Do you guys/girls think "In God we trust" should be remove from U.S. money?

Granted, it's a cumbersome issue and it was added then (on paper money) to distinguish us from the "Godless Communist", but at this point isn't it a bit childish. Most Christians respond with "Oh, it's a good thing, it's what makes us number one", or "Why can't they just leave it like it is? I guess they have to cater to the will of the minority." America is not number 1 in a lot anymore, sure a couple things like war, but our education system is ranked fairly poorly especially compared to China, Japan, or Sweden, which have good education systems and are mostly atheists, but just because we're not number 1 doesn't mean we can't be, we just have to fix the problem. Also, I don't understand how they say it would be catering towards the "minority", all it's doing is making it neutral and "In God we Trust" was added to it, as it was never there originally, and it replaced e. Plurubus unum.

Views: 429

Replies to This Discussion

I don't have a lot of optimism that it will be removed any time soon. This country is largely religious and what politician is going to vote to 'remove God from our money'? Once something like this gets voted in, it is almost impossible to get rid of. That is another reason why those of us who believe in separation of church and state must remain vigilant.

Sure, I'd like it removed. But letting Christianity give itself a black eye is fine too. The right-wing Christian tax-hating capitalist stamps God's name on the root of all evil. How utterly appropriate. 

Besides, if you don't like it, remove it yourself.

---

"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” - John 2:13-16

---

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Mathew 19:23-24

---

"Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, Why tempt you me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. And Jesus answering said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him." - Mark 12:15-17

Re: Camel through the eye of a needle.  I read somewhere many years ago (pre-internet so no source link I'm afraid) that the camel referred to here was a coarse hessian-type thread that was used to sew sacks together, and would have been pretty hard, but not impossible, to thread through a needle.

I love this carving though....

The story I heard is that "the eye of the needle" was a particularly tight-squeeze of a gate into Jerusalem.  A camel could get through it if you unloaded it and it was willing to basically go through on its knees.

Minor nit:  IGWT did not replace E Pluribus Unum on our coins, both mottos appear.  I don't believe E Pluribus Unum was on our paper money before IGWT was added; it may never have been there at all.

If you ever want to know a shit-ton about the history of IGWT I've written about it here

http://letreasonreign.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/in-god-we-trust/   (mostly on coins)

http://letreasonreign.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/better-information-a... (paper)

And finally to answer your question... I own the two cent piece pictured in the first blog entry I linked to above, and I commonly refer to it as "the abomination" as it's from the first year of the first denomination ever to carry the goddamn IGWT motto.  So that should indicate that:  Yes, I'd love to see it disappear.  I don't think it will though, short of a supreme court ruling or a huge change in our culture--atheists would have to have a strong majority here for a politician to be willing to piss off the Christians.

It kind of pisses me off, it violates the law, the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" they are just sucking up to the religious crowd (IMO). Let them be pissed, it's our turn and should never been theirs.

Hmm, be careful with saying "it's our turn and should never been theirs" because "our turn" could be construed as "hey now we get to put 'there is no god, shitheads!' on the money now" and I would oppose that as well.  Government should be silent on the subject.  But I agree that it should never have been their turn.

They WILL be pissed if and when it happens.  They got up in arms with their hair on fire over the presidential dollar apparently omitting the motto (it was stamped into the edge, sometimes poorly) so IGWT was moved to the face of the dollar, while E Pluribus Unum is still on the edge along with the date.  (Now that pisses me off.) 

The problem is as long as they are in the majority and will get this pissed off if we dare take their imaginary friend off the coins, no legislature that actually gets elected by popular vote will ever remove it.  Which means we have to hope the supreme court does it someday.

I didn't mean that we should change it to something else, my opinion by saying it's our turn is not to have anything written, just get rid of the "in god we trust" nonsense. Even if we accomplish it they may try to sneak it back on. IMO money should be just money and not a ad for religion. 

I do trust that god will continue to contribute to the lesser good. I was going to use more direct language. You can probably guess.

Absolutely - it is clearly government endorsement/approval of monotheism over polytheism and nontheism and, contrary to what our Christian theocratic lawmakers and Supreme Court justices think, a violation of the First Amendment.  I cross it off all my paper money and encourage everyone else to do the same.

"In god we trust" - why not "In no gods we trust" or "In many gods we trust"?  I think our founders would have preferred "In no gods we trust."

Personally, I think "In God We Trust" is idiotic, an embarrassment, and, ultimately, unconstitutional.

It is no different than "In an Imaginary Being We Trust."

I think it should be, 'In good money management we trust. Churches now pay their fair share of a 10% tithe.'

RSS

Discussion Forum

Witness Protection

Started by jen o. Last reply by Alan Hotchy Sep 2. 31 Replies

Dating a christian in the south...

Started by Jake Fanning. Last reply by Presley Jun 10. 31 Replies

A film with you guys in mind

Started by Dan Ashton Lloyd Jan 18, 2013. 0 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service