10302014Headline:

Obama To Remove “In God We Trust” From All Currency Beginning October 1st

Bank Note with the words In God We Trust at the top - In God We Trust being removed from currency

The words ‘In God We Trust’, seen here on the one-dollar bill, has been on American currency since 1956. President Obama plans to remove those iconic words beginning October 1st of this year. (AP Photo/Ben Dover, File) / AP

Washington, DC — Beginning August 1st the Federal Reserve along with the United States Department of the Treasury will begin printing all currency, which includes every note and coin, without the words ‘In God We Trust‘. This modification comes under strict orders from President Barack Obama and his administration.

Obama held a press conference this morning to explain the impending change and to answer questions.

“As our country grows and changes, so must our money,” Obama said. “There is now too many individuals living in this great nation of ours that do not worship the same God as most of us. In fact some folks don’t believe in a God at all. This currency adjustment is truly change we can believe in.”

“America is a God-fearing Christian nation; it is now and always has been,” said 31-year-old Michael Anthony Claypool who is a journalist with Fox News. “Obama is the antichrist and this is just more proof to support that claim.”


Muhammad El-Sayed who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood‘s Freedom and Justice Party told CNN he is pleased with Obama and his actions.”I spoke with President Obama by telephone yesterday before his announcement and personally thanked him for what he is doing not just for the Muslim community but for all non-Christians living in this country,” El-Sayed said. “This is definitely a step in the right direction I explained to him. Praise Allah.”

Political activist, 35-year-old Paul Horner told reporters the fight to remove the iconic words from American currency is far from over.

“I started a petition at WhiteHouse.gov to protect these words from being destroyed by our president, and Obama had my petition removed. He’s scared. He knows that we’re not going to stand for this and there’s nothing he can do to stop us,” Horner said. “I encourage all God-fearing Christians to get the word out about this possible travesty. We need to keep these precious words on our currency. This is a stepping stone in the wrong direction and will only lead to much worse things. We have already lost Christmas in this country, soon we could lose all of our churches and Bibles too.” Horner continued, “It is a slippery slope my friends. This administration must be stopped at all costs.”

Since 1956, “In God We Trust” has been the national motto of the United States and is inscribed on the front of all our coins and the back of all paper currency. The Federal Reserve has setup a 24-hour hotline to answer any questions individuals may have about the upcoming currency changes at (785) 273-0325.

Obama 2016 Presidential Election News & Coverage:

- Obama Announces Plans For A Third Term Presidential Run
Obama To Make Pot Shops Polling Places For 2016 Presidential Election
Secret Service Agent Says Obama Is Gay & Muslim



What Next?

Related Articles

239 Responses to "Obama To Remove “In God We Trust” From All Currency Beginning October 1st"

  1. Jake says:

    I challenge anyone on here to provide a legitimate reference to a recent case of how religion has influenced a political decision in a negative way at the federal level.

    • SnuffyD says:

      Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius – Of course, you think that’s a wonderful decision…until the day comes when a business ran by a believer in the Jehovah Witnesses decides he/she doesn’t want insurance to pay for any kind of blood product. Or a Jewish or Muslim business owner decides they don’t want insurance paying for heart valves from pigs. Or a business owned by a Christian Scientist doesn’t want insurance to pay for any care from medical doctors…all because SCOTUS said business owners don’t have to violate their beliefs when it comes to health care coverage.

      • Jake says:

        The court decision you refer to is actually now known as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. It helps if you do your research but it’s whatever, let me educate you. Anyway the decision is the right one in my opinion and not for religious purposes but for moral reasons. First of all the exemption was made on the basis that “there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest”. Which, there is because “The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative is already being provided for religious non-profits.” Do you really think that employers should be required to pay for contraceptives through tax-payer funded health care?? Look at it this way. Sex at that point is a luxury, not a necessity. Those women would not be having sex to have a baby, they would be having sex for pleasure. That is along the same lines as paying for breast implants. I mean really, how hard is it go buy a condom or to pay for your own “pill” with your own hard-earned money if you want to go have sex. I personally don’t want to pay for it. That’s a great idea in my opinion, people actually being responsible in this age of unaccountability. So that is why I think the decision is right, not because I think religions should be able to do whatever they want. As quoted above, there is another way, so I don’t see a problem. And those examples you gave me would never happen due to the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. I’ll let you research that one by yourself since I had to research this one for you already.

        • Johnny says:

          Really? Sex is a luxury? Are you damaged? And by the way, the ACA never forced businesses to pay for contraceptives. Businesses pay for health insurance for their employees, in turn, the insurance company pays for the specific treatments, medications and so on that the employee needs. Furthermore, if you bothered to do a lick of research on the issue, you’d know that many women take contraceptives to treat a wide variety of other health issues which have NOTHING to do with sex.

          You go on about how misinformed the OP was, but you yourself seem significantly divorved from reality.

          • Jake says:

            What else would you call sex when using a contraceptive to prevent pregnancy??? It’s not procreation. And yes the ACA indirectly force employers to pay for contraceptives. They pay for the insurance (which is required) and the insurance companies hand it out. I don’t have to do research on this, I have experience. My company, as a “small business”, was forced to switch to Obamacare just this year. So now I pay alot more so other people can have insurance too. Even people who don’t work and so on. And please with the contraceptive-as-medication bit, I do realize this. However, much much more women are taking it for what it was made for. Am I wrong?

        • SnuffyD says:

          By the way, does “precedent” mean anything to you? That’s I was getting at. Let’s say a family owns a business on the same scale as the Greens. They provide health insurance, just like the Greens. But let’s also say this is a Jehovah’s Witness family. You know that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society…I know how you like splitting hairs) see blood transfusions and blood products as an abomination. Far as I know, coverage for blood transfusions and blood products is required. So, should this family have to defy their strongly held beliefs about blood transfusions and allow coverage? Why? The argument would be no different than the Greens’.

          I don’t really give a hoot about the birth control; this decision was influenced by religious beliefs and sets a dangerous precedent. Justice Ginsburg said as much in her dissent…but I’m sure she’s a reactionary who doesn’t understand the Constitution or stare decisis.

          You asked a question and I answered. You jumped in with your sanctimonious allusion to “educate” me because I referred to the case under the former style and then proceeded to teach me absolutely NOTHING except how you think it was the correct decision with a couple of cherry-picked quotes from the majority decision (by the way, the media has used the styles of the case interchangeably, so get off your high horse).

          Now, EVERYBODY CALL (785) 273-0325 AND TELL THEM NOT TO TAKE GOD OFF OUR MONEY! DON’T LET THE MASON’S HAVE THEIR WAY WITH THE ILLUMINATI BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..

          • Jake says:

            I understand what you are getting at. It’s the same with guns but not quite. Your concern is once you get the ball rolling it won’t stop. I get that. But this is different. And you’re right, it is a valid concern. But I disagree that this decision was the wrong one for reasons I explained and you apparently overlooked. I am not picking and choosing anything. You are. If you disagree then at least look into a full description of all the facts and history of what you speak of instead of claiming my description is incomplete. My point in correcting you on the name of the case was bringing to light the fact that you HAVE NOT done your research, or else you would have known the actual name of the case. But instead you are like many of the Trayvon Martin case protestors who fail to look into the details and facts and take what you can from it to make a point. The difference between this case and guns (which I support some restrictions but not all) is this. The anti-gun advocates are driven by fear and fear is blinding. Just as your fear of religion ruining the country or whatever you think is going to happen (this is apparent by your illuminati reference that you learned about in the movies). The Hobby Lobby case is different because there is another way for them to get their way without forcing it down their throats. I’ll say it again “The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative is already being provided for religious non-profits.” By the way my father is a Mason and he has done nothing but good for the community. Do your research. If my assumptions are incorrect then provide some references if you want me to think you know what you’re talking about. And you should care about birth control, religious reasons aside. Personally I don’t want my tax money going towards some girl, who may not even have a job, being able to have sex. If she wants to have unprotected sex then she should pay for it or have her boyfriend pay for it. NOT the taxpayers. Having sex is not necessary for mental or physical health. I’m not on a high horse I don’t get my information from the media. I don’t trust them for all the facts. I look at both sides and judge for myself what is right and wrong.

