MSNBC is doing a survey to see if people want “In God we trust” on our bills. As of Monday night there were over 2.5 million responses showing that 60% were still voting to keep it on the bills.
The thought of removing it is so laughably foolish to me. I mean is it not evident to everyone in the world that the U.S. has been extremely blessed since it was founded a few centuries ago? It wasn’t our doing – it was God’s. We founded this country on Biblical principles, were blessed as a result, now 40% of the country wants to do away with even the smallest mention of God on our dollar bills. Wow.
If you want to get in on the survey, or see more updated results you can check it out here.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s up to 70% voting to keep it on the bills now.
Is it misrepresentation, though? Personally I’m not sure. I mean, historically we’re a nation founded on a Judeo-Christian worldview, and that still permeates our society.
I’m just wondering if it’s possible that we’re truly a secular humanist nation (since that’s what we’re preaching in our schools) and that we’re simply paying lipservice to God.
How many times does an elected leader actually go to the Bible, or even a judge, when they want to look for truth?
@Min
good point, I think we are (as a nation) just merely paying lip service to God. Even if that is all that it is by having it on the bills, I think it is better than pulling it off don’t you?
I’m not sure. Wouldn’t it be better not to lie about who we are?
Israel of old claimed that they were God’s people, but they worshiped all sorts of other gods. It just invited God’s destruction on them.
One could logically conclude that it would be better to be labeled what we are then encouraging the wrath of God on a people that claim to be His.
But you’re not asking theoretically, you’re asking me directly.
I’m unsure. Historically it’s a valid thing to be there, but I’m not sure it means anything more than that now. It’s more style over substance, so I really don’t care whether it is there or not.
I’m much more concerned about whether God is in the heart of the nation than on its currency. I mean, God’s on 100% of the currency, but none of that is going to Heaven.
I really don’t think it matters whether our paper money and coins have “In God we Trust” on them. The first reason is because I personally use cash so infrequently that they could have removed it ages ago and I would still not have noticed. The second reason is because our actions show who we trust as a country more than our currency. Maybe at one time the phrase meant something but now it is mostly just a cliche. It further shows the meaning is lost when Christians have to argue it should stay for historic reasons, not religious.
I think it only slightly misrepresents things, because of all the different religions in . I think the bills should all say “In Gods we trust” because not all Americans worship the same God.
Or maybe different bills for different gods! $1 can say “In Yahweh we trust”, and the $5 can say “In Allah we trust”, and the $10 can say “In Gaia we trust”, and so on. That way nobody can complain.
@JackStart: If we started doing that, there’d be a run on certain types of bills. And all sorts of weird situations when you went to get change!
What about just “In Gods we trust” then?
Or, to include everyone, (paraphrased quote from Futurama) “In one or many Gods or less we trust.” That way, nobody can complain!
I think it is great that we have In God We Trust on our money because God has help us keep this nation strong everyday of life and he has help this nation not fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I just voted on it today (13 Novemboer 2008), and it is at 81% yes.
Goodness! LEAVE IT ON!!!! WE DO TRUST IN GOD!!!!!
I vote yes to keep “in God we trust” on our money Paper and ,or coin.
It should be removed from our money, our pledge of allegiance and our public buildings.
It is discriminatory, and it favors one religion over others, or none. It goes directly against what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they specifically set up the separation of church and state. They were running from religious persecution from the British Monarchy, and they wanted to make sure that faith based pressures would never influence the government.
I agree with you, Rex. For some reason, Christians in this country think EVERYONE believes what they believe. It is very discriminatory to have “In God We Trust” on our money, and it was only added to the money in 1955 during the height of the cold war and McCarthyism.
And as for claim that the U.S. was founded on Christian values, that is simply untrue. NONE, and I mean NONE of the founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence were Christian. Jefferson and Franklin were both Deist, and were staunch believers of the seperation of church and state.
Do your homework.
Rex and Debbie, It’s not a zero-sum game.
