General Question

mrwhoopie's avatar

Should "In God We Trust" be taken off of our money?

Asked by mrwhoopie (100points) May 27th, 2009

Is having this on our money a failure of seperation of church and state? Also why does the church want to be involved with the government in this way?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

Saturated_Brain's avatar

It’s tradition. You don’t mess with tradition. It gets on peoples’ nerves.

augustlan's avatar

In my humble opinion, yes. Take God off the money and out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

DarkScribe's avatar

In view of the current financial situation, trust in God doesn’t seem to paid off any better than trusting him in in any other area of life. Maybe we could sue the Church for his failure to exercise due caution with the money entrusted to him?

Crusader's avatar

Only if we want to alienate 70% of the world.

prince's avatar

Nah. It’s lost its cultural referent anyway (something tells me that “70% of the world” wouldn’t use the dollar if four words were removed)—and I’m a big fan of conservation (this, surprisingly given my extremely liberal leanings). All the hoopla over separation of church and state when it comes to issues like this is unwarranted. As long as we’re not explicitly excluding a religion, and given the fact of the role that Christianity played in early minds of our nation, I don’t have a problem with it.

Conversely, I also strongly disagree that putting a christmas tree in a public place is inherently anti-semitic or intolerant. Humbug, I say. Humbug!

fedupwitcaddys's avatar

YES, and it should of never been put on there in the first place. All kinds of bad things happen for money people get killed for and over money, people steal money to buy drugs, people gamble with it, people hold others for ransom for money women sell they body for money, and so on….... nothing ever really good comes out of money but you bust ya ass to make it and pay bills and handle business.
just my opinion though.

Nickeye05's avatar

I honestly don’t care…

TaoSan's avatar


alienate 70% of the world?????????????

discover's avatar

You would be losing out on the historical significance then.

ragingloli's avatar

@discover the “historical significance”, if you can even call it that, is limited to being a propaganda measure against the “godless communists”

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

Hmm, then can we file a complaint with the local meteorologist when Sunday is overcast?

I look at this way. My money says in god we trust. Yeah so? There are 2,500 known gods in human history. Which god is represented on my dollar bills? Horus, Set, Mithra, Zeus, Ares, Eros, maybe Cthulhu? It doesn’t specifically say Jehovah, the angry and malevolent Jewish/Christian/Muslim deity, so to assume that is what it means is ludicrous. I think that’s called ‘leading the witness.’ no pun intended.

God is a generic term, and is also meaningless, unless you are one of those unimaginative types that erroneously assume that the word GOD magically represents THEIR particular imaginary friend.

When atheists and nonbelievers go for the obvious things, like what it reads on my money or the Pledge of Allegiance, I laugh. If you want to change things, go after stuff that will make the world more equitable for everyone, not a silly three letter word that doesn’t matter. My money could say in Dr. Suess we trust, or in Satan we Trust, or in Pink Unicorns we trust; as long as I can buy a frappacino and a jelly donut with it, who effin’ cares? :-)

ratboy's avatar

Notice that whenever something horrible occurs, it’s an “act of God.” Who in their right mind would trust Him?

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@ratboy don’t you know, God hates his creations, that’s why so many people are killed by tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. God is such a bastard. God is love, my ass.

RedPowerLady's avatar

n/m was off topic so removed by me

ragingloli's avatar

you would be right if there wasn’t a deity that is specifically referred to by “God”, or if the phrase contained the article “a”. Unfortunately for you, neither is the case. The Christian god is specifically called “God”, upper case, no “a”, one might say that is his name/title in Christianity. All other gods are reffered to by a specific name, be it Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, etc.

So in summary, the fact that the Christian deity is the only one referred to as “God”, that the phrase was put on the money in a mostly Christian country demographically, by politicians adhering to Christianity and that the phrase does not contain the article “a”, should make it pretty obvious that the “GOD” referred to in the phrase is and was intended by the politicians who instated it, to be the Christian God, not another deity or a blanket term for deities in general.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@ragingloli many deities throughout history have been specifically referred to as GOD, not just this upstart Jehovah. The Christian/Jewish GOD is barely 6,000 years old, there are numerous GODS, in fact, thousands, that, when they were in style among their followers were most likely referred to as simplyGOD. No ‘a’ needed, or even a proper name. Certain Christian groups refer to this diety as G-D, so how do you know they are worshipping the GOD on my money? There are four other vowels, you know. Maybe they worship GAD, GID, GED or GUD.

Face it, Christians are just lazy, they assume that when they say GOD everyone knows exactly who they are talking about. History says that there are approximately 2,500 known GODS in our recorded history. There are about 27 with the exact same storyline and myth as Jesus, all the way down to having a mother named Mary, performing miracles, being persecuted, dead for three days, ascended to heaven, etc, etc, etc, and most of them existed thousand of years before Christ, and were worshipped by lots of followers for a very long time. There is nothing original about Christianity at all. More of the same, cobbled together from various other belief systems.

But back to your point, sure Christians refer to other GODS by name, but the followers of those GODS most likely called their deity GOD, so your point is actually erroneous. Learn some history, the truth will set you free. :-)

mrwhoopie's avatar

@evelyns pet zebra But you know the white old men politicians that put it there are referring to the man in the sky with the flowing white beard. I know you would probably want “In evelyn We Trust” but isn’t it making us all buy into christian religon?Shouldn’t the government get out of the religon business?

ragingloli's avatar

“but the followers of those GODS most likely called their deity GOD”

considering that, apart from judaism and islam, who both call their god Yahweh and Allah respectively, all other gods were part of a polytheistic pantheon, it becomes next to impossible that they referred to one of these gods simply by “God”.

augustlan's avatar

I’d rather see “In the constitution we trust.”

delirium's avatar

Howabouts “In reason we trust” or “In justice we trust”?

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

Personally, I’d rather see my money have some form of Aztec or Egyptian heiroglyphics on it, so the conspiracy theorists would have something to make their dull little lives more palatable. It might also help the atheists find something of value to focus their energies on. What my money says doesn’t mean I support xtianity by spending it.

Evelyn doesn’t want her name to be associated with filthy lucre, she would never settle for something so gauche.

and I refuse to assume anything about gods in general. If others want to assume the GOD on their money is the malevolent old fart with the white beard and the passion for xenophobia, well, that’s your problem. Try thinking outside the box.

wundayatta's avatar

I don’t see why it needs anything more than a pretty picture and a denomination.

hypocrisy's avatar

Many religions are monotheistic and whether or not the phrase “In God We Trust” is necessarily representing their God is not really the point. It should be up to the viewer to interpret whether “In God We Trust” represents their respective deity or not. But the main fact is that around 80% of Americans have Christian beliefs.How can we constantly say that the majority of the people are represented by votes because we take the majority opinion and then turn around and take out what the majority believe in? It’s hypocritical in the extreme. The only reason we have managed to keep our country running is because of the ideas by the very founders who put in the phrase “In God We Trust”. Surprising how the very same people who created an entire country that supports the majority of the people put in the phrase “In God We Trust.” If I have to put up with our President and Bills being passed because, “The majority says so,” then leave what the majority of the people believe in on my money. Even if we do get rid of the phrase does this not, in actuality, come closer to supporting atheistic beliefs? Does this not show to other countries how truly divided we are? And as for the guy who says we should sue the church for misusing the money entrusted to Him… that is singularly the most stupid thing I have ever heard. If you want to know who to sue for misuse of money you have no further to look than your own tax records.

ragingloli's avatar

the “founders” no, not the shapeshifters are responsible for “E pluribus unum” (“from many, one”), and had nothing to do with “In God we trust”. “In God we trust” wasn’t on the money until 1956.
“Even if we do get rid of the phrase does this not, in actuality, come closer to supporting atheistic beliefs?”
no, it would follow the principle of “separation of church and state”

RedPowerLady's avatar

@daloon I don’t see why it needs anything more than a pretty picture and a denomination.


hypocrisy's avatar

It’s true that “In God We Trust” was put on currency in 1955 but it doesn’t change the fact that it took a MAJORITY vote to put it on there. And if not putting it on there is “seperation of church and state” then what belief are you left with other than the belief in evolution?

ragingloli's avatar

First of all, the majority is not always right, which is the reason why there is a need for a constitution in the first place.
Secondly, not putting “in god we trust” on the money would not promote anything, much less a belief in evolution.
To promote a belief in evolution, you would have to put “in evolution we trust” on the money. while just as senseless and unnecessary it would at least not be unconstitutional and would assert belief in something that is demonstrably true

augustlan's avatar

Yeah. What s/he ^^ said.

Rsam's avatar

i like the poignant irony of the judeo-christian God being put on money. and being said to be trusted no less.

otherwise, im not a fan.

hypocrisy's avatar

Raging whether the majority is right or wrong it is the MAJORITY that the country listens to. And whether or not currency states “in evolution we trust” the fact that there is no constitutional limitation placed ON the belief in evolution and that there IS one on “religion” how might that look to someone viewing our laws as a whole? To me it seems that the government is placing more support (or at least isn’t hindering) the belief in evolution as they are with “religion”. The fact that they legally could place “in evolution we trust” on currency should be just as offensive as “in God we trust”. And whether you believe in a god or not I would like to point out to you that you should at least be thankful for the IDEA of God for without it America wouldn’t have been founded.

delirium's avatar

America…. would easily have been founded without the idea of god. Religion had nothing to do with it. Jefferson made a public statement about how this country was NOT founded on christianity.

E Plurbis Unum ftw. It is our actual motto.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther