See now you are getting it. Which is why, yes, to be strict, money, the metal thereof, isn’t the root of all evil, but the love of it is.
Well, mercury is a liquid. But I understand current parlance does delineate meanings here, but as the dictionary does not – metal is a type of stone.
I know, but people who trust in God don’t trust in money. I just think this is a very ironic sleight of hand by our capitalist masters, no?
AERYN SUN – I think your article sums up admirably the way the hypothetical case will shake out. The question will be whether the context of the posting outweighs the (historically recognized) non-religious significance of the motto. But I would point out that the article itself reveals the bias of the source when it states, as fact, that “this is very different from the school district’s proposed posters;” actually, whether or not it is "very different is the very question to be decided. If it is, it’s arguably unconstitutional; if it’s not, it’s not. Moreover, the article also presumes, without a cite, that “the intent is to display them daily to young children in their classrooms as part of teaching ‘respect for the creator.’” I don’t think that particular intent has been established yet, either.
JMULLANY says:
Sure we do. One of the things I believe God gave me was the ability to take care of myself. One of the ways I do that is by recognizing the value of money as a means to buy goods in our society. Trusting God doesn’t mean I can’t trust that 65 cents will buy me a candy bar, or that I have to thing I can get the candy bar without the 65 cents.
jmullaney wrote:
[QUOTE]
Ah, but your dictionary definition implies that a stone must be a naturally-occurring concretion of earthy or mineral matter. So a gold nugget would be a stone, and copper ore would be a stone, but refined copper metal or gold melted down and cast into coins or ingots would not.
It implies no such thing. Anyway – who said I was quoting anything to begin with? 
A stone is also (def #2) “something resembling a small stone” which, you must admit, metal money does.
Scratching my head, here. I am neither for, nor against the idea of displaying the motto “In God We Trust” in public schools.
I am not a terribly religious person and do not subscribe to any particular religion, though I lean toward some of the ideas in a few Native American cultures, especially the Lakota and Cherokee. …but I digress.
Regardless of your religious leanings, “God” is a part of that. Bear with me while I explain. Whether “God” to you is Yahweh, Allah, Odin, the Goddess, The Great Spirit, or yourself (Atheism?) Look at it as trusting in what you believe. Looking at it in that light, does it really have leanings towared any one particular set of beliefs to say “In God we trust?”
Yes, it leans towards the belief in God.
Jodi: Unfortunately, the archives have not made the switch to the new system (yet), so folks can’t see the previous discussions.
Meephead:
Well, as an Atheist, I don’t really consider myself “God” in the traditional sense, nor would I want my picture on the back of a quarter with ‘Trust this Guy’ written underneath it.
What if you don’t believe in A God? Some sort of timesharing, equal-partnership, celestial bureacracy might rule your personal cosmos. What then?
Besides, that sort of muddying of the english language is the last sort of thing we need to be lending any sort of approval to in a public school. ‘Well that depends on what “GOD” means. . .’ I mean really. If you want it to read Trust Your Beliefs then please, just go ahead and put that on there.
Might I suggest “Use the Force” as our new national motto?
-Ben
And worse, what if I believe in an evil God who’s out to get me? I sure as hell wouldn’t wanna trust Him!
Ben wrote:
Isn’t it already? I mean, that’s how the U.S. defends its interests overseas, right?
jmullaney wrote:
A stone is also a unit of weight equal to 14 pounds.
And at the going exchange rate, 14 pounds is about 20 dollars, which is way too big a denomination for a modern coin.
Give it the benifit of the doubt, because in 1950 or whatever, there weren’t too many athiests in the U.S. and “In God We Trust” doesn’t DIRECTLY refer to any one religion. Back then, it was assumed no one had a religion that didn’t believe in a higher power.
I would like to see someone take this to courts, so the new quarters can be printed without this.
PowerpuffKue wrote:
Cite?
DAVID, I’m truly sorry to hear that because it was a pretty good discussion that only occasionally became acrimonious. Plus, no way I’m going to look all that stuff up again. 
Well, I’m still hoping the archives can be converted. It’s ironic – we moved stuff to the archive 'cus we wanted to save it, but the only stuff that made the move was the stuff NOT in the archive! < sigh >
Can you cite that there were alot of athiests in the U.S. in the 1950’s? History books usually don’t say “There weren’t too many athiests in the U.S. in the 1950’s”. I came to that conclusion because to my knowledge, there were no protests over this Supreme Court decision.
Which Supreme Court decision? And how do you know there weren’t many protests?
As far as I know, atheism was generally frowned upon by the U.S. public at large throughout the first half of the 20th century. Certainly the Hayes Office, which controlled what could and could not be shown in movies, didn’t help things – it was run by a minister or priest of some sort, and among its list of movie no-no’s was “blasphemy.” It was not until the 1960s that public sentiment moved away from the Hayes Office’s censorship and toward the more permissive G/PG/R/X rating system.
It would not surprise me if there were a large number of “closet atheists” in the 1950s.
i have no citation, but i recall reading that the percentage of the adult american population that is atheist has held at about 10% for the last hundred years or more. have no idea where they got the data or where i read it.