"in God We Trust"

[NIJamesHughes]

As an Objectivist, I can not tolorate passing out slips of paper with this slogan on them. However, in the US every piece of currency states as much.

An easy way to solve the problem is to simply take a permenant black marker and mark out the words "In God We Trust." If you can't reconcile yout morality with this phrase, join the effort to mark it out and wait for the first time you get one back .

Over all, I don't see how this can go wrong, there can be no retaliation for it. They can print more money, but we can keep marking it out.

Think about how much money you handle each day.. and where it all goes.

[mawilson]

An easy way to solve the problem is to simply take a permenant black marker and mark out the words "In God We Trust."

The payoff for this use of one's time would be what?

Sounds like monetary masturbation to me.

[Charles T.]

The payoff for this use of one's time would be what?

The satisfaction of "rebelling" against something that is improper and unjust.

But I have to admit, I ceased this practice about a week ago, after having done it "religiously" for about four years. I must have scratched "In God We Trust" off of thousands of bills, since I run a cash-oriented business.

But I finally tired of it because, to be honest, nothing (apparent) came of it, except a few weird looks from bank-tellers. No interesting conversations, no provoked outbursts, nothing. I don't think anyone really cares that it's there, or even notices, for the most part. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Probably bad, since any time someone tries to get rid of it, suddenly people seem to care that it's there, and religion goes on permeating our society.

Although I wonder sometimes if, when one of those bills might have come into the hands of a young person, it might not be the first time in their life it occurs to them that the existence of God could be questioned. There has to be a first time, right?

I might start doing it again.

[danielshrugged]

It IS illegal.

[Oakes]

On June 29, 1955, Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) introduced Calendar No. 642, H.R. 619 "A bill to provide that all United States currency shall bear the inscription 'In God We Trust.'" The bill was passed that date without any serious debate.

http://www.atheists.org/public.square/coins.html

I think it might help to compare this to the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge, also (I believe) a cold war effort to portray God as on our side. My answer has been that it won't be a controversy once schools are privatized, because they can choose for themselves what pledge to teach their children. This doesn't quite work with the money controversy, though, unless it too is "privatized" in the sense that private companies create currencies for people to use. I don't suppose Ayn Rand ever included the treasury as a proper role for the government, did she?

[Betsy]

This doesn't quite work with the money controversy, though, unless it too is "privatized" in the sense that private companies create currencies for people to use. I don't suppose Ayn Rand ever included the treasury as a proper role for the government, did she?

She didn't. In Atlas Shrugged, money was issued by private banks like Midas Mulligan's.

[Charles T.]

It IS illegal.

Hence some of the satisfaction of "rebelling".

[stephen_speicher]

Although I wonder sometimes if, when one of those bills might have come into the hands of a young person, it might not be the first time in their life it occurs to them that the existence of God could be questioned.

But if the phrase "In God We Trust" is overwritten with a black permanent marker, how would the "young person" even know what was there?

[Charles T.]

I never used a black marker for that very reason. I always used a regular pen, and intentionally scratched out the phrase in a manner that left the underlying message visible.

[Oakes]

She didn't.  In Atlas Shrugged, money was issued by private banks like Midas Mulligan's.

Even so, I started thinking after I wrote that last post that it really doesn't work to say "I won't take a stance on this issue because it wouldn't even be the government's problem in the ideal world". But what else is there to do?

Think about liberals today who, in this big-government climate that they themselves made, seek the impossible task of actually trying to enforce the first ammendment's separation of church and state. The ACLU protested the "God Bless America" signs displayed in schools after September 11th. If you think we must enforce the first ammendment even in the big government of today, won't you have to do this and go even further?

"In God We Trust" is just one of the many battles raging across the country right now because of our inflated government. Take the example of gay marrage, where ideally there would be no need for the government to legally recognize marrage in the first place, because all the little benefits you get from it would be nonexistent. As long as they do exist, people will scream bloody murder over the religious definition the govt insists on using for "marrage" and say that gay marrage and polygamy count as well.

What do you guys think? If you were a politician (say, a congressman), would you just say "I won't take a stance on this issue because it wouldn't even be the government's problem in the ideal world"? Or would you follow the lead of the ACLU and decry every last bit of religion within the walls of government-funded buildings and on every last government-funded scrap of paper?