        • Clarke says:

          Hmm, lets see, how about the fact that in some states atheists are by law not allowed to hold office, the current bans on gay marriage, all the politicians who have tried to remove evolution from the classrooms, there’s a whole bunch of them. Of course this is just one big “moving the goal posts” logical fallacy, and you are going to say these aren’t bad somehow…

          oh and concerning the logic you present for the hobby lobby case, that would make sense if viagra ALSO was not covered by the company’s insurance.

          Furthermore, the examples he provides CAN happen now, as they use the exact same logic that the prosecutors brought forward against hobby lobby’s claim that it violates his freedom of religion. If the courts ruled that he doesn’t have to provide coverage for birth control BECAUSE of the RFRA, then a jewish owner also does not have to cover surgery involving pigs because that would violate HIS religion and thus, as the courts ruled, is in violation of the RFRA.

  2. CoreyUE says:

    It should not matter to a Muslim if “In God we trust” is on it, according to them the English use of “God” translates to “Allah” and there is no other word for God but Allah. According to the Muslim, they are one and the same. Now if it said “Praise Jesus”, then one might have an argument! This is utter nonsense!

    • graham says:

      It would need to be Arabic – now remember all that OIL President Bush stole – well that’s the price you pay and the Saudis now own more of America than even the Chinese. The dream is that all Americans will be on the minimum wage and will have to drive Korean cars. They will no longer be able to afford Japanese cars – still they look the same.

    • Dom D says:

      Exactly. God is a term that transcends any particular religion. God, source, the way, creator are all terms that refer to a nonreligious supreme power.

      The country can believe in a supreme “being” without establishing any religion’s articulation of that “being”.

      What about atheists? Sorry. God IS or God ISN’T, it has to be one or the other. This country picked the first. Can’t please everyone.

    • Louis Joon says:

      There is very little trust in god, there’s more trust in #gothgirls

      • Jake says:

        If you think this country wasn’t built on Christian values and acknowledging this causes a bunch of problrms then maybe you need to move to a country where you have no freedom and you won’t be so much of a whiner. Gee maybe we should just put Obama on the money and get rid of the national monuments on the money too since so much of you think we’ve outgrown our history. I wouldn’t be surprised if you naive people thought the holocaust was a hoax.

        • Clarke says:

          Oh dear your comment pains me. “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” treaty of tripoli, signed unanimously by congress and president John Adams, 1797. Now who is ignoring history?

          Speaking of history, the Nazi’s were inspired by the bible! Gott mit uns and all that.

          • Jake says:

            Clarke,
            First of all, I did not say this country was founded on the Christian RELIGION I said Christian VALUES, you know, like the 10 commandments and the golden rule and all that good stuff? If you still think I’m wrong maybe you should ask yourself why there’s references to Christianity all over Washington D.C. on monuments and buildings and statues. If it wasn’t for religion, humanity let alone the U.S.A. would not have made it this far and be what it is today.
            Secondly, I encourage you to do more research on the Treaty of Tripoli. First of all Article 11 is null and void. It was never included in the official Arabic version, and for some unknown reason substituted an Arabic letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. Beyond that the treaty was later superseded by the Treaty of Peace and Amity in 1805, which omitted Article 11, after they kept raising the fees to leave American cargo ships alone and Thomas Jefferson objected, all the while still occasionally robbing our ships, breaking the terms of the original treaty. The original treaty was between us ands the North African Muslim states of the Barbary Nation because their pirates kept robbing us, after we lost protection for the Brits and French after the Revolutionary War. It was meant to make it clear that the pact “was betwenn two soverign states, not twp religious powers.” It was basically saying “hey we’re going to be the bigger man here and not make this about religion”. Which the Muslims were because they would capture us and make us slaves and treat us much worse if they found out we were Christians. Some would even convert just to avoid the harsher treatment.
            So by what I said above, which I have already researched previously and copy and pasted from an earlier post of mine, the Treaty of Tripoli means nothing to the people of America. It was between us and another nation and in no way reflects how are government is ran in the context that you are speaking of.

