Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New U.S. dollar coins hide 'In God We Trust'
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Nov. 27, 2006 | Staff

Posted on 11/27/2006 11:02:39 AM PST by News Hunter

"In God We Trust," the official national motto since 1956 and a familiar sight on U.S. coins and currency, will be hard to find on the new presidential dollar coins scheduled for release to the public Feb. 15, 2007.

The new gold-colored dollar pieces, featuring images of U.S. presidents, will move the inscription from the face of the coin to the thin edge, along with the year and the previous national motto, "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "Out of Many, One."

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; dollar; god; ibleeive; ingodwetrust; worldnetdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-287 next last
To: DilJective
I've been serving for 23 years in the Army (as of this coming January) and have loved almost every minute of it. And, moreover, for entirely selfish reasons. I love this country. I love our way of life. I love that my family can enjoy the freedom this country offers. I love knowing that my son respects our flag and knows the sacrifices servicemen make to keep this country free and safe.

Reread your words, sir. Selfish is not a part of your character at all. Nothing of what you stated resulted in your personal betterment, but was for others instead.

I do prefer to have "in God we trust" on our money, but I find preserving the Constitution profoundly more important.

Where are these two mutually exclusive? The Constitution has been reinterpreted to mean something the secularists want it to mean, not what the founding father's gave us. Go back and reread the First Amendment and ask yourself what the intent of those words really are. While you're pondering that, also read the Federalist papers that deal with the First Amendment. Further, reread the Declaration of Independence. You are intelligent enough to determine on your own what the intent was.

221 posted on 11/27/2006 8:41:37 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier back in the "SandBox")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Washi
So, your religious beliefs should trump my religious beliefs? Isn't that unconstitutional?

No Atheism is the State Religion. Everything else is illegal on public property.

222 posted on 11/27/2006 8:42:23 PM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

Well I sure am glad to hear that. Loud and Clear!!


223 posted on 11/27/2006 9:05:34 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

We believe , you don't. So now what ? Well , in these cases we usually go by what the majority wishs


224 posted on 11/27/2006 9:12:02 PM PST by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
No, removing a silly motto off a coin in no way infringes on your First Amendment freedom of religion. However, making the motto "In God We Trust" may be a violation of the establishment clause.

So, tell me, what exactly is "the establishment clause" and how does it apply to minted coins?

225 posted on 11/27/2006 9:32:24 PM PST by Washi (Support the country you live in, or go live in the country you support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: News Hunter

Can't wait until Ted croaks so we can design his ugly mug into the surface of a coin made specifically for throwing into wishing wells.


226 posted on 11/27/2006 11:07:13 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: News Hunter

Can't wait until Ted [Kennedy] croaks so we can design his ugly mug into the surface of a coin made specifically for throwing into wishing wells.


227 posted on 11/27/2006 11:07:30 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeyGo

We are a constitutional republic and would you folks take the semantics arguments to someone who cares? It was a catch phrase used to express my statement that the majority of the country is Christian and should not be cowed by the MINORITY that are not and who are complaining about the motto, "In God We Trust."


228 posted on 11/28/2006 6:23:00 AM PST by unionblue83 (Duty is ours; consequences are God's. -- Stonewall Jackson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: jude24

The problem I have is that the government (mostly judiciary) is running roughshod over the Christians and letting the humanist/moral relativists force their agenda. It is freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. The Founders knew this as well.


229 posted on 11/28/2006 6:25:47 AM PST by unionblue83 (Duty is ours; consequences are God's. -- Stonewall Jackson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt; Salvation

Dude, get over yourself. It was a figure of speech and whether you liked it or not, the semantics argument grows tiresome. Our laws are based upon the Christian tradition, whether you like it or not. The references to Providence and "their Creator" are proof enough of the fact. Our most basic laws come from the traditions set forth in the Christian tradition about rights that cannot be taken away (inalienable), given by their Creator. The Founders were smart enough to allow freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. They chose not to, as you put it, to avoid the circumstance that was a root cause of why they fled England, the state-sponsored Anglican Church. The basis for some of the most basic laws (i.e. against murder, against theft, against adultery, etc.) come from the Ten Commandments. This is fact, not drivel. Feel free to respond but I am done with you.


230 posted on 11/28/2006 6:35:31 AM PST by unionblue83 (Duty is ours; consequences are God's. -- Stonewall Jackson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: unionblue83
the government (mostly judiciary) is running roughshod over the Christians

And just how is that? Are you not allowed to believe as you wish, and practice as you wish? The only restrictions the government places upon you is that, when they provide the forum or the site, you must be religiously neutral. That's fair.

It is freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.

Nice bumper sticker slogan, but this is utterly useless as a rule of law. Religious neutrality must allow non-religious people the same rights as Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Put this way: how many times have you seen people squawk when they see something perceived as endorsing Islam coming from the schools? This is the case because they find the tenets of Islam to be offensive. Some people see the same about Christianity - and the Constitution does not allow you to simply say "Well, this Country is majority-Christian, so too bad." No, it requires a secular government (no religious tests) and a religiously neutral government (no establishment of religion.)

231 posted on 11/28/2006 6:51:07 AM PST by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: unionblue83; ContemptofCourt
Dude, get over yourself. It was a figure of speech and whether you liked it or not, the semantics argument grows tiresome.

No, you were wrong, and someone versed in Constitutional Law called you on this. Deal with it.

