tar Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) If we were to take the word God from our currency and coin, what words should we replace it with? I would suggest perhaps the word judgment. Allowing people to take it anyway it works. The two words together though I think are rather important considerations, both on a societal level and on an interpersonal and individual scale. Who or what is the beneficary and who or what is the trustee. Who or what is the judge and who or what is the judged. Trust is a forward looking thing. A promise or a contract Judgment is a backward looking thing, used to decide our next action or inaction. Human judgment, replete with biases, and trust as uncertain as a promise. Read one of these biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases off to my daughter as she walked up the stairs, and her reply was "that's what the world does". I called to her "you are right". And started this thread. Regards, TAR Edited February 2, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 In God We Trust wasn't always on our currency, why not just leave that part blank? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 'In humanity we trust'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 'In humanity we trust'? Prometheus, How is that supposed to work, we don't trust most of the bunch. Regards, TAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 No need to replace it, just leave it blank. That would seem the secular thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 In God We Trust wasn't always on our currency, why not just leave that part blank? Without a promise, it would not be a promisary note. Full faith and credit in the U.S. of America might not suffice, especially in the eyes of people that don't trust us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Without a promise, it would not be a promisary note. Full faith and credit in the U.S. of America might not suffice, especially in the eyes of people that don't trust us.We didn't have those problems prior to 1956, why would they suddenly arise now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 How about, "We swear we are good for it". "Cross my heart and hope to die". "Take my word for it". Leaving it blank might be secular, but it assumes as well, that nobody has taken any oath. We don't have to put our hand on a Bible to take and oath, but we still have to give our word that we will tell the truth. Who or what we are swearing on still pertains. Some guiding principle, some forward looking promise needs to be involved. Something against which our actions or failure to act can then be judged. God, if taken as the only possible "higher authority", sort of fills the bill. (pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Without a promise, it would not be a promisary note. Full faith and credit in the U.S. of America might not suffice, especially in the eyes of people that don't trust us. I don't see "In God We Trust" as a promise or the fiat currency of the U.S. as a promissory note, a term normally reserved for written instruments of promise. Neither of these is a viable excuse that the currency needs to say anything more than it did when it was blank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 ydoaPs, Good question. Maybe there was some implied backing that had to be spelled out during the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. Raises into question what that spooky eye above the pyramid is suppose to signify. Perhaps what ever values and authority the Mesons thought was backing up the currency, had to be spelled out. I don't know. But it still leaves a question, as to the enduring value of the note, if some enduring promise is not implied, or spelled out. Regards, TAR Masons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 ydoaPs, Good question. Maybe there was some implied backing that had to be spelled out during the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. Raises into question what that spooky eye above the pyramid is suppose to signify. Perhaps what ever values and authority the Mesons thought was backing up the currency, had to be spelled out. I don't know. But it still leaves a question, as to the enduring value of the note, if some enduring promise is not implied, or spelled out. Regards, TAR Masons 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 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. dimreepr, i do not disagree, but one can be "secular" and still require the belief in a supreme being, as the Freemasons do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_and_religion Skimming through their principles and such, they seemed to align rather well with the secular humanist agenda, except for requiring the belief in some form of supreme being, (which belief in humanity is akin to) and the separation of lodges into men only and women only divisions. If the dollars were backed only by those who had no principles, they would be worthless. Regards, TAR2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 If the dollars were backed only by those who had no principles, they would be worthless. Regards, TAR2 What do you mean by this? Why would leaving in god we trust off the money imply we had no principles? Are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to have principles? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Even in Japan, a very low religiousty place, somebody's picture is on the note. The emperor, or someone representing the will of the people. Edited February 2, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 dimreepr, i do not disagree, but one can be "secular" and still require the belief in a supreme being, as the Freemasons do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_and_religion Skimming through their principles and such, they seemed to align rather well with the secular humanist agenda, except for requiring the belief in some form of supreme being, (which belief in humanity is akin to) and the separation of lodges into men only and women only divisions. If the dollars were backed only by those who had no principles, they would be worthless. Regards, TAR2 The notes aren’t backed by the masons, whatever symbolism is on the currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 What do you mean by this? Why would leaving in god we trust off the money imply we had no principles? Are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to have principles? Moontanman, No, not at all. I for instance have fine moral principles. And am an athiest. But have recently suggested to myself that this does not mean I am devoid of religiously based morals. I was raised Protestant, went to schools that taught me religiously based morals, went by and still live by the "Pingry honor code", graduated from a now defunct college Upsala that had humanity serving messages on founder's plaques and such, live and work with religious folk, spend some time at Christmas with a highly Catholic family, whose moral grounding, love of humanity, and belief in god is all coupled together and education and service to their fellow man, is high on their priority list, even though every sibling is successful and fairly well off. I thusly do not consider the word god on my currency a black mark against me. Rather something that may lie embedded in my character, whether the words are printed their or not. Regards, TAR2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Logically, it should say "In the value of this bit of paper we trust". Since a reasonably large fraction of the people who use the dollar don't believe in God, putting "in God we trust" on it is a lie. Surely a blank space is more trustworthy than a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) The notes aren’t backed by the masons, whatever symbolism is on the currency. dimreepr, Not soley by the masons, there are a lot of people, that believe in the constitution of the United States, and all of us together are backing the currency. Those that believe in one thing or another, but all believe in the constitution. So taking the word off, once its on there, would not change the atheist's ability to continue to back the currency, but it might raise some eyebrows on those that believe in a supreme being. Would you back your currency with more fervor, if the name God was withdrawn? If your personal bias was served, would this be a good or bad thing for humanity. Making that determination for myself, I have concluded that church can be removed from state, but state should not be taken out of the hands of the people. Especially it should not be taken out of the hands of the majority, that believe in, or were inspired by the belief in a supreme being. Regards, TAR2 Edited February 2, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Moontanman, No, not at all. I for instance have fine moral principles. And am an athiest. But have recently suggested to myself that this does not mean I am devoid of religiously based morals. I was raised Protestant, went to schools that taught me religiously based morals, went by and still live by the "Pingry honor code", graduated from a now defunct college Upsala that had humanity serving messages on founder's plaques and such, live and work with religious folk, spend some time at Christmas with a highly Catholic family, whose moral grounding, love of humanity, and belief in god is all coupled together and education and service to their fellow man, is high on their priority list, even though every sibling is successful and fairly well off. I thusly do not consider the word god on my currency a black mark against me. Rather something that may lie embedded in my character, whether the words are printed their or not. Regards, TAR2 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... Edited February 2, 2013 by Moontanman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Without a promise, it would not be a promisary note. Full faith and credit in the U.S. of America might not suffice, especially in the eyes of people that don't trust us. Don't they all still say, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"? I "trust" that more than I have "faith" in anyone's god. Legal tender is recognized by the legal system to be a valid form of payment. That's why I can "trust" it, rather than "hope" it will be accepted, or have "faith" that it will (which is silly, since some places may not, like hotels and airlines). If I had "faith" that my currency would be accepted, I wouldn't bother to carry a debit card AND a credit card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iota Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 In reason we trust. OR In bankers we do not trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Even in Japan, a very low religiousty place, somebody's picture is on the note. The emperor, or someone representing the will of the people.As are ours. Perhaps you've noticed George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and Benjamin Franklin on our notes? Also, as far as the promise to pay, you may have also noticed the signature of our Secretary of the Treasury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 Logically, it should say "In the value of this bit of paper we trust". Since a reasonably large fraction of the people who use the dollar don't believe in God, putting "in God we trust" on it is a lie. Surely a blank space is more trustworthy than a lie. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 It is only a lie to someone that has no belief in any being greater than themselves. . . .Yeah, that is exactly what he said. I don't see what point you're trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) If we were to take the word God from our currency and coin, what words should we replace it with?"Sucker" - written in Chinese. "Wash your hands" Serious options: We the people No need to lie about who is backing the money, but I am in the camp of not worth the fuss in regards to removing those words. It will be removed in due time. Edited February 2, 2013 by john5746 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now