          • Randy says:

            “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” is from the treaty of Tripoli Article 11; which does not exist, is not a founding document, and went out of effect shortly after it was ratified – due to non-conformance.

            The admiral commanding the fleet in that war declared himself to be “the commander of the Christian forces…”

            If you do not believe in God then you do not believe in your God given gift of freedom; which means you do not believe in anyone else’s God given gift of freedom.

  3. Polineutral says:

    This is soooo messed up!

  4. Paula Manrow says:

    I will check all my change from now on IF iT don’t say In God We Trust then I want change that does say it. Shame on you stupid soon you will be out of office thank God . Trying to take away our Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Speech and now the Word of God in schools and our money. Its God that protects our military not you .

    • graham says:

      This is a long term plan to replace the Bible with the constitution – it would make things a whole lot simpler.

    • Joe Schmoe says:

      You’re an idiot

    • Jero says:

      Where has your stupid god been?
      As of June 9, 2014, there have been 2,187 U.S. military deaths in the war in Afghanistan and additional 133 fatalities in the broader Operation Enduring Freedom outside Afghanistan. 1,808 of these deaths inside Afghanistan have been the result of hostile action. 19 964 American service members have been wounded in action during the war. In addition there are 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities. Dumbass.

      • Rajiv says:

        Our God said in the Bible that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, go read what Jesus said before making lame comments.

  5. Leah S says:

    Finally, Obama is doing Gods work. Based on these comments you’ve given more into your love for Wealth than you have for God.

    “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
    Matthew 6:24

    You try to make your wealth more important by putting God onto it however you are all trying to mask your love for money. This is clearly using Gods name in vain and should have been removed a long time ago. Help your fellow man and try not to keep more than you need, if you do that and you run into troubles God will help you.

    • Jake says:

      Putting “In God We Trust” on money does the opposite actually. It serves as a reminder of who the true God is, and that it is not money.

      • graham says:

        I thought it was supposed to belong to that Italian chap Caesar.

        • Judith_Priest says:

          Jesus would have been appalled at the “In God We Trust” on our money.

          It’s not true, and it doesn’t FOOL God, no matter how many times you say it or whether you have it emblazoned across your tush.

    • Judith_Priest says:

      Agree completely. Thank you, Leah S.

      • Randy says:

        Abraham Lincoln was the first to have the phrase printed on currency. Can we now go ahead and repeal the 14th Amendment as well; considering it was the freeing of the slaves that got us to this point today?

  6. Addison says:

    Please, before any of you comment, remember that we aren’t a Christian nation nor will we ever be. We don’t have an official religion nor should we ever have one. I believe this is a part of the reason why it’s being removed.

  7. Dan says:

    O, sancta simplicitas…

  8. Lawrence says:

    I warned you that this would happen over four years ago. Strange that he was voted in again to destroy America

  9. Rick says:

    Obama is the worst president ever. He runs our national debt to over 17 trillion dollars and now removes God from our currency. Get ready for the next Great Depression II! Obama has totally ruined our nation’s finances. He is nothing but a puppet for the evil Dark Cabal that want to destroy America and our families and our freedom! Without God, America is NOTHING! Thanks for nothing for all of you that voted twice for this loser!!! Obama promised us a changed world and has delivered us into the hands of the devil! Is that the change you were looking for?

    • Jero says:

      Sorry stupid. He INHERITED the 17 trillion dollar deficit from Bush the dumber, and his lies to lead us into a war over WMDs that NEVER EXISTED.

