Is having "In God We Trust" on money, buildings, etc. constitutional?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:36:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Is having "In God We Trust" on money, buildings, etc. constitutional?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: See above
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 84

Author Topic: Is having "In God We Trust" on money, buildings, etc. constitutional?  (Read 24493 times)
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2009, 11:32:21 AM »


Something of a paradox, isn't it?  The motto first appears on the two-cent coin in 1863 as a means to curry support behind the Union's failing effort to maintain itself.  Had the Union collapsed, then the constitution underwriting it would become irrelevant.  So in a sense, originally, it would have been rather like saying, "I like the US Constitution, but support actions that may lead to its failure."  Or kinda like pointing out, as StatesRights often and rightly does, that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and such was unconstitutional and tyrannical.  Yet without the tyranny, the union may well have decayed, then the question of what is and isn't constitutional becomes irrelevant. 

To more relevant points:  Note that Article I Section 8 delineates the Power of Congress, and reads, in part, that congress has the authority "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

So you can reasonably assume that the framers wanted the congress to be in control of the printing of the money, deciding what denominations would be available, etc.  You could perhaps even argue that they intended for the congress to oversee the design of the money.  And the designs they settled on have various mottoes including "Liberty" and "In God we Trust."  Thus it seems expressly constitutional.

That said, I never liked it on the money.  For various reasons.  Some will view "god" as a particular god, favored by congress, and may feel alienated by its inclusion.  As an immigrant nation we should avoid alienating new arrivals.  Some observant, monotheistic types may find it profane and offensive to call upon the god to bless the money.  It also seems a bit dated in this day and age of reason and enlightenment, to encourage at taxpayer expense the intervention, or invention, of gods.  At any rate, if you really believe in fiat money, then why would need any god's blessing on the money?  But whether or not I like the motto, I'd have to say that since it doesn't actually prohibit religious freedom, nor establish a state religion, it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.  Combine that with the specific authority of congress to make money, then you have a hard time eradicating it based on some notion of its dubious constitutionality.  So I voted Yes(I/O).

Bear in mind that simply taking a pen and crossing out the offending motto on your bill does not render it "unfit to be reissued," so there's no violation of United States Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 17 if you want to ease your conscience by obliterating the motto.  Similarly, writing "Allahu Akbar" or "I'm saved, how 'bout you?" or "Om Mani Padme Hum" on a bill doesn't violate the law either.  Just have fun with it.  After all, the government is considering much more wasteful projects at the moment than using more ink than is necessary on bills, so the umbrage might be better channeled elsewhere.  Just a thought.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2009, 01:33:20 PM »

To more relevant points:  Note that Article I Section 8 delineates the Power of Congress, and reads, in part, that congress has the authority "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

So you can reasonably assume that the framers wanted the congress to be in control of the printing of the money, deciding what denominations would be available, etc.  You could perhaps even argue that they intended for the congress to oversee the design of the money. 
Yes. That is what it means.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2009, 10:02:45 PM »

Probably not, but I honestly don't feel that passionate about that particular issue. I think the "God" referenced is quite clearly meant to be the Christian one - it's not like there has ever been a time in the US where Christians weren't the supermajority. Though again, there are more important issues to worry about.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2009, 10:48:28 AM »

Probably not, but I honestly don't feel that passionate about that particular issue. I think the "God" referenced is quite clearly meant to be the Christian one - it's not like there has ever been a time in the US where Christians weren't the supermajority. Though again, there are more important issues to worry about.

archconservative Wall Street Journal editorial columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz, in response to this very question, said, "It probably crosses the line, but who cares?  Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's important." 

(emphasizing with important in Brooklynspeak.  Impoah Tent.) 

Then she goes on to discuss how best to bomb all enemies into submission, and about how George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't get distracted by all the negative press coverage.

I don't know why that sticks out in my memory.  It was on one of those Fox News Channel editorial report shows, with Paul Gigot.  They were discussing some constitutional issues and the motto on the money came up.  So I think she shares your view.  I'm not sure that I agree that it's illegal, but anyway your post reminded me of her analysis.
Logged
Luis Gonzalez
Rookie
**
Posts: 98
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2009, 09:54:45 AM »

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

No religion is being established and no one is stopped from exercising their religion. It's constitutional.
It's still a claim that a God exists....whatever God that might be. I think the establishment of any such being violates that clause.
But it doesn't say what specific God, so it's not preferencing one religion over the other. It's kind of a generic thing. But then again, I'm no constitutional scholar.

It's a preference of religion over non-religion.  And not all religions believe in one supreme being.  On top of that, the intent was clear to preference Christianity.  It's unconstitutional.

The First Amendment addresses the issue of religion, not of non-religion, specifically it addresses the issue of the establishment of a national religion, or of a law establishing preference of one religion over another religion.

I disagree that a preference to Christianity is clear in the phrase, I can't think of one religion that doesn't have a central god figure.

The question of finding the phrase unconstitutional via the argument that it appears to denote a preference of religion over non-religion, is interesting. However, to have the phrase removed from the money would then show a definite preference of non-religion over religion, in order to appease a segment of the population to whom the phrase is meaningless, and may simply find it offensive.

There is no constitutional protection from being offended by the idea that other people practice religion.