232 posted on 11/28/2006 6:52:47 AM PST by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I've never claimed to be versed in Constitutional Law and won't do so now. I guess I am the only one in this long series of posts who expressed this opinion. It was simply a statement, made quickly, to express that the majority of the country is Christian; I'll use more explanatory language next time. I have no problem admitting that we are a constitutional republic and that the majority is kept in check by the system set up by the Founders to avoid tyranny; that much I already know. But I will not concede my statements that Christianity was a large foundation for the forming of this country, is interwoven into the very fabric of this nation, including the Founding documents and laws, and is still represented by a majority of the population.


233 posted on 11/28/2006 7:19:34 AM PST by unionblue83 (Duty is ours; consequences are God's. -- Stonewall Jackson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: unionblue83
The basis for some of the most basic laws (i.e. against murder, against theft, against adultery, etc.) come from the Ten Commandments. This is fact, not drivel.

Our common law derives from English law, which derives from Saxon and Roman law. Do you really think that murder was OK before the issuance of the Ten Commandments?

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 2-10-1814.

234 posted on 11/28/2006 7:32:04 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: unionblue83
But I will not concede my statements that Christianity was a large foundation for the forming of this country, is interwoven into the very fabric of this nation, including the Founding documents and laws

The Treaty with Tripoli (signed in Tripoli, Nov. 4, 1796; ratified by the US on June 10, 1797) unequivocally states that:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [i.e., Muslims],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [i.e., Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Tripoli Treaty, Article 11.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

235 posted on 11/28/2006 8:00:48 AM PST by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Do not worry you didn't burst anything. The Treaty with Tripoli -- impressive. However, I will still "keep the Faith" as it were. Later.


236 posted on 11/28/2006 8:29:05 AM PST by unionblue83 (Duty is ours; consequences are God's. -- Stonewall Jackson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Pretty simple really:

If you contribute to our society, that means you have a voice in it. (And often enough, you don't even have to contribute!) You get to vote, and even vote for politic-ans that speak for you, you know represent you. And your voice even sometimes gets to be heard or even acknowledged! And yes, this even includes Christians! This is why we get to have Christmas trees in public places when something like the birth of our saviour is important to us, and so forth.

When Montgomery county Maryland banned santa claus from lighting the town's Christmas tree a few years back, 23 santas showed up to light the tree. The mayor banned something because she didn't want to "offend" someone, not realizing banning santa for the 99% that weren't offended by santa, got really REALLY offended!!!!

This business of banning things is completely out of control! Banning prayer from school is kinda weird to me, as I'm convinced millions of prayers are said in school daily! Perhaps even hourly! I can remember praying over tests! I can even remember praying out loud! And I didn't even get arrested!

And because of the fact that I'm not alone (other Christians work and live here too, contributing to society etc.), those others that have a similar belief system collectively get to have their plural voices heard.

The fact that this is primarily a Christian nation when it comes to religious beliefs, ensures my rights to be free, and to worship and celebrate (or even simply acknowledge God on our coins) in public without fear and remorse in a tolerant setting. This is the spirit of the Constitution.

This is why we even get to have Christian (and unchristian) presidents, and other officials. There are (so far) no stipulations that a president or other officials that make laws, can or can not have any religious beliefs that affect our culture and society. Yes including laws like "allowing" (or not allowing) santa to light the town's tree or other governing particulars!

We don't live in a society where we have to do things secretively. People can even wear crucifixes around their necks here in public! And they can even wear pentagrams around their necks in many if not most public places too. It works both ways!

People that enjoy blaring certain rap music that glorifies gang violence and wholesale anger with foul language with no restraints at intersections, also freely practice what's important to them. While I don't like it, and it's immensely annoying, I can't "ban" it. I can roll up my windows, just like non-Christians can choose not to say "under God" in the pledge or choose not to read IGWT on our coins. Moreover, people don't really even have to USE our coins, they can nowdays even use a credit card at McDonald's!

There may be a day when Mickey Mouse is engraved on our coinage and God is wholly ignored. Perhaps that'll be what's most important to most people, and the elected officials will see fit to make that the priority on our coins.

And I'm free to pray almost every day that if that day ever comes, it'll be long after I'M gone.

Is there anything else you're confused or sorry about Junior?
237 posted on 11/28/2006 10:15:26 AM PST by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Here's a wonderful opportunity for educating yourself:

http://www.americanchristianhistory.com/


238 posted on 11/28/2006 10:23:46 AM PST by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Is there anything else you're confused or sorry about Junior?

Yeah. What you're describing is more of a privilege accorded to Christians in this country -- not a right (something you can exercise without impinging upon the rights of others). So much for "all men created equal."

BTW, I've contributed more to this country than many folks here. I was born into a Navy family (my father, grandfather, uncle and great uncle all served). My brother just retired from the Navy, and I will be following him in about a year (I've got 19 years in myself). If you want to make a case about "contributing to this country" I will call your ass out anytime, anywhere.

Remember, not just Christians, but every other religion under the sun (and lack thereof) "contribute" to this country.

239 posted on 11/28/2006 10:31:52 AM PST by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
I am familiar with the arguments, having grown up in a fundamentalist church and having been home-schooled myself. The Light and the Glory propaganda, however, is more than rebutted by the objective proof:

1. The Religious Test clause,

2. The First Amendment,

3. The absence of any reference to Deity in the Constitutional oath of office, and

4. The Tripoli treaty of 1796.

No amount of personal correspondence can overrule this official evidence.

240 posted on 11/28/2006 10:32:29 AM PST by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-287 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson