Should the US Currency be fixed?

The death-toll order comparison was merely to point out that a line of text is by no means insignificant.

Now the church is not holding the state through the line alone. It has other holds. The bill is but one example. If the bill were to be forcibly changed, it would supply a precedent for the other cases and allow other areas where the church has power to be challenged.

In this case it is 'the thought that counts' for the removal. There is more at stake than just a line on the currency.

 

But you said later in your post that it's not the action of the removal that counts. The "message" (which people with a sliver of common sense know is outdated) on the bills sounds about as culturally significant as the monarchy.
Just save yourself the frustration and think of the conservative message

It's not a better example by the way. Would the sword even cause a discussion?

There are those with mild religious beliefs as well as strong atheists.
Also, a religious holiday isn't exactly the same as reciting the pledge.

I repeat my point, and I'll use short and simple words doing so.
The. Church. Isn't. Tainting. The. State. More. Now. Than. It. Will. When. You. Do. Make. The. Change. You aren't going to lessen the amount of Christians, let alone conservative ones by erasing a remnant of history. Nor are you going to weaken the church's power because it has been crippled by events far more significant than removing a sentence in the US currency.

You might set a standard for future changes but somewhere you'll find yourself at a dead end. Take the currency, the pledge and some other minor alterations and you're stuck. Nothing that would actually matted in my eyes.

It's actually laughable that you believe that you're actually going to reduce religious conservatives this way. It really is.
Besides, why would you want to send a message? To attract immigrants to the US? Believe me, the ones who are willing to adapt will come, message or no. And the ones who don't...Would you even want them to come to the US?

In what way?

To anything, ranging from the economy to relationships with foreign countries.

 

Please don't call people 'kids' etc here like that and slam them. Demoralizing, talking down to people, is not the way to win a debate. It just makes people think you are pompous.

There are quite a few Americans that believe that if someone doesn't believe in God, they are not real Americans. Plenty. Watch the conservative channels more often and it's clear as day.

As has been shown, what is ridiculous about removing something that was added just to cater to a religious group when we have a plethora of religious groups etc? It should not be 'offensive' but it will be to whiny people who say the country is 'godless'. It would save money in the end. Also, it does not represent us appropriately as a free nation where people can believe in what they want. It's either the point to add symbols of multiple religions and the A symbol etc, or to remove 'In God we Trust' to be a true representation of our country. Why can't some Americans do what others did in the 50s and lobby for a change? It worked for the Christian group. It's not that big a deal.

Actually his argument is very valid. Yahweh is an imaginary friend to some, a deity to others, etc. Brahma is a deity to some and an imaginary friend to others. Odin is a deity to some and a myth to others. Zeus, Horus, Diana, Satan, etc are real to some and made up ideologies to others. Just because some people think something is real doesn't mean it belongs on our currency as it does not properly represent us and other religious groups and Atheists must just sit back and let that represent us. If again, in the 1950s people could lobby and won to have it put on, why are you so against people speaking out and wanting to lobby to have it removed? That makes no sense. It's not childish. People get things done by caring and in all technicality, it never should have been approved in the first place, but it was. The government isn't supposed to just be recognizing 'one' religion. Our currency and pledge represent this country and government. It's either all religions and lack of religion are recognized -or- none. I don't think that's too much to ask.

A king is a living person or was so the point is rather irrelevant. If people don't want to have a religious thing on their money, it's a process the same as what added it there in the first place. You are pretty much telling people it is stupid to do something that is ultimately American.

The church isn't doing it. It's Christians that assume their words should be a representation alone of this country and this is not a Christian country, regardless of how some people try to say it is. It is a country that acknowledges freedom of religion and separation of -church- and -state-. Therefore, if people want to lobby again to have the 1950s actions removed, what's the big deal to you. If you say you can go on either way, what's the point of debating it? To say some Atheists and people of other religions are being jerks because we don't like it that our country money or pledge does not truly represent us ALL as a people? If in the 1950s it was approved to single out a religion in such a manner and all, there's every right today with more diversity for people to say the acts were foolish to be approved and to see them removed. It's as simple as that. If you don't care either way, it doesn't matter to you. For other people on either side of the fence, it does.

