Congress mandates use of "In God We Trust"

On Sat, 19 May 2007 11:31:09 -0400, "Sibirskmoneta"
wrote:

When you think of it from the perspective of a religious individual such as
Theodore Roosevelt it also panders of an indignity to the believed in diety
when you put his name on a piece of "evil" money.

I would say for it to continue, then we must then put Yahweh, and Allah and
Krishna, and Buddha, and Voodoo on the $ too. Or maybe it would be easier
to just remove any reference to religion and Masonism - ala the $1 bill
reverse.

This is an example of a very thoughtful response, unlike the gibberish
of Dale Hallmark, calling people names without having an iota of
understanding about the issue under discussion.

Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting take on IGWT. He was a believer
but believed that the name of god, or God, shouldn't be on things used
in places like brothels and saloons, along with shops and banks. That
perspective doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Many believers want to
convert others into believing as they do, want to eradicate "evil," so
why not put God's name in "evil" places to help these people see the
good? I don't believe this myself, just find Roosevelt's position as a
believer difficult to reconcile.

About Yahweh and Allah and such, another good point. There are many
facets of deity, many ways of interpreting it. Many Christians believe
that only theirs is the correct way, and some believe that those who
don't believe in the exact same way they do will suffer after they die
(burn in hell). This type of extreme intolerance has led to much
persecution, killing, and other evil throughout history. Other
religions have been intolerant as well, but some in general are
characterized by tolerance, Hinduism most notably, recognizing as it
does that there may be one summit (God) but there are many pathways to
it. Even here though there are lots of nuances, with many Hindus
practicing a more polytheistic version, and Hinduism comes with the
baggage of the caste system and its injustices, that people living in
misery deserve it because of their actions in previous lives (though
this has been softened in recent years).

My take on IGWT is somewhat akin to the Founding Fathers of the United
States. I'm a firm believer in the wisdom of separating national
affairs from religious affairs given that religious impulses can
manifest in many legitimate, authentic ways (and many illegitimate,
evil ways).

But a core reality, for me, is that one of the cornerstones of Western
civilization is the primacy of reason, and much (not all) religion
subjugates reason in the name of faith. The current U.S.
administration in power shows the lunacy of basing national and
international affairs on faith, on belief despite evidence, on
believing what you believe because you believe it, not even wanting to
know in many cases what's happening from the perspective of those who
don't share your perspective.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:07:38 -0500, "Dale Hallmark"
dalehall"AT"cableone.net wrote:

I started to answer your statements but there is a lot of text that didn't
quite address accurately some of the statements I made. Since you can't
seem to understand exactly what I posted, I see no gain in attempting to
get you to understand. I have seen others attempt that for weeks on end and
I have
no desire to repeat a process that is doomed to failure. And like I said, I
don't enough care about
the issue to continue. I would like to say bite me but that has been done
so I won't.

Another thoughtful response! This must be contagious. First you take
*six* paragraphs to say you don't care about this issue (right),
calling people who do care "moronic." Then you respond yet again
saying how you don't care (right).

There are lots of interesting issues brought up by IGWT, none of which
you addressed, lots of issues involving government, politics, and
religion, not the goofy ignorance you spouted about democracy and
religion. It's good though that you've decided not to say any more.

Yet you have decided to say more, continuing your ignorance with the
statement only group who "should" be upset with IGWT are atheists. Are
you not able read? What about deists, polytheists, and agnostics, as I
mentioned? To them, IGWT makes no sense either. To a deist, saying in
god we trust make no more sense than saying in rocks we trust or in
molecules we trust. To a polytheist, IGWT doesn't make sense because
you're not specifying which god. To an agnostic, whether or not deity
exists is incapable of being known so it's illogical to profess trust
in it.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:42:36 -0400, "Sibirskmoneta"
wrote:

I think it should be changed, to "In Gold We Trust" !

Funny! But, alas, not any more. Maybe "In Gold We Should Trust." Or
not. g

It's interesting that among the first U.S. coins, the sentiment
exactly opposite of "In God We Trust" was included as a motto. The
1792 half disme includes, "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry" or
more precisely, "Liberty Parent of Science & Indus." Our Founding
Fathers, as many people do today, recognized well that religion has an
inimical history of opposing science, opposing the knowledge of
reality that science has brought forth and the insights into human
character and the workings of the world. This is not to say that all
religious people though history have supporting the executions of
"heretics" whose discoveries about nature and the universe have
contradicted the teachings of religious leaders.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:42:53 -0500, "PC"
wrote:


"Anka" wrote in message
oups.com...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

No state religion was established. So what's your beef?


My beef is with the cuckoos who somehow think if this was removed that it
will herald the end of mankind as we know it. Or some such nonsense.

Anka ----- weary of those who don't *get* it


Indeed.



They are the same people who think marriage means something only if
you can exclude certain groups from partaking in it!


Reclining Buddha

The Original Couch Potato!

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
Theodore Roosevelt had an interesting take on IGWT. He was a believer
but believed that the name of god, or God, shouldn't be on things used
in places like brothels and saloons, along with shops and banks. That
perspective doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Many believers want to
convert others into believing as they do, want to eradicate "evil," so
why not put God's name in "evil" places to help these people see the
good? I don't believe this myself, just find Roosevelt's position as a
believer difficult to reconcile.


And then there were the people of which Grigory Rasputin was one, that
believed the body was only cleansed of sin by performing said sin.

I just don't believe that dieties belong on money period, that includes
these stupid presidents too. Frankly it all comes down to cult of
personality worship.

I still rest my case, there should be one motto on money "In Gold We Trust"!

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
It's interesting that among the first U.S. coins, the sentiment
exactly opposite of "In God We Trust" was included as a motto. The
1792 half disme includes, "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry" or
more precisely, "Liberty Parent of Science & Indus." Our Founding
Fathers, as many people do today, recognized well that religion has an
inimical history of opposing science, opposing the knowledge of
reality that science has brought forth and the insights into human
character and the workings of the world. This is not to say that all
religious people though history have supporting the executions of
"heretics" whose discoveries about nature and the universe have
contradicted the teachings of religious leaders.

--

Religion has a unique position in that it by itself is the root cause of
more human suffering and conflict than any other factor in human existence,
much more so than hunger, war, disease etc. Think about what the cause of
more conflict and persecution of others is, more often than not it is
religion. Microcosm of it all is Iraq, where you have different type of
Muslims slaughtering each other for Allah.

Then Northern Ireland, where Christians slaughter each other, until
recently, but probably again soon in the name of you guessed it - religion.

If religion were strictly a personal matter and a practice for the self
instead of having to be heaped on everybody around one, then the world would
be a better place.

"Sibirskmoneta" wrote in message
...

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
It's interesting that among the first U.S. coins, the sentiment
exactly opposite of "In God We Trust" was included as a motto. The
1792 half disme includes, "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry" or
more precisely, "Liberty Parent of Science & Indus." Our Founding
Fathers, as many people do today, recognized well that religion has an
inimical history of opposing science, opposing the knowledge of
reality that science has brought forth and the insights into human
character and the workings of the world. This is not to say that all
religious people though history have supporting the executions of
"heretics" whose discoveries about nature and the universe have
contradicted the teachings of religious leaders.

--

Religion has a unique position in that it by itself is the root cause of
more human suffering and conflict than any other factor in human
existence, much more so than hunger, war, disease etc. Think about what
the cause of more conflict and persecution of others is, more often than
not it is religion. Microcosm of it all is Iraq, where you have different
type of Muslims slaughtering each other for Allah.

Then Northern Ireland, where Christians slaughter each other, until
recently, but probably again soon in the name of you guessed it -
religion.

If religion were strictly a personal matter and a practice for the self
instead of having to be heaped on everybody around one, then the world
would be a better place.


Every day I thank God that I'm an atheist. Billy

On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:13:01 -0400, "Sibirskmoneta"
wrote:

Religion has a unique position in that it by itself is the root cause of
more human suffering and conflict than any other factor in human existence,

This is harsh. But I agree with it. Religion has done much good. But
it has done far more evil, caused far more suffering and death, than
any other institution ever invented by humankind. It's not religion in
itself that does this. It's how it's used by people, or abused.

Much has to do with dogmatism (fixed ideas not easily amendable to
change), irrationality (faith despite evidence), and intolerance
(distrust or hatred toward those who don't believe as you do) that
religion inspires. All these qualities in people can exist independent
of religion. But because of religion's nature, its basis on a power
not perceptible to the senses, these qualities coalesce more around
religion than any other human institution.

It's not "Money is the source of all evil." It's not "Religion is the
source of all evil." It's "Religion is the source of much evil."

On the other hand, there many good religious people out there, people
whose lives are based on doing good, just as there are beneficent ways
of interpreting deity.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
It's not "Money is the source of all evil." It's not "Religion is the
source of all evil." It's "Religion is the source of much evil."

On the other hand, there many good religious people out there, people
whose lives are based on doing good, just as there are beneficent ways
of interpreting deity.



I agree that religion has done good, but it is overlooked because of the bad
that people have used religion as a basis for performing whatever they may
to inflict misery that religion has done more for human degradation than any
other factor.

And in reference to Note.boy's response, I thank god that I have become a
non-believer in any religion also. It reflects no non-tolerance of others
beliefs, only that they should tolerate my right not to believe. In other
words don't come knocking on my door with the BofM or salvation for my soul.

And please take god off the money.

"Anka" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 18, 7:23?am, Bill Dunkenfield
wrote:
1908 : Congress mandates use of "In God We Trust"

In a move that seemingly flew in the face of America's founding belief
in the separation of church and state, Congress passed legislation on
this day in 1908 that made the maxim "In God We Trust" an obligatory
element of certain coins. The motto dates back to the early 1860s, when
the Civil War stirred religious feelings throughout the nation.
America's heightened piety manifested itself in many places, including
the treasury department, which received countless letters requesting
that the nation's coins pay some form of tribute to God. Concerned
citizens and religious leaders found a fast friend in Treasury Secretary
Salmon P. Chase, who readily agreed that the "trust of our people in God
should be declared on our national coins." James Pollock, director of
the U.S. Mint at Philadelphia, was charged with devising a suitable
motto. After some key revisions from Chase, Pollock decided upon the
now-familiar "In God We Trust."

http://www.history.com/tdih.do?actio...tegory&id=5869

JAM


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

No state religion was established. So what's your beef?

As an atheist, I find it offensive. If I believed in a pantheistic
religion, I would probably find it silly and possibly offensive. If I
believed in a monotheistic religion I would probably find it petty, probably
blasphemous, and possibly offsensive. Any way I look at it, it presupposes
a viewpoint which whether you agree with it or not does not need to be
expressed on the coinage of a nation which values liberty.

Moreover, while one could argue in great detail about what the founding
fathers meant, I find the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion" to be more sweeping than simply prohibiting
the establishment by congress of a state religion.



IF