Should the US Currency be fixed?

In the 1950's, for whatever reason, "In God We Trust" was added to the currency of the United States.
Why?
We aren't a Christian country. We're a melting pot of various races, cultures, and religions. In a sense, it's discriminatory. If it needs to be kept for some reason, add "In Buddha we trust" and whatnot too.
And yes, that would make it cluttered. So we go to the other solution, changing it back to the way it was.

I've begun just crossing it off entirely. It's just become offensive, like to say "If you aren't a Christian, you're un-American." which is ironic considering the fact that the USA is all about freedom and christianity isn't

There is no reason whatsoever to keep it on there, and I highly doubt it would be very expensive to do so. In fact, it could save a small amount of money.

This needs to be acted upon as soon as possible.

I believe this is the back of a dollar bill from around the 40's:


What's wrong with that? It has nothing to do with religion, nobody's going to be offended by it.

But no. We just had to remove that L and make it into religious stuff.
It just makes no sense whatsoever to keep it on there.

Same goes for the pledge.
And that was altered in the 50's as well.
It used to just be "..one nation, Indivisible...", but like currency, it was altered, adding "under god" inbetween "one nation" and "indivisible".

Seriously, why?

 

The reason that the phrase "In God We Trust" is written on U.S currency is because it's the official motto of the U.S. So it makes sense to put the country's motto on their currency.

Kinda of offensive to say that about Christianity when you probably don't know that much about it. Also last time I checked, America may be all about freedom but a lot people still don't have much freedom. I mean gay marriage, is that allowed in America? I think not.

But the U.S coin has had the phrase on it since the 1800s, they just decided to add it on the dollar around the 50s, don't know why but they just did.

I have no clue why they added "under God" but you're not required to say the pledge of allegiance so they can't force you if you don't want to.

 

In the 1950s a lot of Christian movement arose to try to declare the country 'Christian' and it was allowed to happen with the altering of currency as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a crying shame in a way and there are people that are still out there that say if these are removed that the country is 'godless' and horrible. I agree that these things should be corrected to show that this country respects all views of religion or lack of religious viewpoint. However, there are some hard-nosed people out there that think:
1. the pledge always had God in it.
2. the currency always did.
and 3. Why change it if it isn't broke.

Basically, they feel people are griping for no reason and just want to steal Christian power away when this country was founded on the ideal that religious freedom was a must and that there is a division between church and state. State is what our currency comes from. Not the churches. It shouldn't be there, but it is. In the end, there's not much to do about it but lobby for it and hope someday people see that giving in during the 1950s was a mistake and that a more clear message of equality as was intended should have been used instead. It will be some time though before that would happen with the rise of nutty evangelicals especially.

 

No, that's just you being paranoid and trying to find hidden implied meanings where there aren't any.

There's no real reason to change it either.

How so?

No it doesn't. I don't think it's gonna kill, injure or impair anyone by keeping that phrase on there. It's a puny detail.
Being an atheist doesn't necessarily involve whining about everything containing the word God. If you really want to make a difference then soften people up for the idea itself instead of witch hunting remnants from the past.

Actually I find it more than a bit ridiculous that you are offended by this.

Then that motto is, according to Rho, discriminatory as well.
Careful which comparisons you make when you're debating.

You could also really care and make it a personal point to respect every religion and the lack thereof. Why would you need some large-scale symbolic deed (the erasure of a phrase that 99% of the Americans may not have read) to prove that you're pluralistic folks?
Believe it or not but people don't tend to judge people by what's written on their dollar bills.

When people fall over details like this it always makes me wonder where it's gonna end. Force everyone to exchange their old dollars for the new "pluralistic" kind? It sounds like too much of a hassle to satisfy only a minority of people to begin with, but we'll see what everyone else thinks.

I'm not saying I'm against the idea. The philosophy behind it isn't half bad but in all honesty such a detail doesn't deserve this kind of attention.
Whatever, kid. By all means continue your crusade against religion but try not to be a parody of yourself by stumbling over such trivial matters.

 

They force you to in school.

And it became the official motto in the 50's, same time the currency was messed with. It should have never happened.