[Oakes]

Okay I have somewhat changed my mind on this issue. I think its worthwhile to seek legal action against "In God We Trust" on federal coinage, as well as other instances where the government endorses religion, not only because we are legally obligated to, but also because consistently applying it might encourage people to seek privitization.

[stephen_speicher]

Okay I have somewhat changed my mind on this issue. I think its worthwhile to seek legal action against "In God We Trust" on federal coinage, as well as other instances where the government endorses religion, not only because we are legally obligated to, but also because consistently applying it might encourage people to seek privitization.

One of the things that I personally so much dislike about many "activists" (I am not saying that this applies to Oakes) is that often their effort is so misplaced. If I were to inventory and hierrachically order the fundamental importance of revoking, disbanding, and repealing the many rules, regulations and laws passed by our government, the issue of having "In God We Trust" on our money supply would be so far down on the list as to be almost nonexistent. There are just too many other really important and fundamental issues to be addressed to squander one's time, effort, and political focus on something so minor as a few words printed on the bills our government forces us to use for money.

[DavidOdden]

If I were to inventory and hierrachically order the fundamental importance of revoking, disbanding, and repealing the many rules, regulations and laws passed by our government, the issue of having "In God We Trust" on our money supply would be so far down on the list as to be almost nonexistent. There are just too many other really important and fundamental issues to be addressed to squander one's time, effort, and political focus on something so minor as a few words printed on the bills our government forces us to use for money.

On the other hand, one of the strongest and most dangerous fources in America today is religion. From the perspective of what the government does which it shouldn't do, that is on the nearly ummeasurable end of the scale. But in terms of implications for the future, I consider the rise of religion in America to be one of the greatest threats, one that is much worse than abridgement of human rights to the product of your labor. Religion is fundamentally and primarily a denial of reason -- that is what religion is. Restriction of human rights, at least the way it has been carried out in the U.S., is a denial of fact and often a grotesque misuse of reason, but it has not yet involved a flat-out denial of reason.

While the removal of the 10 commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building does not itself alleviate the grotesque problem of regulation and theft by the government, fighting against Moore and having him removed from office was absolutely worth it for its symbolic value, as a reaffirmation of a proverbial line in the sand which could too easily disappear and become trivially crossable, especially in the current political climate. From religion, evil springs. Now please excuse me, I have some scratching out to do.

[stephen_speicher]

On the other hand, one of the strongest and most dangerous fources in America today is religion.

Do fources come right after threeces?

Dave, I always enjoy discussions with you, but this I am not buying into. The issue of religion in a political context has recently been discussed to death on HBL and, I believe, here on this forum too. After the first dozen posts I have simply stopped reading. I personally see this simultaneous elevation of and political fear of religion to be completely misguided, focusing concern on virtual irrelevancies in numbers and ignoring the role of ideas.

I listened to Peikoff's 19 minute excerpt and for a while considered writing a post to HBL, one in which I would augment Peikoff's statistics with a few of my own. I was going to add statistical facts like since the turn of the century church building has increased sevenfold, nearly 80% of the population regularly go to Church, and a host of others. At the end I would point out that these scary religious statistics were culled from after the Great Awakening and just before the formation of the United States in 1776! How come we wound up with the freest country on Earth rather than a theocracy run by a religious mob? The answer is simple: IDEAS MATTER, and as long as they matter the real fear is from those who want to quash ideas, which in today's world is what is left of the liberal left. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the intellectually and morally bankrupt who, in fact, will make the mystics of muscle possible in his regime if, god forbid, he should ever be elected.

Anyway, sorry for the short rant about a subject I do not even want to discuss. Feel free to say what you want in defense or explanation, but pardon me in this one case for not wanting to carry this further. (Going back to silent observer mode.)

[oldsalt]

I must agree that one is spinning one's wheels to no good purpose when arguing about such irrelevancies as In God We Trust, ...under God, God Bless America, etc. All that is accomplished is that you give the religious right one more excuse to stand up and holler about being attacked. I don't give a whit about nativity scenes, crosses on public land, etc. None of these things are primary. The only way to put an end to them is to go after the important underlying ideas.

