Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Our Godless Pledge and Currency

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 5 2005, 05:46 PM

To those Christians who complain about non-believers "taking God out of America," ....

A scanned copy of a page from a 1953 yearbook from my mom's high school -- Stetson Junior High (Philadelphia, PA):

user posted image

Interesting how we were not a nation "under God" until 150+ years after the founding of the republic. How about that "We are a Christian nation" claim?

And how about this copy of a $100 bill from 1950?

user posted image

Hey! What happened to "In God We Trust?"

Are you convinced that God is being taken out of America? Or might it be the case that God is being put back where "he" was before the 1950s? At any rate, why does an all-powerful God need the advocacy of a fallible, temporal government to be included (or not) from any nation on Earth?

Posted by: Ro-bear Jan 5 2005, 06:04 PM

Has anyone else noticed our country's appalling moral decline since God appeared on the money and in the pledge? It must show that the more godly a government tries to appear, the less moral society becomes.

By the way, I know that's a non-sequitur; I'm just pointing out the fallacies our fundy counterparts use. You know, how our society has gone downhill "since they took prayer out of school" and rot like that. They like to take credit for the good (civil rights) and assign blame for the bad (crime, immorality, etc.). They conveniently forget that the Roman Empire dominated the world as a pagan entity and collapsed after Christianity became mainstream. Selective history is alive and well.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 5 2005, 06:04 PM

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

Anyone know when "In God We Trust" first appeared on money?

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 5 2005, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 6 2005, 01:46 AM)

Hey! What happened to "In God We Trust?"

Maybe people who have 100.00 bills don't need G_d?

Isn't it a little silly to point to one instance (inclusion on an one hundred dollar bill) while ignoring references to G_d from founding fathers, in founding documents, carved in the doors of the Supreme Court (so I'm told) and woven into nearly every ediface, custom, and tradition in our land?

<boggle>

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 5 2005, 06:12 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 10:04 PM)

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

It was to make a contrast to the a-theistic Soviet state. Irontically, the Pledge itself was written by a Socialist! Anyway, the effect of the Red Scare continues to reviberate to this day. If only the damn fundies would get their facts straight.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 5 2005, 06:14 PM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 6 2005, 02:12 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 10:04 PM)

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

The pledge actually sounds like something a socialist would write if you think about it.

Well, I'm going to remove the socialist tripe and only say "under G_d" from now on as my pledge. If we can cut and paste the thing, I'm gonna cut out the socialist garbage.

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 06:19 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:04 PM)

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

So was putting evolution in the classroom, I believe.

Eh, you win one; you lose one.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 5 2005, 06:21 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 6 2005, 02:19 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:04 PM)

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

So was putting evolution in the classroom, I believe.

Eh, you win one; you lose one.

So did we beat the Soviets because of the pledge or because of evolution in the classroom?

*leaves the thread before it goes any further*

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 5 2005, 06:22 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 06:06 PM)

Isn't it a little silly to point to one instance (inclusion on an one hundred dollar bill) while ignoring references to G_d from founding fathers, in founding documents, carved in the doors of the Supreme Court (so I'm told) and woven into nearly every ediface, custom, and tradition in our land?

<boggle>

Declaration of Independence:

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them"

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Constitution: No mentions of "God" or "Creator."

Letter of Transmittal: No mentions.

Amendments to the Constitution: No mentions.

Which founding documents were you speaking of, exactly?

Supreme Court Building:

"Sixteen marble columns at the main west entrance support the portico and on the architrave above is incised, "Equal Justice Under the Law." Capping the entrance is the pediment filled with a sculpture group by Robert Aitken, representing Liberty Enthroned Guarded by Order and Authority. Cast in bronze, the west entrance doors sculpted by John Donnelly, Jr., depict historic scenes in the development of the law. The east entrance's architrave bears the legend, "Justice the Guardian of Liberty." "

from: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc78.htm

Check it out, this page even has a picture of the entrance doors:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/photos.html

Ok, so what else?

