In God we Trust

[John Cuthber]

It is only a lie to someone that has no belief in any being greater than themselves.

 

Whether this particular collection of humans that is presently on the planet, is as good as it gets, is rather doubtful.

 

At least it is doubtful to those that believe they are a part of a larger being.

 

Let this not be construed as an argument for literally believing in the God of the Bible, or the Allah of the Koran. But as I read the Koran, and said to myself "well that's a lie", or "that makes no sense", or "that is a blatent usurption of God's power by Mohammed", I was referencing in my mind, what the characteristics of God, would have to be, and what visions and promises were therefore lies. I still had this real "being" to have been created by, and to dissolve into, when I die. Since I have life insurance, I am fairly sure that there will be life after my death. There will be a beneficiary to which I am trustee. If I extend that thought to all of humanity, and further to the Earth and its neighbors, I think I am beginning to show a belief in "being" that has formed me, which I am now, now that I know about it, responsible for, and part of. It includes mostly family and friends, town and company, but also the government I serve, that serves me, and the world I travel and marvel at. That this "being" extends beyond my body/brain/heart group, is not questioned by anybody I know (except immortal maybe). I can take it as fact, and not a lie. So a "being" greater than John Cuthber is not a lie. And there is no reason that belief in it should be bounded by one's lifetime, or by the lifetime of everybody currently on the planet. So a "superior" being is asserted by evidence and everyone agrees that they are not the only being on the planet and that the planet with all its humanity, is not the only being in the neighborhood. So a "superior" being is a given, as soon as you notice it being "out there" out of your conscious control. "supreme" being is simply the thought that there is "something" that trumps or unifies the whole deal, all of the above.

Belief in this thing is not a lie, its just a reasonable quess, that everybody tends to get guess wrong about. It in no way means that belief in God is a lie. Not if it is taken as meaning the belief in a supreme being, that guides and determines everything that there is to guide and determine. Why even "the laws of physics" would mean the same. You think "the laws of physics" is a lie?

 

Regards, TAR2

It is not true to say that we trust in God when some of us don't.

In that sense (ie not being true) it's a lie.

[tar]

I have to point this out to you tar, the religious values you are talking about did not originate in religion.

 

The "In God We Trust" was put on money during an era when we were fighting those godless communists. McCarthyism put "In God We Trust" on the currency not to mention in the Pledge of allegiance...

Moontanman,

 

Well, understood. I was a godless hippy myself in the 60's, I campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire, I lived on a family farm with my Aunt, Uncle and cousins that was of interest to authorities due to illegal drug activity, and it was later ledgended to be a hippy commune due to my aunt (after divorce of my Uncle) renting out the outbuildings and barn to people of "like mind". My cousin was probably one of the first young women in the country to wear jeans to school. My sister was one of the first group of women to be invited to attend Harvard (she declined, she didn't like the conditionals). I was PART of the consciouness raising of the 60s. I probably was a godless communist myself. I also seem to have retained the Protestant work ethic and other principles of honesty and integrity and serving humanity, that my upbringing and the Pingry honor code taught me.

 

What ever discussions we have now are continuations of previous societal discussions, and build off our collective successes and failures. I have issues with religion, and I have issues with "the establishment". But they are not identical in nature to my positions at 18. "the establishment" turns out to be middle aged former 18 year olds, and other previously "anti-establishment" characters. And then us 59 year olds get a chance to witness the dynamics of our last 50 years as "humanity" and make comment on it, and raise a few thought provoking questions, as if the younger generations might benefit, and learn when and where they might be arguing against themselves, or biting off the hand that feeds them.

 

Did you read the wiki article I linked on cognitive biases? I did not post them, as if I did not have them myself. I posted them so everybody would read them, and understand they ALL, belong to us all. Irrational belief is what we do. It is a significant part of being human. If human judgment is to be valued, if humanity should be served by it, I would chose we leave the faulty human judgement in charge, and not leave the decisions up to "souless" computers, or detached analytical, "objective" opinions. You cannot get detached from being a human, and serve humanity at the same time. It is a physical impossibility.

 

Computers themselves have no reason to care about us. And you can not get so objective as to be yourself, the "supreme being".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

How about "As trustworthy as it gets"

 

 

or "Trustworthy". or blank. I suppose as long as the Federal Reserves name is on there somewhere it means the same.

Or just United States of America.

 

What would we put on Global Currency? The Earth? A smiley face? "Us"?

 

 

How about a smiley face one side and frowny face on the other?

 

How about Galactic currency, and atom on one side and the Milkyway on the other?

 

Even this might not be legal tender in Andromeda.

 

I have also served in the Army during peacetime in Germany, hid under my desk in drills during the Cuban Missle crisis, have a father wounded during the battle of the bulge, visited Japan several times on business for the Japanese company I have worked for for near half my life, and I witnessed the Twin Towers smoke and fall and burn from across the river, just when the Earth was being united by the internet and global cooperation. I like the way the Japanese ran my company better than the way Americans now run it. My friends and enemies are varied and changing. There are a lot more humans that I do not know, than humans that I do know. I put my trust primarily in people and institutions and governments that are on my side...at the time. It is not important to me that I agree completely with everybody, just that they have signed the same contract, that I am operating under.

 

Loving humanity would require that I should have loved Osama Bin Laden, and I hated the viper.

My politics put me at odds with Obama and Biden, but they are my face to the world, and represent my country, and lead my country, and they have my trust, because of it. What they do, they do in my name.

 

 

And in the name of every gun slinging, white, patriotic, god fearing, oversexed, beer drinking ignoramus we got.

And every intellectual elite snob, and every, atheistic scientist. And every member of the teeming masses yearning to be free.

They are all on my side, as long as they have pledged alligence to my flag. (the Iranians that burned such, in front of me, at a civilian fair in Germany, on the other hand, are my enemies).

In reason we trust. OR

 

In bankers we do not trust.

how can you trust the Federal Reserve Bank, or humans, if you don't trust human bankers.

 

 

that is not reasonable, not one iota's worth

 

 

Allegiance. I don't mind at all, if people on my side know how to spell English words.

 

 

break this one down into trust and judgment, who or what might be served, who or what might be trusted?

What human contracts are being enforced and which are being tread upon or broken?

What is the rationale?

 

http://www.hpcrresearch.org/events/live-web-seminar-49-monitoring-humanitarian-crises-digital-age-crisis-mapping-crowdsourcing-a

 

If the president of the U.S. where to be held accountable for the Murder of Osama Bin Laden, by a global body, we would simply withdraw from the body, expel its non-citizen representatives, and say "yeah, you and whose army" is going to enforce this decision.

 

Any ensuing internal anti-governmental actors would obtain the legal status of traitor.

 

I would guess that British citizens would like-wise protect their Queen and Prime Minister, regardless of party affiliation, or personal opinion.

 

What is the rationale involved, where a body can assume the role of trustee to beneficiaries that have not chosen that body to represent them?

 

It would be called hegemony if a single state tried it.

Edited February 3, 2013 by tar

[zapatos]

The promise is implicit; it may not be spelled out, as in

the British notes but the promise to pay the bearer the face value of the note

is given by the authority of the incumbent government. This may be changed by

said gov but you will have notice.

With what will you pay the bearer of a British note? A British note?

[John Cuthber]

With what will you pay the bearer of a British note? A British note?

In principle it would have been paid in gold.

Since we left the gold standard, it's a bit less clear, but that's nothing new.

The money doesn't actually have any intrinsic value and not does gold.

 

"I would guess that British citizens would like-wise protect their Queen and Prime Minister, regardless of party affiliation, or personal opinion.

Guess again.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

I was guessing on the assumption that internal social cohesion in London was functional, and on the "theory" that the social structure would be more important to protect than an idea that was incubated outside that structure. That Londoners would be BIAS toward their Queen and country and be BIAS against the unknown intent of the outsiders. Because they are human.

Idealogical battles between Londoners is fought in the press, and at the social meeting places, and in the workshops at the university, and on the floor of Parliment, and behind closed doors in government and industry and family settings. That is the way England comes to consensus. No Mullah in Pakistan can come in and arrest the Queen for crimes against humanity, based on evidence of Imperial Conquest and hegemony. The British people would retain their personal differences, fight the outside threat together, and take up the internall debate again, after the threat to their society was met. In theory.

 

Regards, TAR2

You think perhaps the nation would hand the Queen over, on demand?

[John Cuthber]

Well, I'd be happy to see Blair arrested and charged over his decision to start a war for no valid reason.

By the way, I'm nowhere near London.

[tar]

There was no day in my memory where the cohesion of U.S. was stronger than on 9/11. Much closer to being of "one mind", than I ever hope to experience again.

John Cuthber,

 

Yes, you may have a point, and you may not. If the rest of your countrymen felt the same though, Blair would not have done what he did in the first place. And I still would guess that when bombs are aimed at London, you would feel they were aimed at you, as well. As irrational as that sounds, it is still my guess. I have experienced such a thing. And "arrested by who" would be an important consideration to you, as Blair's head was immediately chopped off in the Public Square by radical warriors of Allah, and your flag was burned in front of you. I do not think this would make you smile. Just a guess.

 

Regards, TAR2

Perhaps we have evidence of this human "reason" to be of one mind, as we share well in times when "outside" forces of earthquake, famine, disease, flood and such affect a human population. We tend however to get a bit conflicted in our unified response, when human reason or human insanity is the cause of a problem, because then we have to pick sides and fight amongst ourselves.

[John Cuthber]

Writing "in God we trust" on banknotes when, in fact, quite a lot of us do not trust in God is dishonest.

 

How people felt about the events of 9/11 or what I think about Tony Blair have no bearing on the matter.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

Well does this? Taken from the Wiki article on "imagine" (the song)

 

"Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."^[4] He told NME: "There is no real Communist state in the world; you must realize that. The Socialism I speak about ... [is] not the way some daft Russian might do it, or the Chinese might do it. That might suit them. Us, we should have a nice ... British Socialism."^[4]"

 

^{Regards, TAR2}

[John Cuthber]

Do you really need me to tell you the answer to that question?

Can you not work out for yourself that, no matter who said (or sang) what, it is still not true to say that we trust in God when some of us don't.

[doG]

To put it simply the "we" of the phrase, "In God We Trust", does not include me and it offends me for my currency to say so. Further, the first amendment protects my freedom of religion, or from it as the case may be, and the declaration by my government that any god exists is a violation of my 1st amendment rights. It was after all an act of Congress that permitted this in the first place and such acts are specifically prohibited by the 1st amendment.

[zapatos]

The Supreme Court reviewed the use of 'In God We Trust' and found it to be Constitutional. Since SCOTUS has found it to be Constitutional, I would have to disagree with your assertion that it violates your 1st amendment rights. You may disagree with them, but unfortunately for you, they are the ones who get to decide on this matter.

[iNow]

Bear in mind that SCOTUS also used to say slavery was not a violation of peoples rights. They change their minds with time and new decisions frequently.

[doG]

The Supreme Court reviewed the use of 'In God We Trust' and found it to be Constitutional. Since SCOTUS has found it to be Constitutional, I would have to disagree with your assertion that it violates your 1st amendment rights. You may disagree with them, but unfortunately for you, they are the ones who get to decide on this matter.

Your assertion is contrary to one stated by the U.S. Mint where it says the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the phrase. Can you cite a case where SCOTUS has specifically addressed this phrase on U.S. currency?

[zapatos]

Bear in mind that SCOTUS also used to say slavery was not a violation of peoples rights. They change their minds with time and new decisions frequently.

Yes, they do change their minds from time to time. However, anything they've ruled constitutional, is constitutional, unless or until overturned, or until the constitution is amended.

 

Your assertion is contrary to one stated by the U.S. Mint where it says the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the phrase. Can you cite a case where SCOTUS has specifically addressed this phrase on U.S. currency?

Actually your link supports my position. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, then the decision of the lower court is final. It is the same as if the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and confirmed the decision of the lower court.

 

I don't know of a case that specifically address this phrase on U.S. currency, but in Zorach v. Clauson, SCOTUS indicates that the government's recognition of God is not prohibited.

The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on

coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with

the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial

character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of

a religious exercise."^[32] The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism"

are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they

have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."^[33] In Zorach v. Clauson

(1952), the Supreme Court also held that the nation's "institutions

presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.^[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

[tar]

John Cuthber, on 03 Feb 2013 - 10:55, said:

Do you really need me to tell you the answer to that question?

Can you not work out for yourself that, no matter who said (or sang) what, it is still not true to say that we trust in God when some of us don't.

John Cuthber,

 

Why actualy, for the purposes of this discussion and your objections to the phrase, I rather do require your answers and your logic. I have worked it our for myself, and have concluded its OK that it is there, and it simply restates in words what was presupposed in the establishment of America's institutions, as Zapatos showed to us in the quote from the Wiki-link to "in god we trust".

 

And a supreme being is from whence we claim our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are derived.

One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all.

 

Another quote from the Wiki article on Imagine (the song).

 

 

"The concept of positive prayer ... If you can imagine a world at peace, with no denominations of religion—not without religion but without this my God-is-bigger-than-your-God thing—then it can be true ... the World Church called me once and asked, "Can we use the lyrics to 'Imagine' and just change it to 'Imagine one religion'?" That showed [me] they didn't understand it at all. It would defeat the whole purpose of the song, the whole idea."^[1]

 

 

Take my logic, with John Lennon's interpretation in mind, and Mohammed's interpretation in mind, and Moses' and Jesus', and PeterJ's, and Einstein's, and the FreeMason's.

 

The constitution presupposes that every man ( and it turns out woman and slaves as well) has this greater being from which their life has come, and with this life comes the liberty to associate yourself with this general being in any manner of worship you see fit, and to pursue happiness.

 

No other human can take these unalienable rights away. No one can be excluded from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one, can stand between you and this supreme being, and tell you what to believe in.

 

The World Church asked to use the song but change "no religion" to "one religion". John Lennon says that exactly misses the point of the song, which is to "imagine" the world free of things to kill or die for, and if some day you would join us (us that imagine such a world), then the world would live, as one. Which is akin to the belief of the humanist.

 

Now it may seem "odd" that I would suggest that one could take a "thought" and "make it true", but we actually do this all the time in everything we create. Moses did it with the 10 commandments, our founding fathers did it with our constitutions, our humanists do it with their "human values". What can we "rationaly" put our faith in, that we can trust, will ALWAYS be true? Scientists believe in the laws of Nature. Theists believe in a supreme being, that causes this uncorruptable reality to be. Logically there cannot be a distinction between the source and nature of the greater being that caused me, and that that caused you, because we exist in the same one. The only distinctions are between my beliefs, and yours.

 

We are both "under" a system of beliefs, that does not physically exist, that exists only in the collective mind of those that believe the same. Only made true "when you join us"

 

We are both "under" a greater reality, that is absolutely true and uncorruptable. How we characterise it does not change the facts. We were born, we became conscious of it, it became conscious of us, and we will eventually die. And some part of the greater being will remember our passing.

 

You may call "in god we trust" a lie, based on the fact that you do not believe in the supreme being you believe was being referenced at the founding of this country (that vision of Moses that gave him the tablets, and the character that staged the garden of Eden thing 4000 years ago, and writes names in books, and sends souls up and down and such). Because such a god does not fit the facts.

 

But by doing so, you demand that your own belief in the laws of nature, and the scientific method, and rationality is the only proper thing to believe, and you thusly miss the point of the constitution, as badly as the World Church missed John Lennon's point in writing "imagine".

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 4, 2013 by tar

[John Cuthber]

None of that remotely addresses the issue that there are people who don't trust in God so writing "In God we trust" isn't true.

 

This phrase "Why actualy, for the purposes of this discussion and your objections to the phrase, I rather do require your answers and your logic. "

doesn't make sense.

 

and, to claim " I have worked it our for myself, and have concluded its OK that it is there" implies that you have some strange view that it's OK to write it , even though it's not true.

 

Quoting songs doesn't prove anything: I think it makes you look silly.

 

Above all to say " it simply restates in words what was presupposed in the establishment of America's institutions" is plainly nonsense since it was not on the bills when the institution was founded.

[doG]

Yes, they do change their minds from time to time. However, anything they've ruled constitutional, is constitutional, unless or until overturned, or until the constitution is amended.

 

Actually your link supports my position. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, then the decision of the lower court is final. It is the same as if the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and confirmed the decision of the lower court.

 

I don't know of a case that specifically address this phrase on U.S. currency, but in Zorach v. Clauson, SCOTUS indicates that the government's recognition of God is not prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

 

 

No it doesn't. My link says the lower courts refused to hear the case and SCOTUS refused to review it. If you were familiar with the case you would know that they refused to hear the case because they claimed Dr. Newdow didn't have standing to file the case in the first place, not because they ruled, or didn't as the case is, on the constitutionality of his case.

 

Zorach v. Clauson does not address it either. It addresses the right of children to leave public schools during school hours for bible study off of public school property. It has nothing to do with the phrase on U.S. currency.

 

At question basically is any belief or declaration in any god(s) religious by the very nature of making a theist statement? If so then a declaration that God exists is a recognition of the theist establishment and Congress is prohibited from passing any laws that recognize such an establishment in my opinion. I suspect the court would be forced to agree and that's why they avoid hearing the case at all.

 

...And a supreme being is from whence we claim our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are derived.

One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all....

 

Regards, TAR

 

Can you point that out? The Declaration Of Independence says, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...." Nowhere does it call their Creator a supreme being. My creator was my mom. BTW, "under God" was added by an act of Congress in 1956 so if the declaration that any god exists is religious then that is unconstitutional as well.

[zapatos]

No it doesn't. My link says the lower courts refused to hear the case and SCOTUS refused to review it. If you were familiar with the case you would know that they refused to hear the case because they claimed Dr. Newdow didn't have standing to file the case in the first place, not because they ruled, or didn't as the case is, on the constitutionality of his case.

Hmm. My link disagrees. Either one of our links is wrong, or we are talking about different cases. My link says:

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied an atheist’s legal challenge to the

national motto “In God We Trust” imprinted on U.S. currency, thereby

letting a federal appeals court ruling that the references to God are

constitutional stand.

 

 

The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist who has brought

repeated legal action against the federal government over references to

God. Newdow was dubbed by TIME magazine as “America’s least favorite

atheist” and also has legal action pending against the federal

government claiming that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional,

because it states that the United States is one nation “under God.”

 

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a three-judge appeals panel

of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals under Judge Carlos Bea had ruled

against Newdow, quoting prior court precedent that stated the national

motto has a “patriotic or ceremonial character” and “no theological or

ritualistic impact.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/in-god-we-trust-will-stay-on-us-coins-after-supreme-court-rejects-appeal

 

Zorach v. Clauson does not address it either. It addresses the right of children to leave public schools during school hours for bible study off of public school property. It has nothing to do with the phrase on U.S. currency.

Correct, it does not specifically address the phrase on U.S. currency. That is what I said. What I also said was that the government's recognition of God was not prohibited, as was pointed out with this case.

At question basically is any belief or declaration in any god(s) religious by the very nature of making a theist statement? If so then a declaration that God exists is a recognition of the theist establishment and Congress is prohibited from passing any laws that recognize such an establishment in my opinion. I suspect the court would be forced to agree and that's why they avoid hearing the case at all.

In another ruling (not SCOTUS) supporting the use of 'in god we trust' on currency, Aronow v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled:

"While 'ceremonial' and 'patriotic' may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

[doG]

How can the declaration that there is a god at all have no theological impact? To say, "In God We Trust" implies that there is a god to trust in and that very declaration is theistic and therefore religious. In the last case cited the court is playing silly word games that the theists of SCOTUS refuse to review.

[zapatos]

How can the declaration that there is a god at all have no theological impact? To say, "In God We Trust" implies that there is a god to trust in and that very declaration is theistic and therefore religious. In the last case cited the court is playing silly word games that the theists of SCOTUS refuse to review.

I'm only thinking out loud here, but these are my thoughts on how they came up with 'no theological impact'.

The First Amendment basically says:

 

1. The government cannot create a national religion

2. The government cannot give preference to one religion over another

3. The government cannot stop people from practicing their religion

 

What I believe they are saying is, recognizing there is a god (rightly or wrongly) has no impact on points 1, 2, or 3.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

I would not expect a song entitled "imagine" would be anything but a lie itself. Its an untrue imaginary, non-exsistent dream to begin with. Which is exactly my point, concerning the belief in God, in pointing out its role in establishing the very institutions we depend on for "real" empirically true, existence. Just because an "idea" starts out as a dream, does not mean it can not be brought into reality, if the same idea is collectively held.

 

And all "ideas" must be tested against reality, for them to become true.

 

If we all joined John Lennon, and held the same dream...then what...we will all be holding hands, naked on the mountain top in bliss...for about an hour and a half, til people started getting hungry and wondering if anybody brought anything for lunch. Then we would have to plan for supper, and a warm place to sleep, out of the elements. Some would have made preparations and other's not, so we would share, until after about three days we were all cold and hungry and we would drive our vans and hitchhike back to the real world of politics and belief, divisions and conflicts, winners and losers.

 

If we all joined the founding father's of the U.S. and held the same dream...then what...we would have the U.S. of America and be exactly where we are today, debating as to whether or not the word God should be on our currency. You can take a supreme being off the bill, but you would not automatically therefore be more able to turn dreams into reality, nor provide an empirical basis upon which to establish your beliefs. You can not believe in, and trust reality on the basis of humanity and a "human spirit" unless everybody would buy into the dream and make it true. And this dream is quite unrealistic, and contrary to the facts and therefore even the humanitarian dream, based on careful consideration of empirical eviidence is itself, a lie. Because humanity is made up of bais irrational humans...and those daft Russian and Chinese Communists, are never going to get it right. And those daft creationists. And those evil bankers.,,and group of believers in one dream or another by group, all will be eliminated from the rational human group, till the only one left is you, and there will be no one at all, for you to trust, but you. And it takes much much more "real and true stuff" than John Cuthber, to make a world.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Personally i don't give two shits what it says on money as long as it spends... Silly battle to fight, I'd be happy to just keep creationism out of schools...

[iNow]

If it's not giving preference to one religion over another, then how come it doesn't say In Allah We Trust, or In Vishnu We Trust?

[Moontanman]

If it's not giving preference to one religion over another, then how come it doesn't say In Allah We Trust, or In Vishnu We Trust?

 

 

cuse that wud be satanic...

Edited February 5, 2013 by Moontanman