# Should "In God We Trust" be removed from US currency?



## Sanityhatesme (Apr 12, 2011)

Now, I know there are people from alot of different faiths and cultures out there but I want to just look at what everyone thinks.

I'm writing an argumentative paper on this topic and while I originally said "yes" to the question (and I am not Christian) a recent discussion with my grandfather has me rethinking my stance.

Also, I know that saying "christian" is rather generic, but so is saying "God". "God" can mean alot of different things to alot of different people. Please post your opinions, too! I need all the help I can get.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

This is black humor, "In God we trust" because it means the dollar of the Commonwealth (yes it still exists) is covered with nothing. This is also a double-edged sword your God is not meant it is the God of the Jews, Lucifer.


----------



## NYEnglishRose (Jun 20, 2011)

Zero11, the God (yes, I capitalized it) of the Jews (and Christians) is the Jehovah of the Bible, also called Elohim. Not Lucifer, as you assert. That would likely cause offense to many Jewish people.


----------



## Alice_Morgan (Dec 14, 2011)

No. 
Granted, I am Christian [albeit a very bad one], but I don't see any reason why it should be.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Alice_Morgan said:


> No.
> Granted, I am Christian [albeit a very bad one], but I don't see any reason why it should be.


Is there a reason you see for keeping it on?


----------



## Alice_Morgan (Dec 14, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Is there a reason you see for keeping it on?


Not really, no. I guess I just don't see the point of taking it off.


----------



## Epimer (Mar 21, 2011)

Interesting question.

I will have to think about it, and I need to not be as tired as I am right now in order to contribute properly.

I would also like to see what people say - especially if they have persuasive (and thus inherently valid) arguments.

Just out of interest if I may: Why did a discussion with your grandfather change your mind?

I understand that actually much of the early US founding father stuff (is that the right phrase? or do I mean something else? I'm not American so I don't know all the contextual details too well) was based on a rather secular stance, so if anything it is actually *more* traditional to not confuse church and state.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Yes, it's always made me feel like I'm not American because I am not included in the "We".
I just find it close-minded, most of all.


----------



## Epimer (Mar 21, 2011)

NYEnglishRose said:


> Zero11, the God (yes, I capitalized it) of the Jews (and Christians) is the Jehovah of the Bible, also called Elohim. Not Lucifer, as you assert. That would likely cause offense to many Jewish people.


See Andy Hamilton's recent programme on the BBC iPlayer about the devil if you (geographically/proxy-ically) can.

Very good.

There is no devil in the old testament. Just a serpent. It appears that much of the idea of the devil arose some time after the life of Jesus, heavily influenced by the early church.

And _*a* satan_ is a type of angel in Judaism.

And Eve was not the first woman -- at least in the older, and you could argue more accurate, Judaic texts.*

Interesting stuff.

* I'm an atheist. I think this is a valid argument as the Judaic texts are obviously older than the Christian ones, and I doubt many religious scholars would argue that Judaism and Christianity (and indeed Islam) do not share _some_ common basis - being that they are all Abrahamic religions.


----------



## friendly80sfan (May 12, 2011)

I am a Christian and I strongly believe that "In God We Trust" should stay on our money and it' not just because of my religion, but also because that is part of our history and what our founding fathers stood for.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Everyone has a different perception of God, so why wouldn't you keep the slogan? Even if you only believe in yourself, you are conceptually a God or master of your own reality. The only slight I can see with keeping the slogan is the whole "separation of church and state" whether you believe in it or not. Where are the theocrats around here?


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

It really doesn't matter to me...


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Whoops, hit the wrong button.
Yeah, it's a narrow exclusionary motto, ditch it. Not that it's going to happen anytime soon, of course.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

friendly80sfan said:


> I am a Christian and I strongly believe that "In God We Trust" should stay on our money and it' not just because of my religion, but also because that is part of our history and what our founding fathers stood for.


