that goes into the confusion of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, the two not being the same. However the Bishops in the House of Lords don't see themselves as just representing the Church of England.

[h=4]http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx"Who do they represent in Parliament?[/h]There is no 'Bishops' Party' and as non-aligned members, their activities in the Upper House are not whipped.
Like other members of the Lords, they do not represent a parliamentary constituency, although their work is often closely informed by their diocesan role.
They sit as individual Lords Spiritual, and as such they have much in common with the independent Crossbenchers and those who are not party-affiliated.
Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as bishops to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer. Bishops provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and, while they make no claims to direct representation, they seek to be a voice for all people of faith, not just Christians."

The Church of England.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/cofe/cofe_1.shtml

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about_us/how_we_are_organised


http://www.ebcpcw.org.uk/ Church of Wales lol!

Here it has always been about the state trying to control the church rather than the other way round. The government doesn't 'sponsor' any church, I'm not actually sure what that even means. I doubt it's something the churches would accept, they like to be independant here.

 

[oftheherd1]

As an individual I agree it's a non-event but what of that sizeable number whose reason tells them that there is no such 'creature' as god (in any of the extant forms)? Is it not a sign to them that the superstitious theocrats are still knocking on the door of secular power even now in the 21st century?

In their eyes (and mine) such phrases as JKS lists above are inherently false in their presumption of the existence of what does not exist and to perpetuate such things in the modern setting of an advanced Western culture is a worry. Particularly as the one great 'enemy' of peace still out there (not counting the economic giants that are poised to swallow up the West) uses much the same language in it's (violent) political decision making.

Is it a good thing to be putting out a theocratic 'message' to the international community when the very thing that is supposed to be promulgating the doom of us all is a theocratic message?

Is that an English point of view? We in the USA separated ourselves from many of those something over 200 years ago.

seperation means the government cant sponser a church like what happened in england, everyone just forgets what that actually was intended to protect us from...

not to mention freedom OF doesnt equal freedom FROM

At the time the Church of England was founded, the Catholic Church had a lot of power over all country's rulers. That was OK with good King Henry VIII until the pope refused to grant another divorce. No divorce, no pope. The king became the head of the church through protection (if not on paper).

In the USA, writings of the founding fathers are full of references to God and/or the Creator, not to a specific church. The constitution forbids founding of a state religion (by the federal government), not religion in government. A minor distiction, but still true. It says nothing about prohibiting the individual States from having State sponsored religions. In fact, at the time, some of them did.

The government here doesn't 'sponsor' a church, I think you have muddled things up. The Queen is the 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx

See above. At the time of the founding of the Church of England, the king was the government. Yes?

Technically speaking, yes, this is government sponsorship of a religious belief. They're putting "In God We Trust", a religious statement, all over dollar bills. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so no point saying it's not a duck.

However, it is still a very small and inconsequential duck. But it still is what it is.

Well, not exactly, again, see my comment of the founding fathers and the constitution. The Supreme Court has already delt with a law suit on our motto being on our money. That is why it is still there.

Congress passes many such resolutions. You would be surprised. Most just don't get so much attention. Before anyone is too quick to pass judgement on Republicans in The House, note that the Senate was in agreement. Most of those who voted for it probably didn't expect it to get much more attention that most of the other resolutions passed.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks for the clarfication, Tez-I'm one of those Americans who interchanges "Great Britain," and "England" all willy nilly, even though I know the difference.

The Church of Scotland is the Presbyterian church, but the Church of England does exist there in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and has since it's inception.The Church in Wales is part of the Anglican communion-basically is C of E, an was the state religion of Wales until early in the 20th century. The Church of England also exists in Ireland in the form of the Church of Island, and has since the inception of the C of E as well-it was the established church until the mid 19th century- with most of its adherents being in Northern Ireland.....though, as in England, not a lot.......

However only the Church of England in England is connected to the State.

The churches of Scotland and Wales while being part of the Anglican community have no official standing with those countries now. The Church of Scotland is proud of the fact that there is no government control or connections. The Episcopal Church in Scotland is for the sassenachs not the true Scots, it's 'the English Church' it only has about 50,000 members (mostly foreigners). To confuse you more there's the Wee Frees, two lots of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_(post_1900)

Nationalism looms large in religious arguments here, as with the Scots the Welsh haven't much truck with the Church of England, the Welsh are more inclined towards Non Conformism, most go to chapel rather than church. The imposition of the Church of England was seen as English oppression along with the banning of the Welsh language. I'm not even going near the Northern Ireland religious divide, far too contentious and bloody.

Oftheherd, saying that the Church of England was formed because of Henry's divorce is simplifying things a lot, the Protestant movement had been underway in Europe for some time and it was something that resonated with many English people. Protestanism was already being preached in England before Henry's 'problem' with the Pope. Certainly the divorce situation caused a rift but that breaking away may well have happened anyway as it had in other European countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

 

[fangjian]

I guess I dont like changing things just to change things. If the word "God" offends you then you have serious issues. If you dont believe in God then the word shouldnt offend you since it does not exist to you anyway.

