|
|
|
| Zobacz też: |
.png) |
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Much of this information is copied verbatim from http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
I suspect that my recent modifications may encounter religiously biased opposition; however, I have worked very hard to only present the situation in a more balance light. I have not deleted any of the supportive text, only included crucial content that improves the accuracy of the article. This an important concept, of particular relevance as a Current Event. (metavalent 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
I added a "citation needed" here: "Though many believecitation needed that the 1956 act disregarded an already existing national motto...." That "Though many believe" sounds like politically-motivated weasel words without a corresponding citation, however much I personally might agree with those politics. Instead, what would be best I think is "Though some critics such as Joe Schmoe[citation] believe that the 1956 act disregarded...."Jusbigboned (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Evilweevil 19:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC): Somebody should add links to the Newdow v. United States Congress case.
Siliconman 11:40, 22 September 2005 (EDT): I think that Aronow v. United States is more relevant than Newdow
Orbit 5 Dec 2004: Nice job keeping a clean simple explination of the issue.
The following doesn't seem to make sense...
A law passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. The President approved a joint resolution declaring In God We Trust the national motto of the United States.
The first part is not a sentence. I don't know what the actual meaning behind this should be, or what exactly a joint resolution is, so I haven't changed it. As it stands its not exactly innacurate, just nonsensical :) Jasongetsdown 21:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-- Ah, it's missing a "was" between the "law" and "passed." If it's not already fixed I'll do so now. Lamarcus 20:30, 28 January 2005
Take a look at the "Llewelyn-Bowen second chance" section of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). Perhaps this should be added to "Cultural references", or perhaps it's not relevant enough to include here. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The article states "The first United States coin to bear this national motto was the 1864 two-cent piece. It first appeared on U.S. currency on the back of Florida National Bank Notes in 1863. It wasn't until 1957 that the motto was permanently adopted for use on United States currency.". Later, the article states "Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto. " Does that means that all coins bore them from 1938 and that in 1957 this was made"permanent" ir a decision made for future as welas current coinage? Or does it mean that coinage prior to 1957 sometimes had the motto and sometimes did not? The article should be clarified, and it seems that the 1938 date merits adding to the introduction. --Nantonos 09:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What has you is the differentiation between coinage and currency, where currency is paper money.
Int he part about the history of the motto where it discusses Teddy Roosevelt's feeling on the motto being on money, italics and bolds are added that are not in the original, cited text. I am editing the italics and bold out.--Henrybaker 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not religious, I'm agnostic.. (I'm not an atheist)... but how can someone put the word God on money? Isn't that like putting the phrase "I love you" on a bullet in a shotgun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.227.201 (talk • contribs) 03:05, March 15, 2007
Where have you been? Money IS God. Money creates nations and destroys them. It makes the world go round. I think the U.S. is the perfect nation to label money as 'God'.
-G
Courts don't have a problem with it, apparently... Aronow_v._United_States. 67.190.124.18 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
hi
Well first off I think a lot people really need to do some research on God, America, the Constitution, all of it. Yes many our for fathers were religious. Many things yes and no were based on religion when America was being born. BUT GOD, MONEY AND AMERICA ARE ALL SEPERATE THINGS. Yes everyone has freedom of religion. But no need to go several years later go and change what have been "TRADITIONS" of the United States for years and years and years. Just another way for power hungry people to go and control the people and take away our freedom. I think America needs to get back to reality. We all have forgotten were our roots came from. Why we came to America. Money and power isn't everything....people just think it is.
I cleaned this section up a bit. Fixed lots of spelling errors and bad grammar. Also removed about half a paragraph that had nothing to do with the article, and just sounded like someone who's a bit irate at the system blowing off some steam. You can put it back if you want - as a casual reader, I can tell you it made this article lose all credibility upon reading. Uncreative 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the weasel word banner really still necessary? It seems to me to be pretty well cited now. Can someone point out what I'm missing, or am I right about it being fixed now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.26.183 (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
does "in god we trust" really mean in god we trust? or does it mean "we don't trust anyone/anything"? In the sense of the scientific method (don't believe anything you have been told one thing is and find out what that thing is for yourself). Or maybe as an intimidating phrase. └Nitro4ce┘┌t┐ 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the unsubstantiated "(although technically unconstitutional)" statement from the introduction. It is entirely unnecessary there, especially considering that no court has deemed it unconstitutional, and it is currently a matter of great debate which is expounded on later in the article. An absolute statement like that with no substantive backing in the introduction of the article is improper. 204.155.56.3 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like the current intro disclaimer: "(although in this context it is technically meaningless ceremonialism with no connection to any religious concept)" On whose authority is "in god we trust" technically meaningless? And how can "in god we trust" not have a connection to "any religious concept" - perhaps the concept of "god"?Wuicker 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article seems well-written and for the most part well-sourced. In my view it is too bad that there's need for a tag saying approximately that "contains text from public domain source", referring to the "In Coins We Trust" brochure. It impugns the work done by wikipedia editors in the rest of the article, as you can't tell which is merely copied from that source. Can't the specific material from the one source be identified and put in proper quotes, then remove that tag, instead? It doesn't matter that it is public domain or not, proper referencing, including use of quotation marks to indicate wording is from a published source, is needed. doncram (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm european and this "In god we trust"-thing is a bit irritating to me. What is the official justification why it is okay to make an exception to your church-state-separation in this case? 84.59.125.170 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As a non-US citizen who has worked in the US for some years, I HAVE paid tax there without any form of representation - so that is a principle emphatically NOT forgotten by me - but also NOT honoured by the new regime after 1776. (This information is included for the elucidation of Boracay Bill, above). However, the fundamental point remains unanswered, which is that the separation between church and state is, prima facie, compromised by the use of the word 'God' in state instruments such as banknotes, legal oaths etc. The fact that the US Constitution mentions neither God nor Christianity (contrary to Mr McCain's recent claims that it was founded as a Christian state), and only mentions religion in the context of "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." is clear evidence that religion and state are separate. Attempts by legislators to add such things through Congressional measures are therefore questionable in constitutional terms. The fact that measures such as the "In God we trust" legislation was enacted into law reflects the fact that it was not challenged constitutionally at the time. Geoff97 (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I am irritated about it.--68.6.121.65 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I just have a different conception of secularity but I, not being American either, wonder how it can be that no court ever scrapped this motto. I'm missing some information in the seemingly recently "cleaned" Controversy section of this article on what for example the Supreme Court had to say on this subject. For me as an outsider the national motto is clearly unconstitional and what I read on [1] is hardly credible as official statement of such an institution. --Mudd1 (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought this Pew Forum article would be of interest. An excerpt: "Most courts view the motto and the pledge as 'ceremonial deism,' a legal term for religious statements that are deemed to have lost their fundamental religious character due to their longtime, customary use." Ando228 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"the phrase can also be found on the license plates of Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Ohio"
It seems curious that the national motto could be used by states which do not share it as their own motto, like a form of plagiarism or identify theft. States aren't free to use other national things as they like, like calling the national flag their state flag, or having their own rules about how to use it. It would be interesting to know more about how these states decided to/were able to do this.
"However, by 1956 it had not been established so by legislation as the official "national motto", and therefore "In God We Trust" was selected."
The "therefore" suggests that "In God We Trust" was adopted as the motto precisely and only because "E Pluribus Unum" had not been, which doesn't make any sense. Шизомби (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)