Most of the founding fathers didn't really "stand for God" in that religion wasn't the main focus of the revolution. Some of them believed in God, some of them didn't, and some of them held a kind of vague deism, but regardless of their individual religious affiliations belief in God wasn't the major driving force behind the revolution. Even if it was, that would be no reason for keeping God. They founding fathers weren't perfect. They did not remove the institution of slavery or allow women to vote. Would you want to keep these things because they are "a part of your history"?

That being said, I'm not against keeping "In God we Trust" on American currency (not that it matters since I'm not a US citizen anyway). It has no legal force and as far as I can see it's not doing anyone any harm. Plus, I think there are more important political issues right now than getting the word "God" off American money. :wink:


----------



## Falhalterra (Apr 24, 2011)

This powerpoint isn't totally related to the "In God We Trust" motto, but rather the Pledge of Allegiance. Still, the information in here should help with your paper: The Pledge of Allegiance by Ryan Latham on Prezi

And just to point out where I stand, I am an atheist, and I do not support the motto. Going through Contemporary History class and just reading more into American History as well, the motto is still a recent addition, and I believe "E Pluribus Unum", the original motto, is the better one. We were the people who escaped European theocracy and tyranny, so why not the original motto? To me, it's ten times more empowering than having "God" stamped on it. Plus, it's an insult to me. I don't have to trust in something I cannot see or prove in order to gather my inner strengths and strong will; it's within myself, as it should be with everyone else.


----------



## Bunker Man (Jan 4, 2011)

They should change it to "In the Great Will, we trust."

I dunno though. You could say that despite the fact that nobody pays attention to religion anymore, a major majority of the US still claims to be religious implicitly, so it's still a reflection of their culture. To be honest, I would think that it would be more offensive to religious people to keep it, since a big state which obviously does not actually do something is professing to anyways, thus damaging the credibility of the people who actually do and have it reflect in what they consider the reasonable ways.

The better question is, why does it matter? People who demand petty changes like this be made are generally people trying to force through social issues on their narrow lines. Leaving them alone means that people can just not pay attention to them if they want. Like how England has a state religion and is technically a theocracy. Does this actually effect anyone who lives there, most of whom don't really remember day to day, or care?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

What should we replace it with? In Government we trust? In Big Business we trust? In Humans we trust? 
All 3 of those have a pretty bad track record as far as trust goes.
God has done nothing to hurt anyone.. Only people have hurt people in his name. That's covered in "humans we trust" 
The concept of God kept people humble. 
So what now then?


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

"In God We Trust" should absolutely be removed from US currency and anything related to our government. Separation of church and state, anyone? Freedom of religion, anyone? Sure, people are free to trust in God if they want to, but people are also free to not trust in God. Of course, reading "In God We Trust" on money does not force anyone to believe in God. But would it be right to inscribe "We Don't Trust God" on money? Or "There Is No God"? It doesn't upset me that our money says "In God We Trust", but it seems a bit ridiculous (or hypocritical, or contradictory) when considering what our country was supposedly founded on.


----------



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

Arclight said:


> What should we replace it with? In Government we trust? In Big Business we trust? In Humans we trust?
> All 3 of those have a pretty bad track record as far as trust goes.
> God has done nothing to hurt anyone.. Only people have hurt people in his name. That's covered in "humans we trust"
> The concept of God kept people humble.
> So what now then?


Yes, because your narrow collection of ideas would not suit our country in your opinion, "what now then?" Why replace it with anything? Sure, it might be nice in some opinions, to have an inspiring, patriotic phrase inscribed on our currency. But really "In God We Trust" contradicts our country's original purpose. People escaped their homeland to start a new country in which they would not be forced to follow a religion according to their overseer. Sure, many of our founders were religious and the colonials and many early Americans religiously persecuted the natives and others. But that is not what our country was meant to be about. People so often tend to fudge the lines of their own credos, either for ease or because they simply forget their prior statements. I am not a stickler for rule following, but I think that we should all be free to believe or not believe in whatever. "In God We Trust" doesn't really mean shit to me. I am not affected by the religious overtones and undertones of our country. It does not hinder me really in any way. But... it just seems silly (or something worse, like plain dumb -- I am not feeling articulate today) that the country often doesn't follow many of their own policies. Can you imagine anyone today electing an atheist (or agnostic for that matter) president? Or a homosexual or bisexual president? I would love to see either happen. I think either would be truly a great step in the right direction in terms of social justice. But I guess we're all people, entitled to our flawed thinking, self-interest and ignorance (not that I'm saying I'm better than anyone of course).