Removing “God” from all these locations would indicate no deference to God at all– which flies in the face of this country’s history. It could actually be seen as supporting atheism or secularism.
Debbie, historically there were Quakers, Christians and Deists. However, all paid recognition to God in the law and their meetings. Franklin stated that he thought the first thing the Constitutional Convention should do would be to pray– and even though they did not at that point, they did appoint a salaried position for a chaplain.
If you really researched what the government did in early days– from Thanksgiving Proclamations to rules subsidizing the evangelization of the American Indian, you’d see a very different picture than you’re trying to paint.
Sometimes I am torn, because as you have mentioned, some of these things are part of our history, and I have no desire to rewrite that history.
Just because our country used to be certain ways and endorse certain things, is not an excuse for things that are not right to continue. Slavery was part of our history as well as discrimination against minorities and all women. While I do not wish to rewrite that history, I am glad that we have realized that those things infringed on the victims’ rights and are no longer tolerated.
The same concept applies to the current secular / religious tension. Just because something was part of our history, it has no bearing on what we decide is right and reasonable today. I do not believe that religion has any business influencing public life, and as such, I think references to one sect should not be in anyone’s face when the public enter public buildings, or spend our currency.
I doubt that you would have many supporters of keeping pro slavery or anti women’s rights references in the same places, even though those things were endorsed by our society at one time and played a significant role in our history.
To reevaluate those things and make adjustments based upon further and further enlightenment is a sign of a progressive self aware society. It also makes the statement, that we do continue to grow and learn and that we will not be fettered by the mistakes of our past.
The argument that “this no longer reflects who we are” is a strong one. However, I could make the equally strong argument that a society that forgets where it came from and its identity will soon lose that identity and repeat the mistakes of the past.
George Washington said that a culture or society that does not have a moral foundation to it will soon fall apart– and he referenced Christianity as the moral fabric of the nation.
I can illustrate this with your comment.
Aside from the argument about whether secular humanism is a religion, which I’ll put aside for the time being, why should the government be prejudiced against a person choosing to vote or do something in a specific way as guided by religion. The First Amendment prevents Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and the Constitution prohibits a religious test.
You are biased against religion, and prefer your worldview over those that have religion, and you wish to usurp your belief over those with a belief in a deity. This is the beginnings of the very same religious persecution that our Founding Fathers left England over– the fact that they were not welcomed in discourse because of their faith.
I am biased against religion, even though none of my previous comments referred to that fact. I am biased against the knee jerk reaction that comes at the edge of what humanity has been able to learn. At the edge, there are people who peer into the abyss and say that we do not yet know what is out there, and then there are those who say that they know with certainty that what is out there is God, and if we don’t all acknowledge that “fact”, not only will we burn for all eternity, but we will also ruin the rest of the world for everyone else. That kind of unquestioning, unreasoned, “faith” scares me as much as anything in the world. People who believe so strongly, without proof, can be convinced of anything. We see the horrific, negative effects of it every day. To seek the answers is noble, to shout louder and louder that you already have them, and that YOUR answers are beyond questioning is dishonest, and frankly, a little manipulative and malicious.
I am biased against my tax dollars endorsing or supporting any religious sect, as in inscribing “In God We Trust” on public buildings at taxpayer expense. It favors Christianity, and it violates the first amendment, and I do not want to be compelled (through taxes) to pay for such nonsense. It was a fear driven mistake of the sheeple of the time to endorse that motto and to add “under God” to an otherwise acceptable pledge of allegiance in the mid 50’s as a weak response to “The Godless Communists in Russia”. Even an apologetic like yourself has to admit that the McCarthy era in this country was not exactly the cradle of enlightened forward thinking in the world.
As far as stamping out religion goes, I think that whatever you want to believe in your home and churches is fine, as long as the churches stay out of public policy making efforts (and therefore become taxed like every other PAC in this country), peaceful coexistence between superstition and secularism will be the result. As for individuals, vote however your god (or the man who does the interpreting for your god) commands. I will vote based on facts and what our society needs at each juncture. I can guarantee you that I will not be voting on anything based on the sexual activities or preferences of others, can you say the same?
