Does God Still Belong On Our Money?

LATimes ^ | November 27, 2011

[Steelfish]

Does God Still Belong On Our Money?

In his Friday Op-Ed, Michael Shermer highlighted his displeasure at the House’s recent 396-9 vote to continue printing "In God We Trust" on public buildings and U.S. currency. The law was originally passed in 1956, as a Cold War morale boost. But Shermer argues the motto no long serves the public and is even problematic:

What is troubling -- and should trouble any enlightened citizen of a modern nation such as ours -- is the implication that in this age of science and technology, computers and cyberspace, and liberal democracies securing rights and freedoms for oppressed peoples all over the globe, that anyone could still hold to the belief that religion has a monopoly on morality and that the foundation of trust is based on engraving four words on brick and paper.

Instead, Shermer contends that our freedom is unrelated to God, suggesting our faith be put in the following ideas:

The rule of law; property rights; a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system; economic stability; a reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country; freedom of the press; freedom of association; education for the masses; protection of civil liberties; a clean and safe environment; a robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states; a potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by people within the state; a viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws; and an effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.

Commenters tackled all sides of the issue, but here is a selection from our discussion board:

"In God We Trust" is just a nod to history

[Jeff Head]

Michael, :In God we Trust," is not a nod to history, it is a nod to God.

Our founders, who were enlightened men...mopre so dare I say than you, Michael, expressed it like this:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

I am willing to fight and die to keep it that way, Micahel...rather than subordinate those rights to fallable men who inbvariably turn to dictatorial power when unconstrained.

That is precicels why we will continue to trust God.

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY

[hosepipe]

Whats wrong with a nod to a generic God...
Designer Gods are quite in right now....
Roll your own God and smoke “it” or not...

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

And this be our motto, “IN GOD IS OUR TRUST”...

From the National Anthem by Francis Scott Key.

That says it all.

[eyedigress]

We trust God to protect and keep us from Satan’s Earth. This writer has no clue.

[theBuckwheat]

Does God still belong on our money?

“In Deuteronomy chapter 25 and verses 13 to 15 God instructed Israel to keep honest weights and measures. When government inflates the value of money by deliberate policy, this destroys the level of wealth being paid in long term contracts and loans. It is the same as having dishonest weights and measures.”

“In Luke 14:28, Jesus asked: For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he may have enough to finish it; (MKJV)

Even when you can count the cost of a big project down to the penny, if the value of the penny changes over the life of the project, you cannot count the cost in terms of wealth. Worse, you cannot reliably anticipate if that new business or factory or apartment building will create more wealth than it consumes in the years following its completion. This is how uncertainty and risk are introduced into private economic calculation by government manipulation of the value of money or as a result of its efforts to directly influence prices.

If erroneous price signals fool someone into approving a project that diminishes their wealth, they may eventually have no wealth at all. It was on this basis that the economist Ludwig von Mises showed in his article, “Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth” that an economy having significant levels of government intrusion could not function in a sustainable manner. “

“The Federal Reserve has swapped hundreds of billions of dollars worth of low quality bank debt and created prime quality financial instruments for banks to hold as reserves. Bloomberg News reported on August 11, 2011 that in 2008, the Federal Reserve created a total of $1.2 trillion to lend to banks in addition to other government bailouts.”

From:
The World’s Financial Turmoil: What Are the Root Causes?
http://www.ucg.org/news-and-prophecy/worlds-financial-turmoil-what-are-root-causes/

“Inflation and credit expansion, the preferred methods of present day government openhandedness, do not add anything to the amount of resources available. They make some people more prosperous, but only to the extent that they make others poorer.” Ludwig von Mises,

“You shall not steal.” — Exodus 20:15

” You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” — Exodus 20:17

It is my opinion that the scheme of fiat money, when coupled with a tax on incomes that include the increase in the money value of capital assets is the grandest scheme of theft of private wealth in all of human history. When coupled with a level of perpetual government debt that forces governments to devote a high percent of their tax revenues to debt service, it places the citizen in perpetual servitude to service that debt.

When coupled with a matrix of tax and information sharing treaties, for the citizens of the US and now other countries, Earth has become a Prison Planet where even attempting to escape is a federal crime.

[theBuckwheat]

Does God still belong on our money?

“In Deuteronomy chapter 25 and verses 13 to 15 God instructed Israel to keep honest weights and measures. When government inflates the value of money by deliberate policy, this destroys the level of wealth being paid in long term contracts and loans. It is the same as having dishonest weights and measures.”

“In Luke 14:28, Jesus asked: For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he may have enough to finish it; (MKJV)

Even when you can count the cost of a big project down to the penny, if the value of the penny changes over the life of the project, you cannot count the cost in terms of wealth. Worse, you cannot reliably anticipate if that new business or factory or apartment building will create more wealth than it consumes in the years following its completion. This is how uncertainty and risk are introduced into private economic calculation by government manipulation of the value of money or as a result of its efforts to directly influence prices.

If erroneous price signals fool someone into approving a project that diminishes their wealth, they may eventually have no wealth at all. It was on this basis that the economist Ludwig von Mises showed in his article, “Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth” that an economy having significant levels of government intrusion could not function in a sustainable manner. “

“The Federal Reserve has swapped hundreds of billions of dollars worth of low quality bank debt and created prime quality financial instruments for banks to hold as reserves. Bloomberg News reported on August 11, 2011 that in 2008, the Federal Reserve created a total of $1.2 trillion to lend to banks in addition to other government bailouts.”

From:
The World’s Financial Turmoil: What Are the Root Causes?
http://www.ucg.org/news-and-prophecy/worlds-financial-turmoil-what-are-root-causes/

“Inflation and credit expansion, the preferred methods of present day government openhandedness, do not add anything to the amount of resources available. They make some people more prosperous, but only to the extent that they make others poorer.” Ludwig von Mises,

“You shall not steal.” — Exodus 20:15

” You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” — Exodus 20:17

It is my opinion that the scheme of fiat money, when coupled with a tax on incomes that include the increase in the money value of capital assets is the grandest scheme of theft of private wealth in all of human history. When coupled with a level of perpetual government debt that forces governments to devote a high percent of their tax revenues to debt service, it places the citizen in perpetual servitude to service that debt.

When coupled with a matrix of tax and information sharing treaties, for the citizens of the US and now other countries, Earth has become a Prison Planet where even attempting to escape is a federal crime.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Any reservations the founding fathers had about religion can be summarized in two ways:

1) Europe had long been tormented by religious fights and religious persecutions. This resulted in things like national churches and official religions, and to a great extent, the birth of modern atheism with people who cynically professed religious freedom, but hated religion, such as Voltaire.

2) Nations and royalty had long used the idea that they were “founded by God”, that their nobles were nobles because they were the elect of God, so their actions and laws could not be challenged, because they had been “dictated by heaven”. To oppose them meant to oppose God.

And some of the early colonists were more than happy to keep doing things this way, but the founding fathers did not want these European vices.

While not opposing religion in the slightest, they decided that it was best that government neither sponsor a *unique* religion or sect, *nor* oppress anyone because of their religious beliefs.

All this does is eliminate just two things. No government official, elected or appointed, can favor or disfavor one religion, and its followers, in their job.

As far as the second part went, they wanted everyone to know that they, as representatives of the people, wrote the constitution, not heaven. Just men, so just men can also change it, modify it, or do whatever they want with it, without offending God or heaven.

Thus, no person has any more holiness or elite status than any other person, and thus any greater legitimacy in being a representative, than any other. In its day, this was very radical stuff, and it made the European nobility very nervous, and with good cause.

Because though it took a while, these ideas spread all over the place, and in 1848, most of Europe was caught up in revolutions seeking to displace the nobility. It was a heck of a year.

So the bottom line, what should be the acid test, for how government treats religion in the US is actually pretty clear, though many have sought to muddy it.

But it goes deeper than that, and is ingrained in our culture. Though the dictionary doesn’t make the distinction, the typical American has a good grasp on what the founding fathers meant, when they distinguish between “ethics” and “morality”.

An ethical person, simply put, is one who obeys the written law. The law written by other men. Americans like to elect ethical people whenever they can, because just being ethical is good enough to be a representative, despite one’s other views.

But when a politician claims to be “moral”, it creates a dilemma for citizens. Because morality is based on following the laws of heaven, which in turn is based on how those laws are taught in different religions, and even different sects of the same religion. So there is no clear understanding of what a “moral” person actually is to the public as a whole.

If asked, they might *assume* what morality represents, but based on their own understanding of morality. But someone else’s morality? No idea. Bill Clinton would be the first to suggest that he is a moral person.