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Neurasthenia said:


> Yes, because your narrow collection of ideas would not suit our country in your opinion, "what now then?" Why replace it with anything? Sure, it might be nice in some opinions, to have an inspiring, patriotic phrase inscribed on our currency. But really "In God We Trust" contradicts our country's original purpose. People escaped their homeland to start a new country in which they would not be forced to follow a religion according to their overseer. Sure, many of our founders were religious and the colonials and many early Americans religiously persecuted the natives and others. But that it not what our country was meant to be about. People so often tend to fudge the lines of their own credos, either for ease or because they simply forget their prior statements. I am not a stickler for rule following, but I think that we should all be free to believe or not believe in whatever. "In God We Trust" doesn't really mean shit to me. I am not affected by the religious overtones and undertones of our country. It does not hinder me really in any way. But... it just seems silly (or something worse, like plain dumb -- I am not feeling articulate today) that the country often doesn't follow many of their own policies. Can you imagine anyone today electing an atheist (or agnostic for that matter) president? Or a homosexual or bisexual president? I would love to see either happen. I think either would be truly a great step in the right direction in terms of social justice. But I guess we're all people, entitled to our flawed thinking, self-interest and ignorance (not that I'm saying I'm better than anyone of course).


I can see you took some time to respond to my post.. I appreciate that. I am always willing to gain a new perspective or hear another point of view. I certainly do not have a narrow collection of ideas. 
And that is where I stopped reading. Which is too bad.. because I bet that paragraph following your opening, contains some well thought out information. Sad that your approach leaves a lot to be desired and your seemingly obvious narrow collection of ideas is quite apparent by you starting your post with that statement. 

My Regards

Arc.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Yeah, it's a pretty miniscule thing, but it's those widespread miniscule things that can be the most annoying. It's a very tiny but very widespread slap in the face of the first amendment by implying that to belong in the "we" that you have to be theist. The we=Americans connection is pretty obvious but I guess since it is vague and can't be proven, it's a difficult thing to fight. 

I'm also surprised that there isn't much protest of this by certain religious groups. Like, isn't it pretty offensive if you're a serious believer to have this phrase thrown all over the place on _money_? Isn't money like the ultimate symbol of materialism, greed, gluttony, envy and whatnot? :laughing:



Zero11 said:


> This is black humor, "In God we trust" because it means the dollar of the Commonwealth (yes it still exists) is covered with nothing.


LOL, yeah I could see how that could have been the intention. Just needs better phrasing...



Das Brechen said:


> Everyone has a different perception of God, so why wouldn't you keep the slogan? Even if you only believe in yourself, you are conceptually a God or master of your own reality.


Yes, and some people's perception is that of a concept they don't trust in. Just because you like to twist with the definitions doesn't mean everyone else has to :tongue:



Tristan Rhodes said:


> God is used by most faiths. So what do you mean "that" religion? Most people belong to a faith. I think a lot of atheists should focus on more important issues, like the AIDS epidemic or starving kids in Africa. Not spending money on ads telling people that what they think is wrong, or campaigning to remove a sentence from a bill they barely glance at as they hand it to the cashier.


This isn't some widescale problem that takes tons of effort like those do. We're probably going to change the format of the currency pretty soon anyway. Why not remove a few unnecessary words that just cause a commotion anyway? It's as simple as leaving it out of the new prints of the design and will probably over the long run save a miniscule amount on the production.