Ren

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:21 PM)

So did we beat the Soviets because of the pledge or because of evolution in the classroom?

Wait. Beat them? There was a war?

I know this is kind of off-topic, but any time the cold war comes up, I'm always reminded of Rob Liefeld's Fighting American comic character, who apparently was either injured in the cold war or lost his trusted sidekick in battle.
If you don't know who Rob Liefeld is, do a google search of "Rob Liefeld sucks".

Actually, didn't Reagan actually win over Gorbachev's trust after babbling about alien invasions or something? I think I saw that on the History Channel.

QUOTE

*leaves the thread before it goes any further*

Posted by: Mr. Neil Jan 5 2005, 06:31 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:29 PM)

Actually, didn't Reagan actually win over Gorbachev's trust after babbling about alien invasions or something? I think I saw that on the History Channel.

See? I have a bad problem with redundancy in my posts.

Posted by: Diogenes Jan 5 2005, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 6 2005, 02:22 AM)

Ok, so what else?

Maybe M_G means something like the Mayflower Compact:

QUOTE

In ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,
the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James
by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,
defender of ye faith, &c
Haueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente
of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to
plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe
by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and
one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a
ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=
therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,
constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,
Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie: vnto
which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes
wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=
Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne
Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth
and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·|

Of course, this was before spell check I believe.

Posted by: Casey Jan 5 2005, 07:11 PM

QUOTE

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

(Casey)

I always thought the full slogan read, "In God We Trust, everyone else pays cash!"
Casey

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 5 2005, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (Diogenes @ Jan 5 2005, 06:36 PM)

Maybe M_G means something like the Mayflower Compact:

Perhaps. LOL, what a choice those founding fathers had between competing religions, eh?

Of course, none of them resemble modern Christianity, but surely that's what they all meant.

Posted by: tete de merde Jan 5 2005, 08:36 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:21 PM)

So did we beat the Soviets because of the pledge or because of evolution in the classroom?

Actually, one can make a case for evolution.

In 1930-ish Soviet Union, Trofim Lysenko resurrected Lamarck's discredited theory about the inheritance of acquired characteristics and presented it to Stalin as Lysenko's own cutting-edge work. Stalin was more impressed with Lysenko's ability to motivate farmers, but giving Lysenko the national agriculture chair allowed him to implement his flawed theory.

Lysenko's breeding programs alone set Soviet agriculture back at least 10 years. On top of that, he was given political license to purge the national science bureaus of geneticists, exiling, imprisoning and even killing those who didn't swear fealty to Lysenkoism.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 6 2005, 04:58 AM

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 6 2005, 02:22 AM)

Ok, so what else?

Ren

Here ya go:

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 6 2005, 05:57 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 6 2005, 08:58 AM)

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

I've never been a big fan of "Quote" sites - religious or secular.

It becomes a tit-for-tat game, along the lines of "my expert is smarter than your's" ... or "the author of my book has more college degrees than your's" etc.

If possible, I read what people wrote if I want to get to know them. I'd rather not get to know them through the filter of a biography or some other venue (e.g. a website) where someone else is interpreting or analyzing the person under study.

Sure, it's a lot more work to read the writings of someone, since much of it can be quite boring if it's an older historical figure. However, it's usually worth the effort.

I'm not going to get to know Thomas Jefferson, an enigma, by "seeing" him through the eyes of a webmaster who believes America is a theocracy ... or a webmaster who sees Jefferson as an atheist. Only simpletons rely on a few soundbites/quotes to re-inforce prejudices they have acquired elsewhere (e.g. in church).

Posted by: Reach Jan 6 2005, 06:19 AM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 6 2005, 05:57 AM)

Sure, it's a lot more work to read the writings of someone, since much of it can be quite boring if it's an older historical figure. However, it's usually worth the effort.

Isn't that the truth?

