emeraldctyangel
New Member
Then youve got bigger troubles than worrying what is stamped on coins.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"In God We Trust" a violation of "church-state separation"?
- Thread starter fromtheright
- Start date
Although I don't generally think of it, whenever I do, "In God We Trust" tends to offend me because I see it as an insincere hijacking of God. I personally think it should be removed on these grounds.
Constitutionally, I consider it to be on shaky ground. I think the basic argument is that religion is endorsed through the phrase on the currency, and I don't see how that can be disputed legitimately. One can argue that no particular religion is endorsed, but the fact that religion itself is officially endorsed on the currency causes problems.
I'm a strange one, I guess. I prefer to keep government as far away from religion as possible.
Constitutionally, I consider it to be on shaky ground. I think the basic argument is that religion is endorsed through the phrase on the currency, and I don't see how that can be disputed legitimately. One can argue that no particular religion is endorsed, but the fact that religion itself is officially endorsed on the currency causes problems.
I'm a strange one, I guess. I prefer to keep government as far away from religion as possible.
emeraldctyangel
New Member
Maybe we should trade with rocks and shells then.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Stefan,
I'm not sure why it's on shaky ground. By endorsing religion in general? How is that an establishment of religion? As I mentioned before, that stamping carries no coercion with it, i.e., no one is forced to hold to that belief in order to use that currency. To argue that they have no choice but to use that currency is ridiculous. As I said, I'll bet they don't have any complaints when someone hands them cash or currency.
I'm not sure why it's on shaky ground. By endorsing religion in general? How is that an establishment of religion? As I mentioned before, that stamping carries no coercion with it, i.e., no one is forced to hold to that belief in order to use that currency. To argue that they have no choice but to use that currency is ridiculous. As I said, I'll bet they don't have any complaints when someone hands them cash or currency.
Think perhaps the Christians of the Roman Empire refused to use the money that had the image of Caesar; since some of them (Caesar) were regarded as gods ?
Doubt it, they (Christians ) just spent the money like any ole normal Roman would; no religious coersion involved!
If libs would agree to revoke all of the unconstitutional stuff they have gotten passed or are trying to pass, ie. Great Society programs, gov't funding of abortion, violation of property and conscience rights through anti-discrimination laws, direct taxation, public schools, etc... I would gladly acquiesce on this issue.
Indeed. The establishment clause if Amendment I is clear and concise. Though some argue that "separation of church and state" is liberal, it is actually a liberal view to deny and ignore the Amendment I establishment clause. </font>[/QUOTE]The establishment clause's purpose is to prevent government control of religion or forced funding/submission to a particular sect and to preserve freedom of conscience. It was not designed to prevent men of strong religious conviction from asserting those values in the political arena.
Of course that was all in a time when education, charity, and establishment of social values were viewed as the territory of the church and family... and none of government's business.
Both the welfare state and public schools are violations of the establishment clause by the paradigm of the Founders.
No In God we Trust is not unconstitional. It never has been nor will it ever will be. For the record, there is no scuch thing as Separation Of Church and State. That is a myth from the pits of Hell. Separation of Church and State was in a Letter that Thomas Jeffersson had in 1802. Go to www.google.com and type in Separation oF Church and State. There are some interesting articles as well as the truth there.
Faithgirl
I have an objection, and I would have an objection in any case. I rather ask "Why would any Christian want such a motto on money?"
What is the purpose? Does God care about such things? Does it make us more god-fearing?
Religiosity and hypocrisy are my two favorite reasons for having such a motto on money.
Unfortunately, the "interesting articles" tend not to be the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]I was only talking about the interesting, Godly aritcles.
Faithgirl46
Brother Ian
Active Member
It's not unconstitutional.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
OK just change it to Allah instead of God, it means the same thing, right? Or we could randomly print "God" or "Allah" on alternate bills . . . . then we'll be really politically correct.
(Thats a spoof. really, just leave it alone folks!)
(Thats a spoof. really, just leave it alone folks!)
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Paul, interesting point, but I'll leave it alone as you wish.
faithgirl, I recommend two excellent books recently published: Separation of Church and State by Philip Hamburger, in which he looks at the history of the phrase and Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State by Daniel Dreisbach, which is a study both of the Danbury letter to which Jefferson was responding in using his phrase, and, of course, Jefferson's letter.
faithgirl, I recommend two excellent books recently published: Separation of Church and State by Philip Hamburger, in which he looks at the history of the phrase and Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State by Daniel Dreisbach, which is a study both of the Danbury letter to which Jefferson was responding in using his phrase, and, of course, Jefferson's letter.
Thank you.
Faithgirl46