Tristan Rhodes said:


> I was saying in a democracy we cater to the majority. Why should we bend over backwards for a small group of people?


Because we aren't a pure democracy. There's this concept about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is the ultimate winner.



> Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of all the atheist charities in the world. I looked up atheist charities, and got no results. Type in religious, and you have so many to choose from.


That's because 'atheist' charities just call themselves _charities_.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Tristan Rhodes said:


> Taking it off would require to bring back ALL the bills with it on, and create new bills in their place. It would cost a lot of money. If someone is willing to spend massive amounts of money just to remove something that makes them slightly uncomfortable, then they need to get their priorities straight.
> 
> Plus, most people believe in God.


Pragmatic thinker right there..

Atheists need to drop that 'shouldn't be' train of thought as things are as they are, you can't rewrite history, so please stop moaning about it. There are many other things that require our attention. It's like the same damn thing with saying 'ohmygod', some atheists try to change it to get the 'ohyourgod' into trending, but does it really bear any meaning? No, it's nonsense.

year 2054:
Christmas is changed into 'mas' as it is offensive towards atheists. They have spent 33 years fighting for the change and wasted over 77 billion hours, resulting in economic collapse on continental level.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Yeah, it's a pretty miniscule thing, but it's those widespread miniscule things that can be the most annoying. It's a very tiny but very widespread slap in the face of the first amendment by implying that to belong in the "we" that you have to be theist. The we=Americans connection is pretty obvious but I guess since it is vague and can't be proven, it's a difficult thing to fight.
> 
> I'm also surprised that there isn't much protest of this by certain religious groups. Like, isn't it pretty offensive if you're a serious believer to have this phrase thrown all over the place on _money_? Isn't money like the ultimate symbol of materialism, greed, gluttony, envy and whatnot? :laughing:
> 
> ...


So all non religious charities are therefore atheist? No. Fine, give me a charity with an atheist founder. He has to be atheist at the time of the establishment of the charity. 

This is not tyranny, I say the minority will live with a few words on a piece of paper.

The constitution has been ignored time and time again, and only when it involves religion or God do atheists get worked up about it. How about the more important issue, like the military arresting citizens without trial for an indefinite amount of time?


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

sly said:


> Atheists need to drop that 'shouldn't be' train of thought as things are as they are, you can't rewrite history, so please stop moaning about it. There are many other things that require our attention. It's like the same damn thing with saying 'ohmygod', some atheists try to change it to get the 'ohyourgod' into trending, but does it really bear any meaning? No, it's nonsense.


How is this about the past?



> year 2054:
> Christmas is changed into 'mas' as it is offensive towards atheists. They have spent 33 years fighting for the change and wasted over 77 billion hours, resulting in economic collapse on continental level.


What role does the government currently have in Christmas?



Tristan Rhodes said:


> So all non religious charities are therefore atheist? No. Fine, give me a charity with an atheist founder. He has to be atheist at the time of the establishment of the charity.


Atheism isn't its own institution like individual religions are, so it doesn't really make sense to have a specifically atheist charity in that sense. There are many non-theistic charities though, and even one that rejects belief in the title.



> The constitution has been ignored time and time again, and only when it involves religion or God do atheists get worked up about it. How about the more important issue, like the military arresting citizens without trial for an indefinite amount of time?


Why are you assuming that they are getting worked up about it? Or not getting worked up about that issue?

Do you think _I_ take this seriously? The military arrest situation is something that I'd like to actually do something about rather than play around debating about on an 'unrelated' online forum


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> How is this about the past?


I did mention the word 'history' in my last post did I?



> What role does the government currently have in Christmas?


I did mention the year 2054 in my last post did I? That's not 'currently' :laughing:, but seriously though, I'm making a point here.

Every single issue in the world tends to get politicized and used as a weapon to gain PR, win elections or just to deceive the public from REAL issues.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

sly said:


> I did mention the word 'history' in my last post did I?


You must have an odd definition of history if you don't think it's about the past...



