"In God We Trust"

[Quintessence]

Quite an odd presumption, but it might be interesting to see your reasoning. Care to share?

It's certainly no less odd than claiming that putting "in God we trust" on currency is a sign of "religious insecurity." But the point seems to have been missed (see below).

Why's that? What's wrong with wanting an official symbol of a country - e.g. the design of its currency - to better reflect the country?

That's not really my point. I was objecting to the ridiculous claim in that that having "in God we trust" on currency is a sign of "religious insecurity" by making a tit-fot-tat comparison.

My sentiments to the question "does this have a place on our currency?" is "it's there right now, so why not?" and a whole lot of "who cares?" If I'm going to raise a stinker about Christian hegemony in this country, it's not gong to be over something like this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not really my point. I was objecting to the ridiculous claim in that that having "in God we trust" on currency is a sign of "religious insecurity" by making a tit-fot-tat comparison.

And your comparison is off-base. Secularists have to deal with "this is a Christian nation"-type nonsense all the time. Christian symbolism in government is often pointed to as justification for more serious abuses. Maybe having "in God we Trust" on money shouldn't have any real effects, but it does.

My sentiments to the question "does this have a place on our currency?" is "it's there right now, so why not?" and a whole lot of "who cares?" If I'm going to raise a stinker about Christian hegemony in this country, it's not gong to be over something like this.

When it comes to currency designs, especially the designs of banknotes, there is no default option.

Your money will be redesigned. It must be redesigned to keep up with counterfeiters, and should be redesigned to make it work better for people with disabilities. When this happens, you start with a blank slate.

The question "should the design be like the old design?" has already been answered with "no". The design must be changed. The question now becomes "what elements should be incorporated into the new design?" ... and apart from legal requirements, there is no default answer to that question.

 

[sun rise]

There's a very simple answer to both slogan and money...

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a very simple answer to both slogan and money...

As soon as I saw you posted to this thread, I knew what you're up to!

 

[sun rise]

As soon as I saw you posted to this thread, I knew what you're up to!

Give that man a bowl of haggis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I was American, from my perspective there would be 2 ways of thinking about it:

1. Given all the major problems in society and the need to reduce wasted expenditure, going through a rancorous, costly and time consuming process to remove 4 words off some coins seems like a bit of a pointless endeavour. Not to mention the attendant media circus sensationalising the issue as being a) the precursor to the apocalypse, or b) the final cumulation of the Enlightenment project that heralds the rational Millennium (delete as appropriate) that makes it seem like there is nothing more important in the world than what metal circles are embossed with. Overall, regardless of desirability, it is hardly top of the list of priorities for the legislature; the political equivalent of dusting behind the fridge.

2. Given all of the major problems in society and the need to reduce wasted expenditure, going through a rancorous, costly and time consuming process to remove 4 words off some coins is the best way to keep politicians from ****ing up other things that really matter, cause greater problems and cost even more money. Engaging them with trivialities is thus a great boon to society.

I'm not sure if this applies here, but in the case of other church-state violations (e.g. religious monuments on public lands), the courts have granted "grandfather" exceptions based on historical significance, citing some long period without controversy.

This has meant that secular groups have had to raise their objections to these sorts of violations as soon as possible, because if they wait, they can lose their opportunity to fix the problem. Even if there are bigger fish to fry, if you think you might ever want to address some minor church-state violation, it's still important to be on record opposing the violation so that some religious group can't make the case later that it has a history without controversy.

 

[Covellite]

Vatican City Euros have an image of a religious leader on them, and British coinage has "D.G. REGINA" (Latin for "Queen by the grace of God") on it, same as Canada.

Vatican City State is not EU county, even they use euro, like some other non EU countries. They were always strange, with population less then 1000 people, there's president is The Pope, they have there own made in Switzerland army and tons of gold I never had a chance to see and any Vatican bank note or coin, they are highly priced among collectors
In Britain (they use pounds, not euros) it's still possible to run into shillings, they don't like changes at all

 

[Quintessence]

And your comparison is off-base. Secularists have to deal with "this is a Christian nation"-type nonsense all the time. Christian symbolism in government is often pointed to as justification for more serious abuses. Maybe having "in God we Trust" on money shouldn't have any real effects, but it does.

I don't find it off-base at all.

It isn't just secularists who have to put up with the nonsense. Let's not forget about the rest of us who aren't monotheists or worshipers of the one-god.

The question "should the design be like the old design?" has already been answered with "no". The design must be changed. The question now becomes "what elements should be incorporated into the new design?" ... and apart from legal requirements, there is no default answer to that question.

As should be evident from what I said earlier, I don't really care about the issue. I'm not in the "this must be changed!" camp, in spite of being a polytheist who doesn't worship the one-god and who would have every personal reason to want it changed. I just don't care. The country I live in is still mostly Christian and monotheistic. I don't have a problem with the currency reflecting that.

 

[Covellite]

Since only few hundreds company control / possess over 80% of the world's monetary funds, let them decide. I guess they will put there's logos instead of some religious/historical significant stuff.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't find it off-base at all.

It isn't just secularists who have to put up with the nonsense. Let's not forget about the rest of us who aren't monotheists or worshipers of the one-god.

You say that as if "secular" and "religious" are mutually exclusive. People of all sorts of religious beliefs can be secularists.

As for non-secularists with minority religious beliefs: I don't want their gods on money, either. Maybe some of them will take the secular position on this issue out of pragmatism instead of being motivated by seculae ideals; if so, great. They're welcome at the party, too.

As should be evident from what I said earlier, I don't really care about the issue.

Right: you don't care about getting God off your money; you only care about the meta-debate about whether trying to get God off your money is a good idea.

I'm not in the "this must be changed!" camp, in spite of being a polytheist who doesn't worship the one-god and who would have every personal reason to want it changed. I just don't care. The country I live in is still mostly Christian and monotheistic. I don't have a problem with the currency reflecting that.

It isn't just the "this must be changed!" camp who should be speaking out now. Even the "I think I might like it better if it wasn't there, but there are bigger concerns right now" camp has something to lose by not speaking out now.

And there's a difference between a country with a mostly Christian population and a Christian government. Religious slogans on currency are about the latter.

 

[Skwim]

It's certainly no less odd than claiming that putting "in God we trust" on currency is a sign of "religious insecurity."

OMG that's bad, and I think you know it. And please keep in mind that I didn't say that it was a sign of religious insecurity, but that it smacked of it.

smack of
v.
1. To have the distinctive flavor or taste of something: The soup smacks of garlic.
2. To give an indication of something; be suggestive of something:

smack of something
to have some of the characteristics or qualities of something

Source: The free dictionary.
______________________________________
Smack of

Modern English speakers know smack primarily as an unrelated word having to do with slaps and sounds made with the lips, while the older smack lives on mainly as the verb embedded in the phrase smack of, which means to resemble, to evoke, or to be reminiscent of. This is a figurative extension of the earlier senses of smack that were synonymous taste and smell, so to smack of something is to figuratively taste or smell of it. The phrase usually refers to negative qualities (this is true of historical instances as well as modern ones), though there’s no logical reason it can’t be used for neutral or positive things.
Source. http://grammarist.com​

But the point seems to have been missed (see below).

My sentiments to the question "does this have a place on our currency?" is "it's there right now, so why not?" and a whole lot of "who cares?" If I'm going to raise a stinker about Christian hegemony in this country, it's not gong to be over something like this.

It's only a question Q, not a call to arms.