Therefore, it’s just safer, from the point of view of the typical person, to support who they think is the ethical person over the moral person, all else being equal, which it seldom is.

[Secret Agent Man]

You either put your faith in God or mankind.

I’ll stick with God, thanks.

[upchuck]

Not only does God belong on our money, even more importantly, He belongs in our hearts.

[Olog-hai]

---

You either put your faith in God or mankind.

I’ll stick with God, thanks.

---

Here’s the Biblical answer: “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17:5)

[loveliberty2]

". . . Shermer contends that our freedom is unrelated to God. . . ."

Shermer is free to hold fast to whatever idea or philosophy he chooses about the nature of liberty and its relationship the foundations of government. In America, however, the nation's founding documents are based on another idea, and it is that idea which brought about a revolutionary concept which has allowed for more liberty, opportunity, prosperity and plenty for individuals in a society than ever existed in the history of civilization.

The Unique Idea
of the
United States Constitution

"Our Constitution embodied a UNIQUE IDEA. Nothing like it had ever been done before. The power of the idea was in the recognition that people's rights are granted directly by the Creator - not by the state - and that the people, then, and only then, grant rights to government. The concept is so simple, yet so very fundamental and far-reaching.

CREATOR

People

Government

"America's founders embraced a previously unheard-of political philosophy which held that people are "...endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.." This was the statement of guiding principle for the new nation, and, as such, had to be translated into a concrete charter for government. The Constitution of The United States of America became that charter.

"Other forms of government, past and present, rely on the state as the grantor of human rights. America's founders, however, believed that a government made up of imperfect people exercising power over other people should possess limited powers. Through their Constitution, they wished to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and for posterity by limiting the powers of government. Through it, they delegated to government only those rights they wanted it to have, holding to themselves all powers not delegated by the Constitution. They even provided the means for controlling those powers they had granted to government.

"This was the unique American idea. Many problems we face today result from a departure from this basic con­cept. Gradually, other "ideas" have influenced legislation which has reversed the roles and given government greater and greater power over individuals. Early generations of Americans pledged their lives to the cause of in­dividual freedom and limited government and warned, over and over again, that eternal vigilance would be required to preserve that freedom for posterity."

---

Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman &; La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

[Nik Naym]

A better question would be “does our money still deserve to have God on it?”

[Jim Noble]

The law was originally passed in 1956, as a Cold War morale boost.

Some people will believe anything.

[Eureka_Lead]

“Our founders, who were enlightened men”

Well spoken, well spoken indeed

The times are upon us to be crushed by the Juggernaut of the government - no, the givernUS.

I came to this country to be rid of the socialist machine, and sadly, I have seen it, through “agencies” destroying this once proud nation.

I stand by you and have your back.’’

EL

[jessduntno]

Lawmakers voting against “In God We Trust” include:

Rep. Jerrold (“Jerrold the Hut”) Nadler (D-NY),
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

And, yes, a Republican, which will allow the Rats a chance to call this a “bi-partisan effort” to remove God from the United States;

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich)

Voting present (a la POtuS B. Hussein Obama) were:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC).

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/congress/2011/11/01/see-which-congressmen-voted-against-god-we-trust#ixzz1ewUsGcNL

[jessduntno]

Lawmakers voting against “In God We Trust” include:

Rep. Jerrold (“Jerrold the Hut”) Nadler (D-NY),
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

And, yes, a Republican, which will allow the Rats a chance to call this a “bi-partisan effort” to remove God from the United States;

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich)

Voting present (a la POtuS B. Hussein Obama) were:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC).

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/congress/2011/11/01/see-which-congressmen-voted-against-god-we-trust#ixzz1ewUsGcNL

[jessduntno]

Lawmakers voting against “In God We Trust” include:

Rep. Jerrold (“Jerrold the Hut”) Nadler (D-NY),
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

And, yes, a Republican, which will allow the Rats a chance to call this a “bi-partisan effort” to remove God from the United States;

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich)

Voting present (a la POtuS B. Hussein Obama) were:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC).

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/congress/2011/11/01/see-which-congressmen-voted-against-god-we-trust#ixzz1ewUsGcNL

[ElectronVolt]

Has anyone considered that we should take God off the money because it just might be blasphemy in putting His name on something which is being turned from gold into crap? This is alchemy in reverse.

[texmexis best]

The writers of this article are remarkably ignorant of American history. I suggest they do some reading which is beyond the junior high level.

Sheesh.