> I did mention the year 2054 in my last post did I? That's not 'currently' :laughing:, but seriously though, I'm making a point here. Every single issue in the world tends to get politicized and used as a weapon to gain PR, win elections or just to deceive the public from REAL issues.


Agreed, though it doesn't make the other issues non-issues.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> You must have an odd definition of history if you don't think it's about the past...


yup



> Agreed, though it doesn't make the other issues non-issues.


yup

4char/


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> How is this about the past?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course there are non theistic charities. I even said that. One that rejects belief. ONE. Out of how many? I say religion has far more charities than charities that reject faith. 

Atheism has several institutions.

You ask so many question. I assume they get worked up about it because they make billboards, and tear down crosses and petition for the removal of military memorials because there is a cross.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Tristan Rhodes said:


> Of course there are non theistic charities. I even said that. One that rejects belief. ONE. Out of how many? I say religion has far more charities than charities that reject faith.


Okay, I was just making sure that no one could draw any silly assumptions from your search that turned up no specifically atheist charities. 



> You ask so many question. I assume they get worked up about it because they make billboards, and tear down crosses and petition for the removal of military memorials because there is a cross.


That's hardly getting worked up, at least not compared to the plenty of examples of theists getting worked up about stuff  And it's just as silly to attribute that to atheists in general as it would be to attribute some things people have done that relate to their belief to theists in general. 

Also, do you know that the people who are doing this are atheists? You could make that case with that billboard, but some people just like things that relate to religion and things that relate to government seperate.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Okay, I was just making sure that no one could draw any silly assumptions from your search that turned up no specifically atheist charities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am in favor of separation of Church and state, but not to such a degree. God is used by the majority of religions. No specific Church or faith is mentioned. 
Atheists have committed atrocities and killed too. Have you heard of the League of the militant atheists? So both sides can get "worked up" to the same degrees. 

The lawsuit was presented by an atheist. Philip K. Paulson. I don't think that was the cross that was torn down, but it might have been. Either way, he filed a lawsuit because he saw the memorial as Christian.


----------



## DeadboredreD (Aug 2, 2011)

umbrellasky said:


> Bush say that God told him to go to war


is God bush's girlfriend?


----------



## MissNobody (Aug 23, 2010)

DeadboredreD said:


> is God bush's girlfriend?


Depends...is God male or female?


----------



## DeadboredreD (Aug 2, 2011)

umbrellasky said:


> Depends...is God male or female?


 I have never touched god's genital.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

This doesn't trigger any Establishment Clause concerns. You have to consider why we have the Establishment Clause in the first place. The purpose is to prevent the de jure or de facto establishment of a national church; it's not to eliminate any mention of religion from public works. Since it does not say "In Christ We Trust" or "In Mohammed We Trust", it is sufficiently vague that there is no risk of this contributing to the concept (whether real or apparent) that there is an established national religion. Whether it favors theism or atheism is not consequential, we're talking about specific church entities here.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

I cannot believe people are bothered by something as small as this. "I am not Christian, therefore remove God from anything I have to look at!" oh please.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

timeless said:


> This doesn't trigger any Establishment Clause concerns. You have to consider why we have the Establishment Clause in the first place. The purpose is to prevent the de jure or de facto establishment of a national church; it's not to eliminate any mention of religion from public works. Since it does not say "In Christ We Trust" or "In Mohammed We Trust", it is sufficiently vague that there is no risk of this contributing to the concept (whether real or apparent) that there is an established national religion. Whether it favors theism or atheism is not consequential, we're talking about specific church entities here.


That is true. The motto could be a bit more accurate though. 

"In god(s) a majority of us trust"


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

it would cost too much to reprint everything and who cares really. Im not religious


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

DeadboredreD said:


> I have never touched god's genital.


i heard Jesus was hung like ur avatar ;P


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

DeadboredreD said:


> is God bush's girlfriend?


Why would a god be the girlfriend of a former US President?


----------



## MonieJ (Nov 22, 2010)

It should stay, it has been there for a long time and I don't see why people are gettin so upset about it now.