    • Tom says:

      A friend at the treasury told me that they are adding “LGBT POWER” to replace “in god we trust on coins and “Get abortions for free” on bills.

    • JohannYoder166r says:

      God put Obama in charge of this country. It is God’s Will. If God had wanted someone else, He would have placed someone else in charge.

      Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

      Romans 13:1-2.

      • Jake says:

        I consider myself a Christian but have to disagree. I don’t believe we are to blindly follow anyone in a position of authority given some of the people we have there and have had there in the past. This includes everything from Congress members to Mayors to City council members. Much pain and regret has come from trusting a person just because they are in a position of authority and choose to abuse it. They are meant to be kept in check, this is the basis for the success of democracy, checks and balances. Besides, how are we to separate honest and trustful people from false prophets if we just blindly trust everyone??

  10. God says:

    I’m glad my name is finally being removed from your money. I grow tired of seeing it plastered all over the place. I can’t wait until you humans cause your extinction with your fossil fuel consumption.

  11. Ben Dover says:

    God don’t need no money, so why should his name be on it?

  12. John Musilla says:

    REPENT & PREPARE IN HOLINESS-THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HE IS COMING- TURN AWAY FROM ALL SIN & EMBRACE HOLINESS & RIGHTEOUSNESS- THE RAPTURE OF THE HOLY BRIDE OF CHRIST IS ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE- OBAMA IS THE ANTI CHRIST & THE POPE IS THE FALSE PROPHET OF REVELATION- DO NOT TAKE THE MARK OF THE BEAST- THE RFID CHIP- THE DEVIL IS A LIAR!!!

    • Judith_Priest says:

      Get help.

    • Jero says:

      John Musilla, it sounds like you have been smoking too much crack again, the delusions are back.

    • SnuffyD says:

      Funny how we used to look at the disheveled-looking blokes standing on street corners with THE END IS NEAR signs as a novelty? Now every idiot with internet access can do the same thing in a figurative way. YOU’VE RUINED THE DAMNED NOVELTY!!

  13. mia says:

    he’s doing what He likes because it’s his tenure. He doesn’t have much time to spend on that seat. he’s gonna leave very soon and somebody else Would come and change everything He has distroyed. christians, just stay calm and trust in God.

  14. summer says:

    God help us all

  15. Dom D says:

    God is a term that transcends any particular religion. God, source, the way, creator are all terms that refer to a nonreligious supreme power.

    The country can believe in a supreme “being” without establishing any religion’s articulation of that “being”.

    What about atheists? Sorry. God IS or God ISN’T, it has to be one or the other. This country picked the first. Can’t please everyone.

  16. Curious says:

    So “In God We Trust” has only been on the money since 1956 (last paragraph)? Why the hysterics? We did just fine before then. I could see there being an issue if it was there since our country was established, but 1956?! Come on people …

  17. Barry McCockiner says:

    Finally, this stupid, religious quote will be effaced from currency.
    Next, remove all bibles and “God” from the Pledge Of Allegiance.
    And lastly, put the non-existent excuse of a deity on a coin, fellating the founding fathers.

    • Jake says:

      you need help, alot of help

    • Nate says:

      Okay, so…yes to removing the quote and completely separating church and state, but…I’ve gotta say no to defacing any religion’s deities. If we don’t show respect to Christianity……well, okay, most Christians will never respect other belief systems no matter what, but still. If we don’t show respect, we don’t deserve respect.

      • Jake says:

        removing the quote from our currency does NOT signify a separation of church and state. If you can show where it has recently been shown that religion has influenced politics then perhaps I will change my mind. But I haven’t seen where this and things like “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, especially when our country was built on Christian values and remains to be the dominant religion, affect society negatively. If you know anything about Christianity or what’s in the bible true Christians are not intolerant of other religions. This is not the age of the crusades. And you cannot use the actions of a few to label a whole religious peoples. This is why I am tolerant of Islam. Because it is not the religion that is the problem, it is extremists.

        • Nate says:

          It is, in fact, one step on the road to complete separation. And this country certainly was NOT built on Christian values. The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, reads:

          “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

          Pay special attention to the first part of the article: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”. There’s nothing wrong with individual or group practice, but to put God on our money, and in our Pledge of Allegiance (NEITHER of which originally had any mention of God) is to impose upon all Americans a religion which not all citizens follow. And besides…how is it infringing on the rights of Christians to NOT have God’s name on our money or in our pledge? It’s not infringing on the rights of Muslims to not include Allah’s name, nor on Buddhists to not include Buddha’s name…Zeus, Osiris, Papa Legba…few, if any, worshipers of these deities are offended by them not officially being represented in our government, so why should worshipers of God get so huffy about it?

          • Jake says:

            I encourage you to do more research on the Treaty of Tripoli. First of all Article 11 is null and void. It was never included in the official Arabic version, and for some unknown reason substituted an Arabic letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. Beyond that the treaty was later superseded by the Treaty of Peace and Amity in 1805, which omitted Article 11, after they kept raising the fees to leave American cargo ships alone and Thomas Jefferson objected, all the while still occasionally robbing our ships, breaking the terms of the original treaty. The original treaty was between us ands the North African Muslim states of the Barbary Nation because their pirates kept robbing us, after we lost protection for the Brits and French after the Revolutionary War. It was meant to make it clear that the pact “was betwenn two soverign states, not twp religious powers.” It was basically saying “hey we’re going to be the bigger man here and not make this about religion”. Which the Muslims were because they would capture us and make us slaves and treat us much worse if they found out we were Christians. Some would even convert just to avoid the harsher treatment.

          • Jake says:

            Also, I never implied that Christians rights would be infringed upon by removing the quote from our money. It simply is unnecessary is my argument. I don’t see what problem it is causing and how removing it signifies an action of the separation of church and state. What really matters is how Congress and the President makes decisions, and if you can show me how Christianity is a threat to the that and the well-being of our country by influencing it then I’m all ears. And Buddha would never want his name on any money to begin with. He never intended to be worshipped. His teaching was the opposite actually, to not depend on anything or desire it. To not worship but understand the impermanence of things and practice non-attachment. And I would be hard-pressed to find anyone still worshipping greek gods in this country. (more below)

  18. Jake says:

    sdfsedf

  19. Jake says:

    I also encourage you to look into Freemasonry, which is where alot of the imagery came from that you see on the back of our money, most notably the 1 dollar bill. As you know George Washington is on the front, but what you may not know is that he was a Mason, as much of the founding fathers were, and that Freemasonry is derived from Christianity. They are a humble and charitable organization. Which is where the “separation of church and state” may have come from. They started as a group of free thinkers in a world where you weren’t allowed to think for yourself. Which is the basis of this country. The freedom to do that. Sadly, most people don’t. They are too easily influenced by media and other bs they hear. I ask you this question. If the buddhists have no problem with it then why remove the quote? THis also goes for other non-deity religions. What is it essentially hurting? I personally am not offended by having it removed. I just don’t see the problem. To me it reflects what this country was built on, not necessarily how we make decisions. As far as Islam and other religions it causes no conflict, because Allah means “God” when translated. It doesn’t specify which God on our money, it just says God. If you look at most religions, they are built on the same principles, the principles used to write our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Basic, human rights. So if you are atheist, then that’s fine. But I don’t see how anyone is shoving anything down your throat or offending you. Feel free to give me examples though. Because I am an open-minded free-thinking American who is tolerant of others views. Objecting to history on the other hand is just the opposite. As this country loses more and more values it has weakened and is not as strong and united as it once was. Most of the unity I see lately is over intolerance of the majoity, and that’s not how the founding fathers intended it to be.