Actually, in a sense, it is reducing the -power- of religious conservatives if they lose their cherished things they had added to the currency and pledge which never belonged there. It is a message to other people of varying religions or a lack of religion that this country acknowledges the right to believe in what you want so long as it is not hurting anyone else. It is conveying a message that was intended in the first place with this country. Lastly, if there was no problem on the other side, why are people fighting so hard to -KEEP- the 1950s actions instead of caring about the beliefs of others and representation of them? Why do they expect others of varying cultures to cater to something that the -authors- did not even put in initially? It simply does not belong on the currency.

Ironically, I had an email the other day from someone passing around crap at work, that said 'the 'in God we Trust' was removed from this year's dollar coin, so everyone, if you don't like it, refuse to use it and turn it back in! It was a conservative and pretty serious thing that shows there is an actual issue. YES, there are more important things to focus on in the world, but we're a nation and can do more than one stupid thing at once. Not seeing again why you say it's so pointless and talk down to the others of opposition when in fact, it's these little movements that get things to happen bit by bit. Maybe it accomplishes nothing in your mind but to others it means they are finally acknowledged while to others, it ticks them off because we're so 'godless'. Many people probably won't care either way, but for those who do, it's their right to debate it out and toss it to the senate etc.

 

I'm not a big fan of George Washington.
Let's take him off the quarter.

You can't cater to everyone.
I'm sure there are old bigots who didn't like Abraham Lincoln, but he's still on money as well.
(if you ask me, the true problem with currency is the penny. I wouldn't mind it if it was eliminated and things were rounded up)

THere was another thread with a poll that said only 49% of American's would vote for an Atheist president. So the other 51% want a religious president (most likely Christian).
Majority rules.

Yes, church and state should be separated.
But it isn't.
Until a movement starts to finally divide the two, I don't see how "separation of church and state" can be a valid argument for the simple fact that, no matter how many times it is implied, it's still false.

 

Actually I agree with this. Speaking from personal experience, clerks I've seen usually round up the amount of change anyway. Nobody gives a damn about pennies.

The majority in America would also be against banning gay marriage and refusing to teach evolution in schools, or give it and creationism equal time (or so I would assume). Sometimes you have to go against the majority, make unpopular decisions, to do the right thing, because more often than not, the majority is dumb. That's why stuff like this isn't up to them.

Separation of church and state is an ideal, at best. It's impossible to *completely* separate the two because religion is such a huge part in shaping an individual's perceptions even if they're not religious. But it's an ideal we should pursue anyway, because objectivity and impartiality are good things. An artist doesn't quit trying to improve in spite of the fact that he'll never be "perfect" at what he does.

Church and state won't ever be near separation if we don't start making attempts to separate them. Not that I think removing the message would really be very effective, I'm going off on a tangent here so I'll stop. :x

I'd just like to state that, again, I personally don't care much either way about whether the message stays or not, but yeah.

 

And if you surveyed a bunch of teens if there shouldn't be a drinking age, you'd probably get a similar result, or a high number being "Yes".

So, that means we should let there be no legal drinking age! 10 year olds can now legally get drunk!

 

Removing references to God from other areas of America has been discussed already in this thread. There was support for it, but this thread is about currency for whatever reason, so we are to discuss currency. Also, we have to start somewhere, and the money is as good of a place as any. If we do not act because there is much to be done, the pile will just get bigger and bigger. Procrastination never solves anything. It is far better to start, even if the place you start isn't the best, lest you waste too much time biding your time. Even if the money is insignificant, it gives a foothold against other unwanted intrusions into the state's business by the church. As was said, we've got to start somewhere.

God is singular and a proper noun at that. "In God we trust" can only be a reference to a singular deity specifically known as "God". That only applies to the Catholic (and possibly the Jewish) god. Also, what do you mean by "purely symbolic"? What is "In god we trust" a symbol of? There isn't anything symbolic about that, it's a religious statement. As for the Masons: None of the final designers of the bill were Masons, and the Mason suggestion was rejected.

The president debate belongs in the president thread, but as you were so kind as to bring that up, I'll comment.

There quite clearly isn't a complete separation of the church and state, despite that being the claim, as I will prove using the poll that's been brought up. It is propaganda such as this money that causes people to believe that the country has roots in Catholicism, and as such, that a non-catholic president is unsuitable. Much of this is due to the church's past interference with the state, adding the "Under God" to the oath and removing the "L" from the coins. It gives the public the impression that America is a Catholic country, when actually is is not. This is why the message should be removed, along with everything else.

The church supports closed mindedness, rejection of scientific theories with supporting evidence, lack of birth control, refusal of genetic engineering, ostracism of homosexuals and as we've just established, it causes an unbalanced playing field for politicians, meaning an inferior candidate may be voted in because his opposition doesn't have an imaginary friend. That's what I define as "harmful to society".

 

I've decided to lie low for now. I understand that there is nothing "wrong" with removing the phrase from the coins, theoretically. It's probably something we need to see for ourselves. If the change does make it past those conservative gung-ho's you'll have it removed and I'll keep close track of the differences it will make. Depending on how smoothly it will go and the quotes that make it to the Belgian papers I'll either think "Glad it went this well." or "Holy crap there are a bunch of nutcases with high positions in the US!". And I won't be the only one. Your reputation, despite the bill having passed, can still be affected either way. Risky thing when it's the main reason you're even bothering with this. There's no way for me of knowing how it would go though. My knowledge of US politics is nearly naught.

Note that the debate hasn't even started up yet though. Perhaps no one wants to risk his/her career over this. If such would really be the reason, then the fact that there's still a risk to it should tell you whether the US is really ready for the debate. But that's of course but a humble hunch.

But I promise I'll congratulate you all when the bill does pass.

Stupid analogy. In your example you narrow the participation in the poll down to only teens. Your statistics would be biased.

But if so many people are disagreeing, then how do you know you're doing the right thing? Not that I completely disagree with you, but it's a risky motto to live out.

Well said.

 

seems more like athiests are the ones speaking about the removal of it is why we're talking from a christian-atheist discussion view.

Every atheist i have ever met has fallen into one stereotype or the other (I.E. i don't care, or RAWR KILL RELIGION RAWR CAUSE IM A BIGOT AND XENOPHOBIC)

only the crazy christians ever show up on television and what not for the same reason only bad news is on tv.

the reason God is capitalized on the bills is the same reason Every Word In The Phrase Is Capitalized...it just looks better

i am very jaded about the whole "all radical-athiests want is to promote equality" cause they often do it by slandering religion (mostly christians) and its always because "well i heard that religion is the only reason for so much needless death in the world from another atheist earlier in my life so I'm gonna use this tired angle as well"

the fact is DIFFERENCES cause war not religion sometimes its race if not race wealth if not wealth its the want to have the wealth or more land if not that some other political agenda.

Humans kill ourselves constantly because thats what we are on our most base level a bunch of animals still! and look how long we've had to evolve...we are no better than we were during our tribal warfare years when inhumane slaughter of innocents well everyone actually was rampant

the veil of society is thin the moment something goes wrong...all hell breaks loose.

all this is to say...you agendas your messages your wants in life...all of it is meaningless in the long run when all your doing is playing witch hunt. The moment religion is no longer the means by which people excuse discrimination it'll switch to something else and go in a carousel circle that will never end...just loop back in on itself at some point or other.

violence is always mans solution to reaching world peace...be it physical or not and changing the suspect from religion to something else by trying to take down small insignificant words on a dollar bill...will do nothing but change whose getting targeted.