:dry:


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

MonieJ said:


> It should stay, it has been there for a long time and I don't see why people are gettin so upset about it now.
> 
> :dry:


Actually, I think the first legal attempt to get rid of it was in the early 70's.


----------



## MonieJ (Nov 22, 2010)

Admros said:


> Actually, I think the first legal attempt to get rid of it was in the early 70's.


Then ppl need to get over it and move on.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

This debate makes me wonder if there will come a time where everything will be stripped bare of preferences or taste simply because it offends or contradicts someone else's views/beliefs.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Democracy means consensus, not freedom.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Just as a joke I've taken the time to think up and collect some alternatives to the motto:

"In Allah (Peace Be Upon Him) We Trust"

"In Vague Religious Concepts That Are Not Meant To Favor Any Religion Over Any Other We Trust"

"In Money We Trust"

"In Trust We Trust"

"In Tautologies We Trust"

"In China We Trust"

"In Fiat Currency We Trust"

"In The Invisible Hand We Trust"

Also found this little gem on 4chan a long time ago:

Legal tender is the official deity. When you spend a dollar, you are spending a bit of your god. What is the proof that the dollar is worth what it says it is? Because it is the will of the currency, your lord.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

What if we created a financial system on PerC? You know, like charm points. I'll start with all of them, and if you guys can impress me, maybe I'll give you... a look at them.

Or my goodies. Just saying.


----------



## lib (Sep 18, 2010)

Yes.
If you want a secular government, it would be the right step to take.
I don't think old notes should be removed earlier because of this - only that new bills should be printed without the words.
As for those stating that their reason for voting "No" is not their beliefs - I have 2 letters: BS!
"It has been there a long time so there's no need to change it." could, in the past, be said about a lot of things such as laws regarding slavery, homosexuals, right to vote not including women or blacks, etc.


----------



## Raingembow (Dec 19, 2012)

Even if, like me, you don't believe in a god does it _really_ matter that much? I mean does the word god offend you so much you can't bear to see it?


----------



## Raingembow (Dec 19, 2012)

Even if, like me, you don't believe in a god does it _really_ matter that much? I mean does the word god offend you so much you can't bear to see it?


----------



## WardRhiannon (Feb 1, 2012)

Yes. Religion should have nothing to do with a secular government.


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

Yes, and I'm a Christian. It seems like its just assumed that everybody trusts in God, and if I didn't believe in God it would probably get on my nerves.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

I don't see why we should. Just seems like a stupid thing to worry about and cause a bunch of drama over. If you don't like it there, just don't look at it. Even scribble it out if you're feeling particularly rebellious. The thing is, I wouldn't really care about it being gone, but I wouldn't want all the trouble that would come with getting rid of it. The Facebook debates. My dad ranting about how Obama is the Antichrist. It's just not worth the trouble.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

Accidentally voted yes, I meant no. I don't think it should be removed because our country was founded by Christians and has a rich history with it.


----------



## NChSh (Jan 2, 2013)

"In God we trust," has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The phrase came from the star spangled banner, written in 1812 (long after this country was founded), but did not appear on coins until 1864 and on paper money in 1956. Slavery was also part of US history and many of the founding fathers did support it. Does that mean it should have been preserved.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

I don't care. Keep it. It's cool. I'm an atheist.



Psychosmurf said:


> "In Fiat Currency We Trust"


LOL That's actually true. For me, at least. I have no solid notion that my bank notes are worth anything real, except that everyone thinks it is and someone will give me a jug of milk for the right note. In fact I'm going to stop thinking about it. I don't want you lot thinking about it. I spent a lot of hours for those notes and if you lot start questioning it, you won't give me anything for those pieces of paper.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

friendly80sfan said:


> I am a Christian and I strongly believe that "In God We Trust" should stay on our money and it' not just because of my religion, but also because that is part of our history and what our founding fathers stood for.


It always astounds me how little Americans know about their founding fathers.


----------

