Mottoes on US coins

Bob wrote:

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
"Bruce H (BoxTurtle)" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:01:55 GMT, Bill Dukenfield
is alleged to have written:
"Bruce H (BoxTurtle)" wrote:


Snip

It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx


Read it for yourself and then you can tell me.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...llofRights.htm

JAM

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
"Bruce H (BoxTurtle)" wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:01:55 GMT, Bill Dukenfield
is alleged to have written:
"Bruce H (BoxTurtle)" wrote:


Snip

It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx


Read it for yourself and then you can tell me.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...llofRights.htm

JAM


I can't seem to find the specific violation that you do. Obviously, the
Supreme Court could use your interpretive abilities, since they don't seem
to perceive the IGWT motto as a violation either.

Bruce

Thanks for the link to the Bill of Rights. It's been awhile since I've read
them. It's refreshing in some ways and sad in others when you see obvious
breaches going on. But like a lot of Coin Collectors, I am a student of
History and I've seen in that History the breaches have always occurred.
What it comes down to, (IMHO) is the opinion of the Supreme Court and the
ability of the public at large to influence it. For the most part it works
and where it doesn't, change will eventually occur, albeit slowly.

Don

Bob wrote:
"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
"Bruce H (BoxTurtle)" wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:01:55 GMT, Bill Dukenfield
is alleged to have written:
"Bruce H (BoxTurtle)" wrote:


Snip
It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx

I don't feel as strongly about this issue as Bill does, but I mostly
agree with him - so I'll try to explain.

The idea of separation of church and state is to ensure that people can
worship as they see fit - without any pressure from the government to
conform to an established state-sponsored religion.

However, if the government declares that we all "trust" in "God", then
it implies that we all *should* believe in "God". Some of us, however,
believe that "God" is an outdated concept.

I have heard the religious side argue that "freedom *of* religion does
not mean freedom *from* religion". But I believe it means *exactly* that.

If it makes it easier, consider atheism to be a religion and then
re-think the church/state arguments.

--
Jim Seymour

Bruce Remick wrote:


It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx


Read it for yourself and then you can tell me.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...llofRights.htm

JAM

I can't seem to find the specific violation that you do. Obviously, the
Supreme Court could use your interpretive abilities, since they don't seem
to perceive the IGWT motto as a violation either.

Bruce

Then you are not paying attention.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. It was envisioned as a independent
judiciary but it has always been a political football. Jesus freaks have
made it political suicide to defend our secular constitution. Anyone
that disagrees with the religious reich is demonized to the point of
claiming they are not even citizens of the U.S. It was Bush the first
that made that claim.

At one time it permitted slavery and the second class citizenship of
women and minorities.

No god of any kind is mentioned in the founding documents of our nation.
Our founding fathers had first hand knowledge of the folly of mixing
government and religion. Current world events are proof enough of their
wisdom.

JAM

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying
a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...


made it political suicide to defend our secular constitution. Anyone
that disagrees with the religious reich is demonized to the point of
claiming they are not even citizens of the U.S. It was Bush the first
that made that claim.

It's all right he

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

quote

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

/quote

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:


It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx


Read it for yourself and then you can tell me.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...llofRights.htm

JAM

I can't seem to find the specific violation that you do. Obviously, the
Supreme Court could use your interpretive abilities, since they don't
seem
to perceive the IGWT motto as a violation either.

Bruce

Then you are not paying attention.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. It was envisioned as a independent
judiciary but it has always been a political football. Jesus freaks have
made it political suicide to defend our secular constitution. Anyone
that disagrees with the religious reich is demonized to the point of
claiming they are not even citizens of the U.S. It was Bush the first
that made that claim.

At one time it permitted slavery and the second class citizenship of
women and minorities.

No god of any kind is mentioned in the founding documents of our nation.
Our founding fathers had first hand knowledge of the folly of mixing
government and religion. Current world events are proof enough of their
wisdom.

Exactly.

Although I acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being, I do so for reasons
far different from those of others, and my concept of that Deity is far
different from that held by others. According to my theology, it is
blasphemous to include references to Deity on our currency and in our
Pledge. I have grown very tired of those who claim that because "they" are
in the majority, it is "their" call, and my feelings and my rights be
damned. In a country created and governed by a secular Constitution, the
default value of government-supported religion must necessarily be zero,
else we as a nation are living a lie.

James

"Mr. Jaggers" wrote:

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:


It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx


Read it for yourself and then you can tell me.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...llofRights.htm

JAM

I can't seem to find the specific violation that you do. Obviously, the
Supreme Court could use your interpretive abilities, since they don't
seem
to perceive the IGWT motto as a violation either.

Bruce

Then you are not paying attention.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. It was envisioned as a independent
judiciary but it has always been a political football. Jesus freaks have
made it political suicide to defend our secular constitution. Anyone
that disagrees with the religious reich is demonized to the point of
claiming they are not even citizens of the U.S. It was Bush the first
that made that claim.

At one time it permitted slavery and the second class citizenship of
women and minorities.

No god of any kind is mentioned in the founding documents of our nation.
Our founding fathers had first hand knowledge of the folly of mixing
government and religion. Current world events are proof enough of their
wisdom.

Exactly.

Although I acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being, I do so for reasons
far different from those of others, and my concept of that Deity is far
different from that held by others. According to my theology, it is
blasphemous to include references to Deity on our currency and in our
Pledge. I have grown very tired of those who claim that because "they" are
in the majority, it is "their" call, and my feelings and my rights be
damned. In a country created and governed by a secular Constitution, the
default value of government-supported religion must necessarily be zero,
else we as a nation are living a lie.

James

Nice to know I'm not alone.

Majority rule is not the form of government the secular US Constitution
has codified.

JAM

"Bill Dukenfield" wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:


It violates the First Amendment of the secular US Constitution.

JAM
Out of curiosity, How does it violate the first amendment?
Bob-tx


Read it for yourself and then you can tell me.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...llofRights.htm

JAM

I can't seem to find the specific violation that you do. Obviously, the
Supreme Court could use your interpretive abilities, since they don't
seem
to perceive the IGWT motto as a violation either.

Bruce

snip.

At one time it permitted slavery and the second class citizenship of
women and minorities.

It did not permit that, the people permitted that.

No god of any kind is mentioned in the founding documents of our nation.
Our founding fathers had first hand knowledge of the folly of mixing
government and religion. Current world events are proof enough of their
wisdom.

JAM

The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. "When in the course....the
Laws of Nature and Natures God....are endowed by their Creator....appealing
to the Supreme Judge....on the Protection of Divine Providence...and our
sacred Honor"

TerryS

On Dec 28, 3:32*pm, Stefano MacGregor wrote:
I think we should bring back some of the mottoes used on early US
coins, because they can still inspire us.

I would especially like to see "MIND YOUR BUSINESS".

--
Stefano

I've always liked that motto as well. Although "THIS BUYS FREE
SPEECH" seems more suitable to the times