 

Right.
Most Christians/Catholics I've seen have fallen more into the category of bigotry.

Wrong.

Being smarter > Looking better

Violence the solution to peace?
No.

 

Ah, but we're not arguing from the point of atheists, we're arguing from the point of those with a different belief. It's irrelevant that I think that religion is idiotic unless I use that as a point in my argument. I have not, yet you have started to address it, so I will reply.

How about "Rawr, kill religion because I think that humanity doesn't require threats of eternal torture in order to behave in a civilised manner"? There, now that statement is incorrect, because not every atheist has fallen into your stereotypical categories.

No one else brought up crazy Christians. As rebuttal, you are to address points that have already been brought up by the opposition. You don't need to counter points that are not mentioned.

As you brought it up, I will comment. Having the God on the coin reinforces the crazies' belief that America is a Christian country. This leads them to act in the way they do. I'm not putting all their actions down to the coins, but I am pointing out that the coins support them in their crusade to make America follow the bible word for word.

The entire phrase is capitalised. There are no lowercase letters. However we know from the context that we are using GOD as a proper noun, because it is not "IN A GOD WE TRUST".

Again, my point about countering that which needs to be countered, and leaving the irrelevant stuff at home. No one else mentioned the crusades or the 9/11 bombings. No one else has brought up those points.

Clearly religion can't be responsible for all death, but it does contribute to some of it and quite a few wars. It helps through charities too. I feel that those charities can still exist without a church and we can still help others without having the threat of eternal damnation hanging over our heads, and thus the world would be better off without religion. But this is all off-topic.

Again, you brought this up, not me. War is not always religion, you are correct about that. However religion fuels war, because religion is a very effective propaganda for the masses. Telling a young man that he has an all powerful being on his side makes him far more likely to die for a cause. It kills rationality.

I disagree with you strongly here, while shouting "Irrelevant!" at the top of my voice. We are better than when we were during our tribal warfare years. Your referring to it as "inhumane" is proof of this, because you have distinguished that those actions are below the standard society has set for behaviour. You also say "everyone actually was rampant", strongly implying that we are no longer rampant now, meaning we have greatly improved. Have a bit of faith in your race's ability not to suck!

Wrong. The veil of society is a thick blanket build up over millennia. There is the occasional tear in it, but on the whole we keep it intact. Even during wartime, when we set our inhibition about killing others aside, we refer to it as civil war, because there are some tactics and methods that are universally reviled.

What a pessimistic view to take. We have stopped enslavement of the black skinned races, which is a great step against discrimination. Nothing has taken slavery's place. We have improved. Thus if religion is removed from the state, nothing will flow in to replace it, so it is worth it to try to remove the words from the coin.

Removing the words will not end religion, but it will provide a foothold to remove the words from the pledge and remove other references to Catholicism that the state should not have. That will have an effect on religion.

 

Every atheist YOU'VE ever met.
Not EVERY atheist.
I don't believe it's only the crazy Christians that show up on tv.
Some aren't crazy. But they're too commercial. From my point of view, that's just wrong.

Just like Pika said, It's "IN GOD WE TRUST", not 'IN A GOD WE TRUST."

I have never heard anyone say religion is the "only reason" for so much needless death.
I've heard "religion is the cause of a lot of conflict." Some religion bashers have even said "religion is the cause of MAJORITY of war,"
but anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that there are other causes of war.

Crusades.
That is all.

Look at how long animals have had to evolve.
And most of them just became smaller.
Just gotta say that humans have evolved a lot farther than you think.
If Darwin was here, he'd pull you aside and say, "let me talk to you."

Don't really have a response to this.
I kind of agree. Humans are arrogant like that.

I agree with Pika. I'm a Christian and if America became a full-on Christian nation, great.
But unless everyone converts, then I wouldn't want that. America needs to be more neutral in sense of religion, I'll admit it'll definitely help us progress quicker.