You add Liberty and justice for all and you have a new group of "Offended" people claiming that justice is not for all in this county.

God has been used since the begining of this country its in our Declaration of Independence. Should we take the white out to it and delete the words god and creator because its offensive to some? I for the life of me just dont understand why people are so sensitive in this country. Thats on all side of political and religious beliefs. I belive now its more of "Im going to piss the other guy off watch this" then it is Im offended by that.

Some people can be offended by words, which is understandable. For some, the word n!gger is offensive.

I wouldn't say I'm offended by it. I just think it's really stupid. I'd feel the same way if it said "in L Ron Hubbard we trust" or "in Muhammad we trust" I People would make fun of that, understandably to most. It's the same to me. I'm making fun of it.

 

[Tez3]

Some people can be offended by words, which is understandable. For some, the word n!gger is offensive.

I wouldn't say I'm offended by it. I just think it's really stupid. I'd feel the same way if it said "in L Ron Hubbard we trust" or "in Muhammad we trust" I People would make fun of that, understandably to most. It's the same to me. I'm making fun of it.

I think that it would be in 'Allah we trust' rather than Mohammed who was a prophet not a god. Muslims don't worship Mohammed.

I'm not sure if it's a good motto as I think according to Christianity as well as my own religion one is supposed to do things for oneself rather than whinge to G-d everytime you want something, the general premise being get off your **** and help yourself first then you'll get some help.

 

[fangjian]

I think that it would be in 'Allah we trust' rather than Mohammed who was a prophet not a god. Muslims don't worship Mohammed.

I know the difference. I'm just saying ALL mythology. I wasn't just reserving that blank spot for something else that is perfectly equivalent to the monotheistic god.

Anything that falls in that category. Aphrodite, Thor, Fairies............

 

[Xue Sheng]

In Wu wei we trust :asian:

 

[Twin Fist]

and the government cant MAKE you beleive, or even make you say you believe

you are free to think whatever you want

words on money doesnt interferre with that

Actually, yes. Yes, it does. Freedom of religion implicitly includes the option of simply not believing any of them, as well.

 

[Tez3]

and the government cant MAKE you beleive, or even make you say you believe

you are free to think whatever you want

words on money doesnt interferre with that

I would suggest however that it doesn't give people much faith in the issuers of said bank note!

 

[Carol]

I guess I dont like changing things just to change things. If the word "God" offends you then you have serious issues. If you dont believe in God then the word shouldnt offend you since it does not exist to you anyway.

But that's also how the motto came about. Changing things just to change them.

My granddad was, among many other things, an avid coin and currency collector (I was sickened when I heard he sold his collection, but I digress...) He taught me a lot about old coins as a child and influenced me to study and learn a bit more about them. The history of coinage in America is interesting to say the least, so much reflecting the history of our country. Many older coins had curious sayings on them. Some of them seem a bit cryptic, perhaps they made more sense in the day, or perhaps my knowledge of American history isn't strong enough to appreciate it. Nonetheless, I find this to be very fascinating.
"I am good copper"
"Valve of 3 pence" (pre-Revolutionary times, naturally)
"Value me as you please"
"Our cause is just"
"Unanimity is the strength of society"

"In God we trust" is another one of those sayings from our currency. I realize that it is most likely from Francis Scott Key: "And this be our motto: In God We Trust," but to me the saying takes on an additional level of fascination when minted in to a coin...because introduces a vaguer meaning of the word 'trust'.

I don't have an issue with it on our money. Don't have an issue with the word God. I just don't care for the politics behind it, how churches lobbied for the change, and the reactionary authoritarian politics of McCarthy's day don't play well with my libertarian side. I think E Pluribus Unum was a better motto for our country and plays a deeper role in our history than In God We Trust.

No, it doesn't particularly bother me or insult me. No, I'm not out trying to change things (well...not with that anyway). But. if we're talking about traditions, perhaps we should restore E Pluribus Unum as a motto or return to a time where vague slogans were minted in to our currency, instead of just one. We had useful objects and idealized figures gracing the faces of the coins instead of Presidents.


Or, maybe we should first take a look at border patrol issues, outsourcing to China, our troops being spread too thin, accountability in spending, taxation...............

 

[Twin Fist]

well, now that might just be true

 

[Tez3]

Does anyone think in these times of recession that the motto is actually a plea from the issuers, that they are telling you to trust to a higher 'authority' because they can't guarantee the money is worth anything?

 

[Carol]

Does anyone think in these times of recession that the motto is actually a plea from the issuers, that they are telling you to trust to a higher 'authority' because they can't guarantee the money is worth anything?

I think it proves the one-liner: "In God We Trust. The rest pay cash." :lol: