God off $ is next......

[Haut Medoc]

Re: God off $ is next......

Hear! Hear! If a church is legitimate entity & has no other objective than to help its' constituents and others in need, I feel that any money contributed to them should be "Hands Off" to the government. Most people don't think about how the money is spent in church hands, but a great deal is spent for the good of the people, unlees you deduct the millions wasted on the ********* crap. I think the unity of church is a good thing.....Even if personally I don't go, I see very many good people that do, and if that is there choice,.....Well God Bless Them.....JK

 

[SS MAYFLOAT]

Re: God off $ is next......

I think this Newdow fellow just has an obsession with getting his name in the history books. He needs to pay the bill on this matter since he wants it to be changed.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: God off $ is next......

If there is a war on words of a religious nature printed on currency, what will be the viewpoints and participants?<br /><br />1. Fanatics who want it off, claiming that it violates the concept of Separation, and that having "GOD" on our currency is de facto sponsorship of religion, violating the rights of those that do NOT believe in religion.<br /><br />2. Fanatics who wish to keep it ON our currency, citing history and tradition as the reasons.<br /><br />3. Those who don't care. Probably the largest group, but because they don't care, are the least influential.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as JB stated in another thread, history and tradition are not valid, legal arguments, and have no bearing in court.<br /><br />Aside from tradition, can anybody give a sound reason to keep these words on our currency? The only one I can think of is the financial burden of taking old currency out of circulation and reprinting.

 

[DJ]

Re: God off $ is next......

no bearing in court.<br />

Here we go. A LEGAL system, not a JUSTICE system.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: God off $ is next......

You put the burden of proof on the wrong hand.<br /><br />First someone must show me where in the constitution is says the government and religion must be completely separate.<br /><br />Ken

 

[DJ]

Re: God off $ is next......

First someone must show me where in the constitution is says the government and religion must be completely separate.<br />

Bingo! It doesn't.<br /><br />But the vast majority of Americans think it does exists. <br /><br />The greatest scam ever portrayed, in my book.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: God off $ is next......

The Separation of Church and State is called out in the Constitution in the very same place that it says the Speaker of the House is next in presidential sucession after the Vice-President.<br /><br />The same place that it lays out the procedure for the Primary elections.<br /><br />The same place that it fixes the House of Representatives at 435 seats.<br /><br /><br />It is in the interpretation, by the people, through our legislative process.

 

[DJ]

Re: God off $ is next......

wilkin250r,<br /><br />

The Separation of Church and State is called out in the Constitution in the very same place that it says the Speaker of the House is next in presidential sucession after the Vice-President.<br /><br />The same place that it lays out the procedure for the Primary elections.<br /><br />The same place that it fixes the House of Representatives at 435 seats.<br /><br /><br />It is in the interpretation, by the people, through our legislative process. <br />

Please enlighten me.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: God off $ is next......

DJ, in principle, you are correct. The Constitution does not explicitely call out a separation of church and state.<br /><br />In fact, the Constitution does not explicitely call out a LOT of things. It lays groundwork, but nothing more.<br /><br />Nowhere in the Constitution does it lay out your right to privacy of your medical records, or your income, or your tax information. Those rights that you hold dear are in the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, not in the actual document itself.<br /><br />You can't go by strictly the literal wording of the Constitution. It's too simplistic, it won't stand on it's own.<br /><br />The people have interpreted (or are still interpreting) that the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state.