One Nation "Under God"

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

As for In God We Trust on the currency, that was the result of a petition from Reverend M. R. Watkinson shortly after the start of the American Civil War, where he thought it was super important for the Union to recognize Almighty God on it's currency, regardless of the separation of church and state. Frankly, it should never have been put there in the first place. Take it off too.

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

Regardless of the technicality, it still is the central bank of the United States of America, and it should still be religiously neutral. Someone told this "private institution" that it should put the words on the currency, I can tell it to take it off. Door swings both ways.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Regardless of the technicality,

A private entity doing what it wants with what it controls is hardly a "technicality". Someone breaking into your home, eating your food, loading your stuff into your car and driving away with it is stealing only because of the "technicality" that they don't have a right to do so. What private rights - based on ownership of property - do you really think should not apply?

Internet use in the US is used by almost every citizen - perhaps it should be purged to make it religiously neutral? Heck, streets are public - should churches not be allowed to be seen from the street, otherwise a public road with only a protestant church on it are no longer "neutral". How far will you go to eradicate the rights of a private entity to be religious in or on its own "property"?

it still is the central bank of the United States of America

That is the technicality.
You choose to use it - that is your choice. Don't like what a private enterprise does, don't use what they own. Or do you, by virtue of owning a car, have a right to tell the car manufacturer how they will advertise, what there logo must be, etc?

Someone told this "private institution" that it should put the words on the currency, I can tell it to take it off. Door swings both ways.

True - and they can choose to listen to you - or not - as they please. They can - and have so far - chosen to NOT be "religiously neutral".

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

Classifying the Fed as a "private entity" is wrong. The Federal Reserve is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It's only private in the sense that the monetary policy decisions of the Fed aren't subject to governmental approval.

However, the Fed is audited by the GAO, it reports to Congress semianually as mandated by the Humphrey Hawkins Act, the Fed Board of Governors and the Fed Chairman are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and all profits made by the Fed are turned over to the Treasury.

So, no, the Fed is not a private entity. QED.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Classifying the Fed as a "private entity" is wrong. The Federal Reserve is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It's only private in the sense that the monetary policy decisions of the Fed aren't subject to governmental approval.

However, the Fed is audited by the GAO, it reports to Congress semianually as mandated by the Humphrey Hawkins Act, the Fed Board of Governors and the Fed Chairman are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and all profits made by the Fed are turned over to the Treasury.

So, no, the Fed is not a private entity. QED.

EVERYONE IS RUINING MY FUN!!!!11ONEONEONE

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one.

Not so. The Federal Reserve is governed by a group of seven Governors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. It is an independent Federal Agency, but a Federal Agency nonetheless. The Governors are independent members of the financial community, but they may be removed by the President for specific causes.

An act of Congress dated January 18, 1837 states that only Congress may prescribe the "mottoes and devices" that are placed on US coins.

The earliest use of the phrase appeared in the fourth verse of Francis Scott Key's poem Defense of Fort McHenry (aka The Star-Spangled Banner) as "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"

"In God We Trust" was first used on the battle-flag of the 125th Pennsylvania Infantry at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862.

In 1864 Congress authorized the Mint to place the motto on one-and-two-cent coins. Historians for the most part believe this was at least partly to claim that God was on the side of the Union. Religious beliefs are used to govern political motivations, a definite mixing of Church and State.

The Coinage Act of 1873 states that the Secretary of the Treasury may place the motto on coins.

In 1956, as has been mentioned, "In God We Trust" became the official United States motto, again as a political/religious statement against the "Godless Communists".

So the slogans that go on our coins are dictated directly by Congress.

[Takeda Shingen]

[Tchocky]

Reciting the pledge always seemed strange to me. When we moved back to Ireland nobody believed that it was a real thing.


It's strange for a nation that is supposed to pride itself on freedom of expression and religion-free government keeps a rote-learned expression of theistic nationalism.


Then again, what do I know. We had prayer in schools and that was bloody weird too

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Reciting the pledge always seemed strange to me. When we moved back to Ireland nobody believed that it was a real thing.


It's strange for a nation that is supposed to pride itself on freedom of expression and religion-free government keeps a rote-learned expression of theistic nationalism.

Thank you. See, I knew that, eventually, somebody was going to get it.

Then again, what do I know. We had prayer in schools and that was bloody weird too

They had that stateside too. In fact, the Regent's Prayer was said in New York City Public Schools up until 1962:

Almighty God,
we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country.

[Tchocky]

The dollar bill in my wallet has Hank Paulson's signature on it.

[Ducimus]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/fed...ank-ownership/

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/fed...ank-ownership/

Damn you, Ducimus, I was going to get to that eventually. That was going to be my checkmate.

Originally Posted by The Article

There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Crap. Now I am going to have to find elsewhere to have my fun. Or, maybe even get some work done today. Nuts.

[Ducimus]

Well i thought everyone knew that "The fed" is the gov agency that runs the show, but "The federal reserve bank" is not a government entity per say. From everything I have heard, It's an interesting mutually beneficial relationship the two have. I don't pretend to know everything, but I wouldn't doubt it in the slightest if the end goals of the people behind the federal reserve bank lay more in self interest then national interest.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Well i thought everyone knew that "The fed" is the gov agency that runs the show, but "The federal reserve bank" is not a government entity per say. From everything I have heard, It's an interesting mutually beneficial relationship the two have. I don't pretend to know everything, but I wouldn't doubt it in the slightest if the end goals of the people behind the federal reserve bank lay more in self interest then national interest.

All twelve of them. Negotiated and passed during a congressional recess way back when nobody was looking.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

per say.

I know you're going to bite back at this, but it's not about spelling and it's not about grammar. There is no such phrase as "per say". It's "per se", and it's Latin. If you don't know what it means you probably shouldn't try to use it.

Yes, I know I'm a Nazi about this, but it's either say something or grind my teeth down to nubs. Either I can let you annoy me or I can annoy you right back.