That figure is obviously a wild guess, but I agree, the only actual new cost would be the design (which is minimal, removing a phrase), and new master plates from which printing plates are struck.
The method we’re talking about here (start printing non-IGWT notes, replace worn IGWT notes with them as part of the normal process) is how IGWT notes were introduced in the first place:
There’s actually an imminent rollout of the latest currency redesign, which would have been a great chance to drop IGWT at no cost.
Maybe next time.
It’s not the dollar cost that would be important, but the actual political costs that make this whole discussion as much a fantasy as the debate on getting rid of the 2nd Amendment by simply re-writing the Constitution and leaving it out. There would be a tremendous stink raised by the theist types if there was a proposal to take it out, and I don’t see many politicians supporting such a change for any new designs any time soon.
I’m perfectly good, in this case, if someone wants to pay the price it would cost to get something like this going and through the process, but I doubt anyone is going to think the marginal benefit is worth the cost.
Been crossing it off my paper money with a sharpie now for a week. Haven’t gotten one back yet.
I would add: How much better is the world since we put "Under God In our pledge? “In God we trust” on our money? It sure doesn’t look like people are living up to the motto. We keep building jails and seem to fill them up as much (if not more) that we used to. Sounds like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus, lots of talk, not much walk!
It probably does not belong on the money but the mere mention of it will bring out the “War on Christianity” segment of the population. As much fun as it is to watch people like Sarah Palin imply that Pres. Obama was behind the decision to alter the the US dollar coin, this is a battle that is best avoided Stephen Colbert has plenty of material as it is.
The OP’s question did make me wonder what other world currencies had some religious references on them. The Kwanzaa does not but the Brazilian Real does, although there were some efforts late last year to have them removed. Doper’s, check your wallets.
We have the head of the Church of England on our money. Well, the head of the head of the Church of England.
But then, we also have Charles Darwin on the five pound note.
I’m all for separation of Church and State, so long as I get an answer to the question:
Does Secular Humanism count as a religion?
Excuse me . . . what does God want with a dollar bill?
Hmmm-what is your definition of “religion”?
I don’t think so, there’s no faith involved. “This is how I want the world to work like, here’s my plan to pull it off” isn’t the same as “The world works like this and I ignore all contradictory data!”
What doesn’t? What has tiptoeing around fanatics like that ever done, except let them win?
Pretty much the same thing, or even more significant, is how many European flags have a cross on them. Lots.
Well, there isn’t a USSR around anymore and anti-communism was one of the justifications for including “Under God” in the pledge (written without that part by a socialist Baptist minister no less).
It’s doubtful the phrase had much effect on the fall of the old Soviet bloc or on preventing communism from taking root in the US but there you go.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
What doesn’t? What has tiptoeing around fanatics like that ever done, except let them win?
[/QUOTE]
Seriously? It shuts them the fuck up and pacifies them while allowing for slow, gradual changes with a minimum of fuss. Do you not realize how far this country has come in the last 30-40 years from where we were when I was a kid? Rile them up, however, and it’s going to be a huge stink and fight…and for what? A freaking symbolic and pretty much meaningless win by removing In God We Trust from the money? You think THAT is worth fighting over when there is so much more meaningful out there? At least wait on this crusade until SSM is in the bag before poking the theists in the nose and putting them all in a lather by confirming their paranoia that atheists ARE really out to get them.
They also have state religions.
Due to the efforts of people who were loud and aggressively got in the faces of these people. Being passive and submissive doesn’t shut them up - it didn’t for the centuries when no one dared say they didn’t believe - and the only changes it enables are bad ones. They are still, now, constantly trying to push their religion into government, and have to be actively opposed; if atheists and non-fundie-Christians had just stayed quiet, we’d have judges draped in Biblical-verse embroidered robed is courts festooned in the Ten Commandments arguing over how many beatings per day are allowed against kids who don’t pray in school.
They thought that way about atheists when atheists were so silent that they effectively didn’t exist. Rolling over and playing dead for them doesn’t do anything but let them write their fanaticism into the law.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Due to the efforts of people who were loud and aggressively got in the faces of these people. Being passive and submissive doesn’t shut them up - it didn’t for the centuries when no one dared say they didn’t believe - and the only changes it enables are bad ones. They are still, now, constantly trying to push their religion into government, and have to be actively opposed; if atheists and non-fundie-Christians had just stayed quiet, we’d have judges draped in Biblical-verse embroidered robed is courts festooned in the Ten Commandments arguing over how many beatings per day are allowed against kids who don’t pray in school.
[/QUOTE]
Totally disagree. It’s due to not threatening them by getting in their face constantly with stupid, silly shit like taking In God We Trust from the currency for no other reason than it annoys some atheists. The changes have been slow but steady and we have come an astonishingly long way since I was a kid in the 60’s…and done so without really riling up the theist type. Some riling up is inevitable, and you can see that in the last decade at least they have been whining more and more about attacks on Christmas and such. You have to pick your battles though, IMHO…and pick them wisely. This is not a wise battle to pick at this time.
You see enemies under every bible though and are at least as paranoid as the most rabid theist. Something like this is right up your ally, since it will definitely spark a huge back lash and confirm all your fears about theists lashing out at atheists.
Um, were you an atheist in the 1960s? Other than the elimination of mandatory school prayer, what are examples of some of these amazing changes?
My take is that there were an influx of vocal atheists in the 2000s, eg Dawkins. Now I suppose you could show some shifts in polling over time. But does that really count as a change?
I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I’m just trying to understand what you’re saying.
Nonsense. What few changes we have had are because of people who were willing to stand up and incur massive amounts of hatred for opposing things like school prayer and creationism in schools. And we threaten them simply by existing.
FYI: The leading opponents of creationism in public schools are very careful not to step on the toes of the religionists. Home | National Center for Science Education
But doesn’t “this is how I want the world to look like” involve the belief that changing the world would be beneficial for everyone? It’s not just the theists who have gods, doctrines, and clergy.
On the other hand, I may be painting with too broad a brush and lumping the dictatorial cult of personalities that sprung up in many of those supposedly atheist communist countries* with Secular Humanism. It turns out that once you destroy the old “silly superstitions”, new ones start springing up in their place like tenacious weeds.
*Take China, for example. They turned The Communist Party into the state religion and literally worshiped Mao as their savior. The collected sayings of Mao became holy writ, songs to Mao and The Party became hymns, etc etc etc.