I've muttered "God bless you guys" under my breath as I've watched our men and women leave the safe harbor of San Diego to go to war. I've said it because I don't have anything to say that replaces the sentiment I feel behind that statement. I obviously do not mean that I think there is a god out there who will look after these people as they go into harm's way. I know I'm speaking to the ether. It is just my way of expressing my fears and my fervent wish to see them home again safe and whole. If there is something else I could say to replace it, without doing mental calisthentics, I would appreciate knowing what it is.

Even Miss Rand said "God Bless America." She didn't mean it literally, of course, but she meant the sentiment behind the statement.

[Oakes]

Did any of you know that "goodbye" came from the phrase "God be with ye"? Anyway, thanks to the last four posts for making me think.

[stephen_speicher]

Even Miss Rand said "God Bless America."  She didn't mean it literally, of course, but she meant the sentiment behind the statement.

And she said it not just in regard to America. "God bless" is sprinkled throughout Ayn Rand's writings, from the lips of Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, to various letters she wrote to friends and associates.

I also want to say that I really appreciate the sentiment you expressed about the men and women going off to war. Thank you for telling us about it.

[Capitalism Forever]

The answer is simple: IDEAS MATTER, and as long as they matter the real fear is from those who want to quash ideas, which in today's world is what is left of the liberal left.

Exactly. And, speaking of quashing ideas, scratching out words from banknotes doesn't exactly show a good example. We should fight bad ideas with counter-arguments, not with markers.

[NIJamesHughes]

Exactly. And, speaking of quashing ideas, scratching out words from banknotes doesn't exactly show a good example. We should fight bad ideas with counter-arguments, not with markers.

I agree, but i think that it would be immoral for me to pass out a moral statement that i do not agree with. If i did such a thing, it would be as if i was silently sanctioning the statement by not contesting it existentially.

[Brian]

Besides, "In God We Trust" is very poetic if you think about it. Even if you do not believe in God.

[Capitalism Forever]

I agree, but i think that it would be immoral for me to pass out a moral statement that i do not agree with.

You are not responsible for that statement; the ones responsible are the people who decided to put it on the currency. Nor are you responsible for your use of this type of currency in preference of another one; the people responsible for that are those who support the notion of "legal tender" (or government-mandated currency).

Besides, I don't think "In God we trust" is a moral statement; I see it as a metaphysical one. It is a reflection of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are monotheists. That is not a good thing, but it is no reason to feel bad in any way about using dollars. (I mostly spend Hungarian currency and Euros--and boy, do I WISH I could be spending dollars! )

[NIJamesHughes]

You are not responsible for that statement; the ones responsible are the people who decided to put it on the currency. Nor are you responsible for your use of this type of currency in preference of another one; the people responsible for that are those who support the notion of "legal tender" (or government-mandated currency).

Besides, I don't think "In God we trust" is a moral statement; I see it as a metaphysical one. It is a reflection of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are monotheists. That is not a good thing, but it is no reason to feel bad in any way about using dollars. (I mostly spend Hungarian currency and Euros--and boy, do I WISH I could be spending dollars! )

I understand. What I was refering to is that I can not condone the statement as an expression of those particular metaphysics, and can not morally justify distributing anything with the phrase on it. I think that not doing anything about it is the same as promoting it.

[Capitalism Forever]

I think that not doing anything about it is the same as promoting it.

Why in the world would that be so? There are thousands of bad things in life; it's simply impossible for you to do something about all of them. That certainly doesn't mean that you're promoting them!

Anyway, if you really want to "do something" about this, here's an idea: You might want to go to your bank and ask them to print you a checkbook with your favorite Ayn Rand quote inscribed on every check in it. Then you could start paying with those checks instead of federal banknotes. This way you would be providing a positive alternative to "In God we trust," telling people what you stand for and believe in rather than just "denying by obliteration" the ideas you don't believe in.

[Betsy]

I can not condone the statement ["In God We Trust" on money] as an expression of those particular metaphysics, and can not morally justify distributing anything with the phrase on it. I think that not doing anything about it is the same as promoting it.

How's this for moral justification: You earned the money and you want to spend it as you see fit.