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


Red Hat

New member
Hit this poll. Live Vote: Should ?In God We Trust? be yanked? - Faith- msnbc.com So far with a lot of votes it's 85% against it and 15% for it.

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency? * 11220921 responses

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
15%

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
85%
 

Sheldon

New member
I voted in that poll over 6 months ago, at first it was only the yes idiots but now common sense prevails N no wins...
 

Templar

I'm a square
I would like to see a demographic on the 15% who voted against. Probably a bunch of illegals and a few of our new administration members.
 
It's time for the "silent majority" to speak out and stop the special interest groups from winning. When will this stop? Allowing illegal immigrants to sue land owners for being turned over to authorities for trespassing, removing history, no ten commandments in public display!!!! It's time to get back to the basics and stop the minority from their successes.
 

krazyk

New member
in god we trust wasn't put on currency till 19 55 and now look how much its worth. in gold&Guns is all i trust ,
no superstition here, just reason and logic :sarcastic:
 

HK4U

New member
There was that statement again. "Separation of church and state". Wonder how many today still think that is in the Constitution somewhere? Oh well some also think the 2ND Amendment was not an individual right too.
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
If we're going to take text off the US currency, we need to remove references to the (non-)Federal Reserve
 

Brainchild

New member
There was that statement again. "Separation of church and state". Wonder how many today still think that is in the Constitution somewhere? Oh well some also think the 2ND Amendment was not an individual right too.
The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I see nowhere in there where it says nobody and nothing involved with the government can say or express the name of a diety or holy book.But then I'm one of them wierdos that believes the Second Ammendment refers to an individual right held by all free citizens of this country.Call me crazy.
 

HK4U

New member
The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I see nowhere in there where it says nobody and nothing involved with the government can say or express the name of a diety or holy book.But then I'm one of them wierdos that believes the Second Ammendment refers to an individual right held by all free citizens of this country.Call me crazy.
Yep. Those that like to some how imagine seperation of church in the first amendment always seem to over look the part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
In simplistic terms, the Constitution calls for the separation of State from Church. MARXISM calls for the separation of Church from State. Under the Constitution, the government can not say "this is (or isn't) religion" or "this is how you must (or may not) worship". The current ban on Nativities on court house lawns, plaques of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and prayer in schools (except on test day) is a Marxist political view.
 
Last edited:

Piece Corps

New member
Show me where in the Constitution it says there shal be a separation between church and state! Read the text and stop listening to the crap!:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I do not see anywhere that the US government is establishing a religion, just by mentioning God. And there is nothing in this country that prohibits the exercise of any religion, including Islam and people who believe that they are eliens from outer space. There is no state religion, nor is there a federal religion. The US isn't Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Tantric, or anything else.

If you ever read anything about the history of our country, you know that God-fearing people fought and died for these freedoms. God was mentioned all over the place. Check out the Supreme Court building if you don't believe that. Or did you never have a use for American hiistory? Anyone who lives in this great country has the responsibility and the obligation to learn about its creation and foundation.

But nowhere does the Constitution say that it is unlawful to mention God, neither does it say that you will worship a specific God and no one else. If you do not like to hear the name of God, that's tough. I don't like to hear the name of Allah, but if Muslims want to build a temple in my town, so be it. It ain't gonna kill me.

It's time we stopped treating minorities, and PC, like the law. We have to respect them, and they have to respect us. What harm does it do to have "In God We Trust" printed on our currency? If you don't like it, don't spend it, don't touch it, don't use it. This country was based on Judeo-Christian principles, and you cannot eraser that fact form the history books, no matter how hard you try.

Live with it!
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
It's not necessarily the Constitution that governs the separation of states from religion, or vice versa, rather it's the interpretations handed down by the US Supreme Courts over the years. But are their decisions Crap? I don't necessarily view the opinions of the US Supreme Court as crap. I don't necessarily or always agree with their decisions, but like their recent decision in our favor re: the Second Amendment, it is what governs us all.

It's decision in Reynolds v United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), held that the courts cannot govern beliefs but they can govern actions, preventing religion from being "practiced" but not believed, as in polygamy, [maybe even sacrifice.] Therefore, governments can only arrest us for we do, not what we think. That's the separation that has to be followed. We are free to believe that there might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster but we cannot can be arrested for believing it, only for what we might do about it.

In a series of cases beginning with the next case, the separation rulings have been further defined and refined. The Supreme Court's ruling in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), paraphrased, reads that a state cannot consistently, with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects. Furthermore, the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. I think that is pretty self-explanatory.

Check here for other cases and citations and information. There have been dozens if not hundreds of cases further expanding upon the premise of "the separation of church & state."

Says me, not looking for dissension or hurt or a fight or whatever, only for information.
 
Last edited:

HK4U

New member
It's not necessarily the Constitution that governs the separation of states from religion, or vice versa, rather it's the interpretations handed down by the US Supreme Courts over the years. But are their decisions Crap? I don't necessarily view the opinions of the US Supreme Court as crap. I don't necessarily or always agree with their decisions, but like their recent decision in our favor re: the Second Amendment, it is what governs us all.

It's decision in Reynolds v United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), held that the courts cannot govern beliefs but they can govern actions, preventing religion from being "practiced" but not believed, as in polygamy, [maybe even sacrifice.] Therefore, governments can only arrest us for we do, not what we think. That's the separation that has to be followed. We are free to believe that there might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster but we cannot can be arrested for believing it, only for what we might do about it.

In a series of cases beginning with the next case, the separation rulings have been further defined and refined. The Supreme Court's ruling in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), paraphrased, reads that a state cannot consistently, with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects. Furthermore, the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. I think that is pretty self-explanatory.

Check here for other cases and citations and information. There have been dozens if not hundreds of cases further expanding upon the premise of "the separation of church & state."

Says me, not looking for dissension or hurt or a fight or whatever, only for information.[/QUOT





# "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

# "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
GCF, very interesting examples of judges writing law from the bench. They really need to leave the generation of law to the Legislative branch.
 

New Threads

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,084
Messages
621,519
Members
74,090
Latest member
foxran
Top