Some years back, I remember plowing slowly through, Their Finest Hour, by Winston Churchill. It was one of the most tedious readings I ever put myself through. I almost laid the book down a dozen times. Yet, when I was finished with this lengthy selection, replete with his speeches, conversations and some of his mail, I felt like I really knew the man. Tough going but worth the effort.

Best to go straight to the horse's mouth.

Thanks for the thread, here, Aggie. I wonder if fundamentalists are predisposed to lying or if they justify their lies because of their fears over eternal rewards and punishment.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 6 2005, 06:29 AM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 6 2005, 01:57 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 6 2005, 08:58 AM)

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

I agree.

However, my post was in response to a request for such evidence.

Posted by: quicksand Jan 6 2005, 06:34 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 06:21 PM)

QUOTE (Mr. Neil @ Jan 6 2005, 02:19 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:04 PM)

I'm guessing the "In God We Trust" phrase was added as a response to the Soviet threat.

So was putting evolution in the classroom, I believe.

Eh, you win one; you lose one.

So did we beat the Soviets because of the pledge or because of evolution in the classroom?

*leaves the thread before it goes any further*

Neither, that's why Regan was sent by God to defeat Communism.

You see, communism was doing so successful because it is a sound economic theory.

Regan, the Father
Bush, the Son
Saddam, the Holy Ghost

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 6 2005, 09:03 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 6 2005, 04:58 AM)

QUOTE (MalaInSe @ Jan 6 2005, 02:22 AM)

Ok, so what else?

Ren

Here ya go:

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

The only thing I might call a "founding" document on that site is the Virginia Charter. Remember that Virginia and all of the early states were separate entities prior to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Why do you think, if this country's founders were so Christian, there are so few mentions in the actual Declaration of Independence or Constitution, the basis of all law in this country? Didn't they have to take great pains to leave the references to God out?

Do you think that it was because they saw the damage that a theocratic ruling body could do when one did not share that ruling body's religion?

Remember that the "persecution" everyone talks about is that the English government and law were religiously based, and other religions were left out in the cold politically.

Really a lot of colonists were here because they saw a business opportunity, Puritanism seeing wealth as a sign of God's approval. However, what a shame it would have been if those Puritan colonists established a theocratic government similar to England's.

There's a reason that the law is secular and it's clear, in my opinion, that the law was meant to be secular for the very reasons you cite-- that many of the founders had religious beliefs that they went to great pains to keep out of the founding documents.

Renee

PS: Once again, none of the religious groups active in the United States at that time likely resemble at all modern Christianity.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 6 2005, 09:22 AM

Renee:

I think the founders were very clear about G_d's role in what they were doing. They saw a faith in G_d as the very justification for what they were trying to accomplish -- it was the starting point of their rationale.

When they wrote the Declaration they cited G_d as the foundation and went on from there to build laws that logically worked up from that foundation. They likely didn't see the need of justifying each and every law by placing the name of G_d in it because the foundation was already explicitly stated and universally understood.

That being said, it is true that they were careful not to make faith mandatory or a particular denomination the offical state religion. They clearly would have wanted an atheist to not be threatened by living in this new country they were forming. However, that is something different then passing laws to exclude religion from the public square.

I'm NOT for the establishment of a theocracy.
I wouldn't support that.
I'm not for the government erasing religion from the public square either.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that being said the argument is kinda moot.
Whatever the intentions of the Founding Fathers it doesn't necessarily follow that we must do things that way today.

Posted by: MalaInSe Jan 6 2005, 09:27 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 6 2005, 09:22 AM)

When they wrote the Declaration they cited G_d as the foundation and went on from there to build laws that logically worked up from that foundation. They likely didn't see the need of justifying each and every law by placing the name of G_d in it because the foundation was already explicitly stated and universally understood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that being said the argument is kinda moot.
Whatever the intentions of the Founding Fathers it doesn't necessarily follow that we must do things that way today.

