what about on money..
it says..
in god we trust..
so..?
(thoughts/comments plz)
2006-11-01 15:11:08 · 14 answers · asked by uhohspaghettiohohs 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
oh and ...
im not dislikeing it..
just wondering.
2006-11-01 15:18:13 · update #1
And the declaration of Independence..."One nation, under God". I want them out. Gone. We are not a religious state. Unless God is going to become an open factor in how we decide our *secular* laws, then He shouldn't be on our money. And I ain't no stinkin atheist even. (<--that's sarcasm).
Whenever someone suggests we do something aboutt it, we get our buts bitten off as being "nitpicky" and "there are soo many more important things to do."
Yeah, there are a lot more important things to do. But our money is kinda sort a reflection on who we are as an *entire nation*. I am deeply religious, but you know what? I don't want God on my money perhaps even more than some atheists don't. I truly think that the United States of America should try to seperate itself from *any* religion as *much as humanely possible*. Morals and ethics are perfectly accessable without quoting from the Bible. (I'd say nor the Qur'an nor Torah, but we haven't seem to have had a problem with those in our government, now have we?)
It woldn't be that hard to phase out coins and bills with "In God we trust" on them gradually, even if it has to take over decades. But you know what? We still have mostly white protestant middle-aged uppercclass men ruling one of the most diverse nations in the world. Even India (remember when everyone got their panties all tied up because they "killed little girls alive!!!?) has elected a female leader. As have *many* other Asian and South American countries.
Where is our chick prez? What we practice is very different from what we preach. I don't understand why our government so poorly reflects its people, but I do know that until then, the US cannot and is not a satisfactory example of democracy.
2006-11-01 15:19:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The separation of church and state is not about taking the name of God off of things. It is about preventing the STATE or government from endorsing a state or government religion similar to England. In England you had to be a member of the state religion....you had no choice, period. The colonists wanted to get away from that and have full freedom to choose individually what religion they would be a part.
They had to put in a provision in the Constitution which would stop the possibility of a government endorsed or supported religion as THE religion of the USA.
2006-11-01 15:41:14 · answer #2 · answered by DA R 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The way the framers meant it, it's another way of saying, "We're pretty optimistic" or "We think things will turn out okay."
If you're having trouble with this, it may help to do some research about who the actual Founding Fathers were. You will quickly discover that their religious views were extremely liberal, verging on radical.
What they meant by "Trust in God" has so little to do with what Evangelicals today mean that it may as well be a different language.
2006-11-01 15:16:58 · answer #3 · answered by abram.kelly 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Centuries ago, the US knew only one church found by Jesus Christ. Now, she realizes that, besides the Christan church, there are also other respectful churches, so she may need some time to make sure that which one among them is truly reflecting the wisdom of the One True God.
It is good still, as long as the State maintains the high ideal of trusting God.
2006-11-01 15:25:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think the separation of church and state only happens when it is convenient for whatever "group" is complaining at the time.... they say don't pray in school, but you still can't buy beer on Sunday in SC.... there's no separation there..... not in my opinion... only when someone complains enoulgh to make someone else not want to hear it anymore....so they just give in!
2006-11-01 15:18:01 · answer #5 · answered by crankyissues 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The separation was not designed to protect government against religion but just the opposite. Thomas Jefferson wrote this in the amendment to protect the freedom of religion so that a government can not step in to tell them how they can worship. It also protected the church from being taxed on their offerings
People have misinterpreted this amendment to say that no religious belief can be publicized and to keep it to yourself...wrong
2006-11-01 15:26:29 · answer #6 · answered by ckrug 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First Amendment "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion"
Treaty of Tripoli "This is not IN ANY WAY a Christian Nation".
I think it should come off the money and out of the pledge, since it's definitely giving a lot of Americans the wrong impression about our countrie's laws - our president included.
2006-11-01 15:14:22 · answer #7 · answered by eri 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately separation of Church and State is meant to exist, but doesn't.
2006-11-01 15:15:45 · answer #8 · answered by Aussie Chick 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
personally I dont see the big deal
the Constitution guarantees that congress shall not make any law for or against any religion.
to have religious things in our Government is not the same as long as they do not endorse any particular religion.
2006-11-01 15:18:13 · answer #9 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Separation of church and state is a law made by the Supreme Court, not a legislative (legally made) law. The founders of the country in the Constitution did not recognize a separation. Legally, it does not exist.
2006-11-01 15:14:48 · answer #10 · answered by mesquiteskeetr 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