    • Nate says:

      Ah-hah…so you’re not so much offended by the idea of removing that quote from the money as you see it unnecessary to reprint all of our money just to remove the quote? And that those words are just that: words? (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Because if so…that’s actually a rather reasonable objection. I mean, if the ever DO have to print new money (e.g. because our current money has been destroyed or completely worn out), then I’d rather they save ink by not printing that on it. But it’s best that they don’t mint new money for a while, because then the value of a dollar will go down. But I’m getting off-track here. I also do agree that, be it God, Allah, or any other deity…they are really all the same creative force under different aliases. But there are still people out there who do not believe in any gods (I am not one of them, mind you–I believe in and acknowledge all deities, I just don’t worship them). Anyway, while those words are not technically harming anyone, they are completely unnecessary on official legal tender and in our Pledge of Allegiance. In the Pledge of Allegiance, especially, children are expected every day to recite a pledge to a god that they may not believe in. Isn’t that what the Christian flag is for?

      • Jake says:

        They print new money everyday. Children have a choice to not say the pledge of allegiance or to skip those words. Don’t forget this is a country built on the principle of the majority rules, the collective agreement on a subject or decision. If you don’t like it, either deal with it or move somewhere else. How can a person believe in ALL deities? That creates quite a conflict. A person cannot simply believe in everything. That doesn’t even make sense.

        • Nate says:

          That’s a big mistake. Printing more money has the same effect as creating more shares of a company: the number of shares goes up, but their value goes down. And it’s perfectly logical to believe in ALL deities, when one believes that all deities are the same creative force. You know how the Christians believe in the Holy Trinity–the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct entities, yet all of them are God? It’s pretty much the same principal here, except that it’s a belief that, although the Catholic God, the Protestant God, the Jewish God, Buddha, the Wiccan God and Goddess, all of the deities in the Greek pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, the Voodoo Loa, etc. are all separate, distinct beings, yet they are all the same creative force.

          • Jake says:

            I agree that it is a big mistake but it is happening. Where do you think those crisp $20’s are coming from? I still disagree with the believing in all deities. I see the point your trying to make but to say all the Greek Gods are the same doesn’t eve nmake sense. On top of that Buddha was not a God or is not worshipped whatsoever, which is what Gods are for. You refer to a creative force yet some Gods are for destruction or for natural phenomena, not the “all being” God you refer to, so you can’t possibly believe in ALL Gods. I myself believe that some Gods are one in the same across different religions, and this is why you see much of the same messages in different religious doctrines but not ALL of them.

  20. SnuffyD says:

    Please, fellow Patriots! All God-fearing Patriots of this land that God gave to us to be a shiny beacon on the hill for all the nations, PLEASE, I beg of all of you, please call the Federal Reserve phone number at the end of the article. The more calls the Federal Reserve gets, the less likely that they will ignore good, patriotic, Christian folk! Please, call the number! I called the number! Have you? CALL THE NUMBER!!!! A Great Conflagration in this City on the Hill is eminent if we don’t CALL THE NUMBER!!!!!!!!

    CALL THE NUMBER AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT’S HOLY AND GOOD!!

    Don’t believe me? Here’s the quote from the article…that means it’s true!:

    Since 1956, “In God We Trust” has been the national motto of the United States and is inscribed on the front of all our coins and the back of all paper currency. The Federal Reserve has setup a 24-hour hotline to answer any questions individuals may have about the upcoming currency changes at (785) 273-0325.

    Snicker.

  21. Daniel Moshe Johnson says:

    Shalom

    This is very interesting, currency was first commissioned by Rome, I see this as a test trial, as paper currency itself will be a power move to remove from circulation. For such a move will basically end the black market, it would end corruption.

    • Daniel Moshe Johnson says:

      The statement , is the least we should be concerned with, there are numerous other symbols that depict an entire world system, in God we trust does not matter, the US has proven that words are really cheap.

      Let’s not make a big deal out of it, certain things within this present order must be made manifest in order for the entire system to be adjusted and therefore event changed. In Latin, there is written New World Order, I think this removal of the term God is indirectly a sign of the times.

      Will this removal cause you too lose the faith? It shouldn’t!

Leave a Reply

Submit Comment