Actually, I don't think it was universally understood at all. Note that it's "Nature's God" and "Creator." Certainly not the "Christian God" or simply "God." It was pretty common to personify ideals, i.e., Lady Justice. I believe that the references were references strictly to God as creative force, either as viewed by the Deists, or as a personified ideal. Was it universally acceptable to the people of that time? Yes. Universally understood? Not really.

----

Absolutely true. It's something that drives me crazy about Justice Thomas. He likes to cite the intent of the founders, like it's always relevant.

Renee

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 6 2005, 09:38 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 6 2005, 11:22 AM)

I think you are right. That is why they decided that they could take the land from the heathen via terror, rape, genocide, lies, treachery, starvation, religious indoctrination, etc. Then they took the wealth of the land by slavery. Yep, sounds like ChristianGod to me. I'm convinced.

user posted image

And of course the heathen deserved their fate, because they dared to defend themselves.

Posted by: AggieNostic Feb 8 2005, 07:11 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 10:06 PM)

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 6 2005, 01:46 AM)

Hey! What happened to "In God We Trust?"

The point wasn't so much to make a "godless" claim as it was to inform people that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were NOT always part of our currency and Pledge respectively. In the circles I travel, very few people are aware of this and so they are vulnerable to the claim by the Religious Right that having this 1950s legislation reversed amounts to "taking God out of America." It is nothing of the kind. Instead, it is a restoration of our currency/pledge to what they were before ignorant, pandering politicians fucked with them.

Posted by: AggieNostic Feb 8 2005, 07:23 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 6 2005, 01:22 PM)

I think the founders were very clear about G_d's role in what they were doing. They saw a faith in G_d as the very justification for what they were trying to accomplish -- it was the starting point of their rationale. When they wrote the Declaration they cited G_d as the foundation and went on from there to build laws that logically worked up from that foundation.

People (on both sides) talk about the Founding Fathers as if they are a group of men who think the same way ... and that these men had solidified ideas in their youth and never changed their view of the world. Reality check: the Founding Fathers did not think alike. And, most of them evolved their worldviews as they grew older, just as we do today. They were brilliant individuals to be sure. But, they were still human beings.

People who fail to grasp this are fooled by the use of selective quotes that provide a mere window into ONE individual at ONE time in their life. It says nothing about what the rest of the "founders" thought or how this ONE individual had later views that conflicted with his earlier views.

Some "Founding Fathers" (FFs) were Christians to be sure, although I doubt very much in the mold of Jerry Falwell, who subscribes to a http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/fundam.htm. But, some of them were no doubt devout Christians. Did they remain so throughout their lives? Probably most of them did. But, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think some of them (e.g. Benjamin Franklin) moved away from orthodoxy as they aged.

Some of the FFs were also Deists, which should not be a shock to those who are familiar with the philosophies that emerged during the Enlightenment. The reference to "Nature's God" is a dead give-away to anyone familiar with deist thought. That it came from the pen of Thomas Jefferson should also not be surprising except perhaps to the few who form their worldview from a few quotes.

P.S. The only document that references a deity is the Declaration of Independence and it contains no binding laws. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039331524X.

Posted by: The Silent One Feb 8 2005, 10:54 AM

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

^ Read.

Posted by: AggieNostic Feb 8 2005, 02:10 PM

QUOTE (The Silent One @ Feb 8 2005, 02:54 PM)

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Straight from the horses mouth, eh?

Coins were defiled in the mid-1800s (after the Founding Fathers were dead).

Paper currency was defiled in the mid-1900s (after the Founding Fathers were dead).

Makes me wonder what will happen in the mid-2000s.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 8 2005, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Feb 8 2005, 10:10 PM)

QUOTE (The Silent One @ Feb 8 2005, 02:54 PM)

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Prolly start tattooing it on people's foreheads.

Posted by: SmallStone Feb 8 2005, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 09:06 PM)

Maybe people who have 100.00 bills don't need G_d?

No they don't. Nevertheless, the 1st amendment rights of every American were (and continue to be) violated.

For those unaware, there was once a time in the US when your currency was worth something and wasn't an I.O.U. from the federal reserve. Read these notes carefully.

<edit>
Actually, it is still an I.O.U., sorry. It could be exchanged for something with intrinsic value then and that isn't the case today.
</edit>

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 8 2005, 03:26 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 5 2005, 06:04 PM)

Anyone know when "In God We Trust" first appeared on money?

During the American Civil War.

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 8 2005, 03:31 PM

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Posted by: The Silent One Feb 8 2005, 04:43 PM

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Feb 8 2005, 03:31 PM)

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Look 5 posts up. =p

Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 9 2005, 07:01 AM

From the reading that I've done, it seems fairly clear that several of the founders were devout christians who wanted the US to be a "Christian nation". The opposing faction consisted of christians who favored a secular government and deists and maybe even an atheist or two.

There were heated arguments about just how much of the christian god to include in the Constitution. Luckily (at least from my point of view), the secular faction prevailed in most points, although by very slim margins sometimes.

***********

I think there are two important points that often are ignored in the debate over whether or not the US was intended to be a Christian nation.

1. Even if the intent of the founders HAD BEEN to form a christian nation that wouldn't make it right. The founders also enshrined slavery in our constitution and didn't allow women to participate in elections. Neither was right, and needed to be rectified by later generations.

2. Why do christians even want a wordly christian nation? According to the bible, Jesus told them time and again that they are not of this world. No where did he order them to form worldly governments that used his words or the NT or OT rules as law - to force non-believers to follow the religion founded on him. The very idea of a christian nation seems anti-christ.

Posted by: Reach Feb 9 2005, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Feb 9 2005, 07:01 AM)

2. Why do christians even want a wordly christian nation? According to the bible, Jesus told them time and again that they are not of this world. No where did he order them to form worldly governments that used his words or the NT or OT rules as law - to force non-believers to follow the religion founded on him. The very idea of a christian nation seems anti-christ.

That's exactly right. The very concept of "a worldly Christian nation," opposes the teachings of Jesus Christ who taught his followers to, "Come out from among the world; be separate and be clean" from the base nature, secular attachments and fleshly lusts of non-believers who were "dead" in their sins and trespasses.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 10 2005, 05:13 AM

I'm for removing it entirely.

Posted by: ChefRanden Feb 10 2005, 07:33 AM

I'm not comfortable with the way we look at the "founding fathers" as if they were demi-gods of some sort. Who really gives a shit what the "intention of the founding fathers" was? Whether or not they wanted a "Christian Nation" I don't.

While they had many good qualities they wanted to keep the profits from exploiting the land via the "white man's burden" instead of sending them to England. Ultimately that is what freedom meant to them, just as it is what freedom means to GWB and crew.

I think that Christians are right, because even at it's most secular points in history our government was informed by monotheistic-chosenpeopleism. Our laws of ownership, the most sacred laws we have, are based on this: If you can take it, it is yours to the exclusion of anyone else. It is no fluke that the overture of "How the West Was Won" was about the promise land. I think that this is why GWB and crew are able to get away with their war crime with barely a whimper from us. Mother Culture says, "take it! It is yours!" This is what informs our actual collective behavior, while Christian hymns bathe us in noble warm fuzzies.

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 10 2005, 09:35 AM

QUOTE (The Silent One @ Feb 8 2005, 04:43 PM)

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Feb 8 2005, 03:31 PM)

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Look 5 posts up. =p

Doh!

Posted by: whisper Feb 10 2005, 12:06 PM

QUOTE (Ro-bear @ Jan 5 2005, 06:04 PM)

Hmm...I wonder...would God be pleased or displeased of his 'image' [although not a pictorial image] being used on currency.

You know...that seems like a 'violation' of God to me...in a way.

I hadn't considered that angle before....I too think it should be removed.