Also, listen to Anatomy of your Enemy. You might learn something.

 

People seem to keep missing the absolute most important point to this entire argument:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A CHRISTIAN NATION, THEREFORE ANY STATEMTENT THAT SAYS OTHERWISE IS FALSE AND THEREFORE A LIE. THE FACT THAT SUCH A STATEMENT APPEARS ON THE CURRENCY OF THE NATION JUST SHOWS HOW DEEP THE FALLICIES IN THE NATION RUN. IT IS UP TO THE SANE, INTELLIGENT AND REASONABLE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY TO EXACT CHANGE.
​

Otherwise the rest of the world will continue to see the USA as a bigoted, hypocritical and arrogant nation; fully deserving of hatred.

 

America wasn't built on the basis of Christianity.
It was built on the basis of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Christianity just happened to be one of the first religions practiced here.

 

They were Deist, not Christian. Also, the point of a Democracy is not to appease parts of society. It is to serve the entire society equally and fairly with no bias placed on religion, gender, race etc.

We all know how well America handled race, let's see if you can get over religion ;)

 

America is a secular country and therefore may not subscribe to any religion. Even by saying "In the God we trust" that still excludes Polytheistic religions and things like Paganism with less defined higher powers.

Everyone has the right to have freedom of religion, and the state may not partake in religion itself.

 

Funny, and I always believed the first commandment was "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Just like Матвей охотник said, it's leaving out other Gods. What's the religious freedom in making our motto include "any" God, but not all?

So let's change it to "In Gods we trust."
Well, too many religions contradict and oppose each other. You trust in Zeus and Hades both, you're going to have conflict in your spiritual life.
"In any God we trust,"
Same problem as above.

I also see a contradiction.
Democracy = "for the people, from the people, by the people."
But we don't trust in the people.
So it makes us seem like a religious nation.

I'm pretty sure "hundreds of years" is quite the hyperbole lol
And obviously, people have been offended by it, maybe not the majority, but still.
Even people in other countries see the fault in it.
How do we intend to help other countries when they can see our obvious hypocrisy and flaws?
And yes, Christians will be offended, but we'll need to get over ourselves and realize that it is supposed to be a church and state separation.

What a great post.
/sarcasm.

 

I guess I'll put in my two cents.

I personally don't care that the phrase "In God we trust" is on the American coin. In fact, I probably would have not even thought about the subject until this thread popped up.

I don't see how the rest of the world would see the US as bigoted, hypocritical, and arrogant when they are not perfect as well. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Now earlier in the thread I mentioned that the phrase "In God we trust" is the official motto of the US. The Supreme Court has had a case about this subject and in the end they upheld the motto because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content" and that the phrase has lost its "history, character, and context". Now that makes sense because the coin never specifies which "God" we trust in. Sure it could exclude polytheistic religions but most polytheistic religions have a God that is higher than the rest so it could be talking about that one God.

I don't see how not trusting people makes your country look religious.

 

off topic:

breaking my post into parts made it sound out of context i was arguing all those points because they led back into my main point

slavery was replaced...once that was gone people started looking towards religion twice as hard to let them discriminate

as i said every athiest I have met has been that way. not to say you ALL fall into those but from my experience true individuality doesn't exist in any group in the sense that you can exist and not be some form of cookie cutter for that group...

the veil of society is the only thing that has been added to humanities repertoire since our tribal days...everything we do is to make it easier on ourselves...society exists because someone wanted to save their own skin the moment its a hindrance and no longer a safety measure...it is peeled back revealing our true nature...

also merely stating "crusades" is not enough said the crusades were yet again...just using religion as an excuse anyone with a brain can lie...

on topic:

the materiality of money means it holds power with its print and form only over those who would cherish what it has to say more than what they themselves have to say.
if we were to all to be gullible...then yes IN GOD WE TRUST being on the bill would be a problem.

humanity may be stupid but if anything we are stubborn in our ways. no one wants to be told they are wrong.