You make multiple leaps of logic here, Rex.
First, the fact that a person has made a decision for faith does not mean that they do so in absence of evidence. That you have decided against the evidence does not mean that it is not there. You have decided that Christianity, in particular, is a leap of faith; however, I could make the counter argument that, if your “absence of evidence” observation was true, it would be equally ludicrous to place faith in the fact that the Christian was wrong.
Second, I could make the argument than those bound by a faith that has certain definite standards of right, wrong and justice is much more dependable than a set of standards based upon the arbitrary winds of the majority.
Third, I have not been speaking about my belief, simply about what I think about “In God We Trust” and the founding of the nation. Any implications made about your position have come from your statements. However, you are implying a whole lot about me in your comments that you have no reason to believe true. Even if you researched me– which I have written a lot online– I would think that you would find a lot of discussions about my faith and the rationale behind it. I have far from the “blind faith” that seems to keep you up at night.
Fourth, have you read the First Amendment? Since when is putting “In God We Trust” on coinage or buildings equaling a state church? Furthermore, would it be considered “prohibiting the free exercise thereof?” As far as I know, Congress is not ordaining ministers (though one wonders about Obama’s Czars
), not scheduling service times, and not weighing in on matters of theology. There is not a Supreme Court sitting down in matters of whether Calvanism or Armenianism is the correct doctrinal interpretation of God’s will, and the President– though he can declare times of Thanksgiving, is not telling where or to who we are to give thanks.
And I find your complaints about how tax dollars are spent specious at best. Considering the waste, fraud and general mismanagement of funds, as well as the debt, to place those words on a building is a trifle. You may reject it on principle, but the amount that actually impacts your tax dollars– come on.
Lastly, you continue to hold an intolerant double standard. You both want churches to have no voice in the public square, AND to be taxed like those that are strictly lobbyist. This is a bigoted view, that states that your opinion, or the opinion of anyone other than those that are Christian should be heard, but not them. It’s discrimination of the worst kind– as your final question proves. Because I’m wondering the same question– would you vote for something or someone that believes in the God of the Bible?
The “you” in my previous post was absolutely not personal, but a rhetorical “you” as in: If you have faith (If one has faith)… If you shout (If one shouts…
Additionally, I reject all of your faith based statements. I do not share that faith so all of the statements related to it are invalid in my book. Faith, in a religious sense, is belief in the absence of evidence. I like evidence and objectivity and facts, besides, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I have not even seen ordinary proof yet.
C’mon really? “In God We Trust” is not an endorsement of one sect over every other world view in this country? Really? The word disingenuous comes to mind. Also, I don’t care if it is a single penny of my tax money, I object on principle, and I think it is not the place of the government to spend tax money on superstitious drivel. Not only do I object, but the simple First Amendment (and yes, I have a copy of it and The Constitution on my coffee table, I know, I’m a geek!) over time has been correctly interpreted to be a statement of the separation of church and state. In case you don’t get that, it means that the government stays out of church business and churches stay out of government business.
You missed my PAC point entirely. I said that if churches stay out of the political arena, I see the logic of allowing them to keep their tax exempt status (even though personally, I think the debate of that policy is overdue), but IF they chose to act like a Political Action Committee (see Catholics in DC now, and Mormons lobbying out west on others’ sexuality), they should be taxed like one. No double standard, just a quest for one standard with no religious exceptions. The churches are the ones with the double standard; they want to remain tax free, yet they want to act as a lobbying group. As far as representation goes, everyone still has one vote, just like always. You can take off your religious persecution hat now.
As to your last question, sadly there are not many choices when voting, because in some places still in this country, atheists are barred from running for office for not being superstitious, if that isn’t discrimination, I don’t know what is.
It becomes a choice; vote for some superstitious person who may be somewhat sympathetic to your views, or vote for some superstitious person who isn’t. Not really much of a choice.