In some areas, it is allowed.
Part of the reason why it's so controversial? It apparently being deemed unacceptable by "God".
Seriously, if there's the very unlikely chance that he does exist, he's overrated. Satan seems like the actual good guy to me.
After all, God killed thousands of people in the Bible, Satan killed around 12 or so, I believe.
And I don't see finding a fact about something can be offensive.. Think about it, it does strip you of some freedom, like the whole "jealousy sin". And lust? Oh come on, whoever thought that one up didn't think it the full way through.

One thing being wrong doesn't mean another has to become wrong as well.

If something like that wasn't intended, it would still say "In Gold we trust"

Is the United States a Christian country?
The answer is no.

I'm not an expert on how money is printed, but it could save a VERY marginal amount on ink saved. That was just a sidenote in the first place.

It's one thing if it's like cross necklaces (which I find confusing that it's the symbol of Christianity when that's what Jesus was murdered on.. If we was killed by a lion, would the symbol of Christianity be a lion?), but when it is something as widespread and pretty much needed as money, then that's a whole other thing.
We have Jewish citizens. We have Muslim citizens. We have Atheist citizens. We have Buddhist citizens.
Our currency should not have religious stuff on it of any religion whatsoever.

I never said I was. I said it's starting to become offensive. Not that it is.

 

I thought that they dont require you to say the pledge anymore at school or at least mine doesnt. Also I have to agree with what Styx posted and that not many people would be affected if the dollar bill is changed or not.

 

In all honesty? I don't personally care that much, I'm not really concerned about what's on my money when I go out to eat, I just want my burger, if you catch my drift. Given that the country doesn't have an official religion, it shouldn't really be there. However, I think we have more pressing matters to deal with right now. Frankly, I think we should instead work to build a world where things like these will be our biggest concerns.

 

How is that not a message one can take from the coins? It may not have been written with that intention, but it gives that effect. It heavily implies that God is America's national deity. If one is a non-Christian American, I can see how messages of exclusion can be interpreted.

Clearly there is, because there was a worthy reason to add it. If it had enough reason to be added when everyone thought that America's deity was God, it has enough reason to be removed now everyone's seen the light.

Again, if it was considered important enough to add, it's important enough to remove. It wasn't going to kill, injure, impair or even offend someone, but it was still added. Now it won't kill, injure or impair, but it has a possibility of offending. There's more reason to remove it than add it, and as we know, there was enough reason to have it added.

A fine idea. However softening people up can be somewhat difficult if they get the message of "America is a Christian nation" everywhere they go. The banknote is just a small part of the message, but it helps. Once we remove all the subliminal messages, it will be easier to soften them up to the idea. The two actions are not exclusive.

I find it even more ridiculous that an entire nation has the name of a popular imaginary friend inscribed on their coins. Each to their own.

That's the next target. The motto most definitely should also be changed. It just so happens that the topic was the currency, so we're restricted to discussing that.

For the same reason that a large-scale symbolic deed (the addition of a phrase that 99% of the Americans may not read) was required to prove that America was a Christian land.

Force? No. Just take them out of circulation when it comes time to refresh the currency, as is done every few years. The banks just take it out of circulation. There's no witch hunt where marines barge into houses and take the bills at gunpoint.

Such a detail never should have been added. It would be a simple thing to remove it, but that's not the point. The point is the symbolism of the deed. If it is removed, it is an act that says "Yes, we are a free nation under all gods". If it garners public attention, then it's a short while before it escalates to the Declaration of Independence. Start small, work your way up.

 

Is that a good enough reason to bother with such a triviality?
The answer is no.

Very well. I won't go into it.

No it's not. Like I said, no Jew, Muslim or atheist is gonna is gonna get killed or hurt because "In God we trust" is printed on your dollar bills. And I think a majority of them wouldn't even care that it's printed.
See, like I said, the ideology behind your idea is fine. It's just that you make a fuss over nothing. I don't think the hassle it would bring, however manageable, is gonna be worth the outcome.

 

I think people are overreacting to this in the extreme. I truly do not care either way. I do not feel that Christianity is more potent or is better than other religions because of what is written on our money and I certainly wouldn't be offended if it was removed. I think it would be a waste of time, but I wouldn't be bothered by it in the slightest. Quit worrying about trivial, borderline unnoticeable details and get on with your life. Seriously.

 

Show me anyone who will say "I don't belong here because God is mentioned on my dollars" and I'll show you a loser.

Guess it's up to us to be smarter than they were. To "see the light" and realise that it's just not worth the trouble.

It won't be any easier because you seem to forget that people just don't give a ****. If you lived in America, or even if you planned to live there, would you back off or move out just because you disagree with your money? That, good sir, is what I'd find ridiculous.

You seem to forget (you're pretty forgetful today, what's the matter?) that it's not an imaginary friend to some/many. Your argument is thus invalid. The religion or lack thereof that we as debators have is irrelevant (e.g. we're both atheists but I think "just leave the damn coins alone and go do something useful").

Allow me to make an analogy on something I haven't mentioned yet.
We in Belgium still have a king. Hell, he even has a sword as part of his attire. Now people can be morons and call us primitive because we still have a sword-wielding king. Or they could use their brains and see that this protocol is a remnant of history and a part of our culture (granted, this is different).
Culture can justify a lot of things. It can take away the discriminatory connotation to that sentence. When some non-Christian, be they Jewish, Buddhist or atheist comes up to you and says "yo mofo me no like yah dough dawg" you just go right ahead and say "Yeah, it's to remind us of those ol' days where we still had more people caring about God".

 

The only difference that I can see between your analogy and the dollar thing is that the dollar thing was only brought in what 50 years ago whereas I'm sure Belgium has had some form of monarchy for hundreds of years. I suppose if it was left then in a hundred years time you'd be right, it would have lost the discriminatory connotation that it has now. But this isn't a hundred years in the future when things like religion may not mean so much. This is now. This is the time when there are people who will use the fact that god is in the pledge and on the currency to say "look at us, we live in a Christian country with Christian values and so it should be run by Christians in the Christian way". I see removing the god part as not only putting things the right way in terms of the facts (America is and always has been a secular country) as well as removing a piece of ammunition (albeit a small one) from the grasp of the fundamentalists who are quite powerful as it is.

And I have to say, I love the royal family of the UK (well the Queen lol) and I would never give them up for the world. I just see them as an integral part of the culture of the country I live in. Not only that, but there is even religious writing on our coins, but it's in Latin so I didn't notice till someone pointed it out to me. Again, it has been there long enough to have lost any connotations that it may have had and it certainly has never been used to try and turn the UK into a Christian nation.

 

Yes, to go to that extreme over the coins is silly. However if we include the declaration and the entire slant of the 'free' nation towards Christianity, then I think your person has a cause for complaint.

What trouble? Removing something like that is as simple as opening MS Paint and doing a copy-paste. A mass recall isn't required either. Just phase the old ones out at the bank when the time comes, as per usual.

No. No I would not. However not everything is a matter of living there or not. Sometimes it is about culture and honouring what the country stands for. The country stands for freedom and multiculturalism where the church and the state are separate. To show that, signs of the church should be removed from the state. It's not a massive problem, but it's an ulcer on America that should be dealt with.

Leave the coins alone and do something useful? It is hardly troublesome to change them. Look, I just did it myself.



Easily done. That doesn't cost millions to implement. I did it within five minutes.

Except it's not cultural. As we've already covered in this thread, it was added in. There's no sense of culture here: it's just the church messing about in the state's affairs.

 

But that attempt to turn the US into a Christian nation didn't connect long enough to be alive today. Now it too has become a part of history. A lot has changed in those 50 years.

Guardian_Soul said it's not required to recite the pledge (in most cases). Yet a lot people still do it with the reference to God, and how many people care? You won't see many atheists refusing to recite it because of the reasons you guys mention. They're being a good sport and know it has no meaning to them. I think the word I'm really looking for here is "maturity".

You're only thinking of the process itself. There's a lot to be done before it can even start: proposals have to be discussed and approved which can drag on if some conservative Christians decide to be stubborn. Heck if they shout loud enough their quotes may reach foreign ears which won't help America's(false) reputation as a Christian nation.

Of course I'll choose your side when the debate eventually arises. I'm just not too eager to commence it since the discussion could kick up a cloud of frustration, plus I don't see it making much of a difference when you do win the plight.

It was the church messing with the state's affairs. Now it's a part of history. And history and culture are ever so closely linked, in fact one is part of the other.
It's arguable whether it's happened "only 50 years ago" or "50 years ago already". Whichever it is, I'd leave it to the sands of time. These things work themselves out and I don't see the need to interfere. Wait long enough and you may get a scenario like the one Матвей охотник illustrated.


Huzzah for you guys if the debate does arise and you draw the long end of the straw, but we'll see whether it will actually make a tangible difference. Because in my opinion, those are the only differences that really matter.

 

Honestly, I do not care at all. Not even a little bit, and I'm really suprised that people are so angry at something so damn trivial.

Styx puts it perfectly so I'm not going to type all of it out due to my extreme apathy toward this whole thing.

But aside from my opinion on the actual "issue", I am incredibly amazed that anyone could even care. It really doesn't affect you in any significant way, at all. How does it affect you? Because you have to LOOK at it? By that logic, no one should be allowed Bibles, all churches should be taken down, and anything that looks like a cross should be thrown away so the atheists don't have to look at it.
How does that make any sense at all? This has nothing to do with America being a "Christian nation". It's just a sentence printed on money. It's not a big freaking deal.

 

Argh D: It is not that I care overly much or that I am angry that it's there. It does annoy me that it is there and that the under god part is in the pledge, but it's not something I get angry about on a regular basis. The reason I think it should be changed is on the principle that things should be based on fact, and the fact is that the USA is not a Christian country and should therefore not pretend to be. No matter how loud Christians shout or even if they are in the majority. Being a secular country it cannot be biased for or against any recognised religions and this is blatant bias for Christianity.

I do hope you realise where I'm coming from here =/

 

This is understandable, but is removing the sentence from a dollar bill honestly going to make that much of a difference in this matter?
I guess the whole pledge of allegiance thing is more understandable, considering it actually does speak for the country, but this whole dollar thing is just petty.

 

Yes, but it doesn't change that the entire monarchy, which has been going on for years, is far more culturally significant than the erasure of a letter on the dollar bill fifty years ago. To use a better example, imagine that sword your king has is actually the wrong one, and it was switched 50 years ago. Would it be switched back when the mistake is realised?

You'd be surprised. The world isn't divided into Christians and Atheists. There are other religions too, and they are often sensitive. I knew one girl a few years ago who wasn't even allowed to join in with the Christmas carols at a school assembly due to her religion. Atheists can sit back and be 'good sports', but others with strong religious beliefs cannot.

Exactly. It can set a precedent against the church tainting the state, so while there may be battles now, it gives a standard for later changes. The quotes may reach foreign ears, but they will be delivered in context. The context being "A religious nut refusing to accept that America wishes to distance itself from religion". That doesn't sound like such a bad message, and it would be good PR with those same countries to remove the religious paraphernalia from America.

It would help lessen the religious conservatives you previously mentioned, because it would send a message that the USA is not a Christian land and the church has no business in the state. This is the sort of thing America needs. This message is the important part and not the actual print (although that is important for other religions).

But his scenario said that it might not be important in the future, but it is now, because it removes some ammo from the fundamentalists.

A tangible difference to what, may I ask?

It is not just a sentence on money. It represents the hold the church has on the state, two entities which are supposed to be separate. When they mix, you have religion influencing political decisions. A sentence on a piece of paper is not inherently trivial. In fact, one number can cause the deaths of thousands if printed in the right place (I'm thinking of the death-toll orders given out in Russia).

 

Are you honestly comparing our dollars to death-toll orders?
And how exactly does our church have control over the state just by a sentence on a dollar bill? I don't see the church trying to hold anything over the government because "In God we trust" is on money. The two really don't have much to do with each other.

I'm not talking about the church's hold on the government. I'm talking about a sentence printed on dollars. The two aren't related at all.

 

We are not talking about active control over the government, that would mean that the USA would be a theocracy. We are talking about passive control; the kind of control that peaked when it was put on and the pledge thing was added and the fact that they are both still in use shows that that passive control is still there. It works in that politicians would never do something that would upset the church. That is as powerful as actually ruling the country.