No...it is not unconstitutional since it doesn't establish a religion, it doesn't denote preference for one religion over another, and since a lack of religion is not a religion (now, there's a real debate...is atheism a religion?), it does not cross that border either.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2009, 02:00:29 PM »

For those appalled by it being on money, please give me all your money so I can rid  you of your pain and anguish.  Wink
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2009, 05:16:50 PM »

Luis Gonzalez and the old man are right.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 21, 2009, 11:16:45 AM »

Not this again... it's pissed off, in your face atheist time.

The original intent of the First Amendment was to ensure that there would be no arrangement in the United States similar to that of the Church of England.  It was not intended to entirely remove religion from the public sphere.

The mention of a God on money is not an implicit statement of belief in any one faith or another.  It could be referring to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American beliefs, Hinduism, or what have you.

Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt opposed having it there, but for completely different reasons.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2009, 09:55:24 PM »

The mention of a God on money is not an implicit statement of belief in any one faith or another.  It could be referring to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American beliefs, Hinduism, or what have you.

It could, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's intended to be any one other than the Christian one, shall we?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 06, 2009, 12:15:11 AM »

I disagree that a preference to Christianity is clear in the phrase, I can't think of one religion that doesn't have a central god figure.

Buddhism.
Logged
Secular humanist
Newbie
*
Posts: 5
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2009, 11:17:32 AM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

My personal oppinion ofcourse is that the text should be removed without hesitation. Religion has no place in politics as modern society consists of hundreds of religions. If one is prioritized and placed above, it is discriminatory towards others. No matter what or who your god is, I am sure he/she/it would wish all humans happy regardless their religion. If not, I'd seriously consider what kind of god I were worshipping.

On a broader view I'd like to point out that the political question of religion holds more important topics than what is scribbled on american currency.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2009, 02:27:45 PM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2009, 04:40:41 PM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.

Don't you just love it when two freedom haters come together?
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2009, 10:01:12 PM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.

Don't you just love it when two freedom haters come together?

I believe in a coherent, over-arching belief system. You believe in a piece of paper.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 14, 2009, 01:19:38 AM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.

Don't you just love it when two freedom haters come together?

I believe in a coherent, over-arching belief system. You believe in a piece of paper.

Your political beliefs are the equivalent of having Scientology as a religion.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 14, 2009, 06:24:53 AM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.
It's a separate question. Several separate questions, actually.

The thread's question: Is having such a stupid sentence on money, buildings, etc. constitutional? Probably. Though an  argument to the contrary can be made.
Your question: Is it wise? Clearly not.
My question: Is it particularly relevant - could I get my panties into a twist over the issue if I were an American? Clearly not.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2009, 02:30:49 PM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.

Don't you just love it when two freedom haters come together?

I believe in a coherent, over-arching belief system. You believe in a piece of paper.

You believe in a paternalistic socialist state, much along the lines of a tyranny of the minority.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 16, 2009, 09:47:23 AM »

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.

Don't you just love it when two freedom haters come together?

I believe in a coherent, over-arching belief system. You believe in a piece of paper.

You believe in a paternalistic socialist state, much along the lines of a tyranny of the minority.

Then you must believe in a tyranny of the minority.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 16, 2009, 02:37:02 PM »

given your enthusiastic support for banning clove cigarettes, and numerous other anti-freedom actions, I don't think you're in a position to criticise me.
Logged
auburntiger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,233
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.61, S: 0.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: October 16, 2009, 04:39:52 PM »


Could you at least attempt to present an argument?

Or is something constitutional just because you agree with it?

I'm agnostic. I've been to a sermon a grand total of once in my life. I said yes. Let me offer up my reasoning.

The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By printing "In God we trust" on the dollar, they are not prohibiting one from exercising their religion, nor are they legally favoring a religion or  creating a state religion. Clearly, "In God we trust", while yes Christian in nature, is not endorsing a specific religious establishment. Legally, "In God we trust" has no affect on any religion or the exercise of religion. Just because you mention a specific religion, does not mean you violate the first amendment. Otherwise, whenever the government printed anything referring to religion, they would have to make sure they would cover every religion, or none at all.

^^^, minus the agnostic part Smiley
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: October 16, 2009, 08:18:48 PM »

As an athiest, I would say it's never really been offensive to me, given the overwhelming religious population in this country.

However, you're all missing what's right in front of your face. When they put "In God We Trust" on the money, that's what they meant by "god" Tongue.

Really, I don't trust in any god. That's just something of a supremely foolish idea to me. But, I think we should be able to get along with each other within reason. Leave it on the money, keep it out of school.

Sounds good to me.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2009, 12:55:19 AM »

given your enthusiastic support for banning clove cigarettes, and numerous other anti-freedom actions, I don't think you're in a position to criticise me.

Er... I don't support banning clove cigarettes? And as you're someone who would allow the destitute to starve in the streets, you're in no position to criticize me yourself.

Also, if you hold the "freedom to smoke clove cigarettes" as some sacrosanct liberty, then there's something very wrong with you.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2009, 12:00:28 PM »

No - it's an government endorsement of religion over non-religion.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: December 22, 2009, 06:29:38 PM »

No. (Normal)
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: December 22, 2009, 06:41:27 PM »

Nope. It's also hilarious. You might as well have 'In The Flying Pink Unicorn We Trust' on your money.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 13 queries.