Letter on Liberty - Currency

This was originally an email, but it could do with getting more exposure than one recipient. Original subject was in regards to me mentioning a "vocal minority" being responsible for the placement of "in god we trust" on our currency, in relation to a current poll on CNN or somewhere if it should be removed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I'm speaking of those who put it on the currency in the first place. Also, importantly this country isn't founded only on the idea of "majority rule" despite the common interpretation of "democracy". The constitution was put in place partly because of how easily segments of the populace can be swayed to support ideas which are anything from silly to outright evil. If not for the constitution we'd likely still have prevalent human slavery here, for nowhere would the idea of "all men are created equal" be in the public consciousness, and the economic benefits of continued slave labor could not be ignored. There are other guiding principles to this nation that override simple mass opinion.

I'm speaking of the singular minister who wrote to the secretary of the treasury in 1861. (One letter from ONE person) Then that secretary ordered the director of the mint to put a new motto on the coin. Three people who shared beliefs set up the change of motto for an entire nation of people. Three people thought it was a good idea. Heres the text of the letter from the minister:

" Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.
"

(anyone else notice how that minister supported the idea of removing the image of liberty on the coinage in favor of national symbols supported by traditional symbols of god, with the idea of liberty being relegated to just a word?)

here's the text of the short letter from the secretary of the treasury to the director of the mint

" Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.
"

This went through a little back and forth and "IN GOD WE TRUST" was settled on, the minting of it passed into law by an act of congress, as the mint couldn't legally alter mottos and devices of the union without congressional approval and additional legislation.

Its not as if there weren't Jews, Shintoists, Confusionists, Voodoonistas, and who knows how many other religious followers, but they were mostly black or yellow and didn't matter.

Lets also not forget that then, as in many areas now, you cannot openly NOT be christian if you want to continue conducting business and be treated civilly. This is why Joseph Smith had to move from New York to a nearly uninhabited portion of the country which became the state of Utah. He wasn't a Christian. He had his own doctrine. I may not agree with what he founded, but based on the principles of this nation, I cannot deny him the ability to openly practise his beliefs either.

Say places in rural America, like Carlsbad. If you aren't a Christian of some sort, you are ostracized. The Jews are accepted since they're close enough and or in the bible as god's chosen people, and the Mormons are tolerated since they still believe in Jesus, but even those sentiments aren't universal, and the Mormons are smart enough to have a walled off compound where they can safely practise their faith. Some will tout their Christianity in one sentence, then say how much they can't stand "The goddamn jews n arabs n niggers" in the next. (I'm not making this up these are real "christians" out there, and this attitude accounts for the majority of them I've ever met.)

No matter that this country promises freedom of religion to its citizens, no matter that the nation is supposed to follow the principles of a separation between church and state, every mention of God on our currency, as the motto of the country, and in the pledge of allegiance are instances where a group of Christians with power put their religion ahead of the principles of liberty and equality of the citizenry at large.

Really, lets reverse this for just a minute. Lets say that America was colonized first by some monotheistic sect of Hindus who were threatened with death back in India for their beliefs. Then, about 150 years ago the civil war happened, but the populace was mostly Hindu, and one of them wrote in saying that we really should have the concepts of Law, Freedom, and Vishnu on our currency, lest later generations think we're heathen.

How would you, as a Christian, feel seeing "IN VISHNU WE TRUST" on every piece of currency? How would you feel saying "ONE NATION UNDER VISHNU" every morning in school, when, according to the propaganda of this nation, you had freedom of religion and there was a separation of church and state?
Do you really have a right to practise any religion you want when the very currency of the nation states your religion for you? Its effectively saying that if you are a citizen of this country, if you are part of that WE, then you trust in the god mentioned on the money, no matter what you may personally believe.

The ONLY reason the current version can be considered to not be in violation of the first amendment is that GOD in all caps can be seen as non religion specific. This could be attributed to the deity of your choice, including Vishnu, however it still carries the same disregard for those who do not actually have a specific deity, such as agnostics, atheists, Taoists, Buddhists, Pagans, Satanists, Shintoists, and also disregards any polytheistic or pantheistic religion such as most aboriginal belief systems, hinduism, and norse and olympian theologies. Yes they still have followers.

So, one of two things ought to happen.
1.) We bring the currency in line with the existing principles of the nation, that being any citizen here may choose and follow their own religious and spiritual beliefs without governmental interference, and without fear of persecution. (Although this is still far more an ideal than a reality as is)

2.) We should just drop the farce and declare one of the sects of Christianity to be the only acceptable legal religion, and the rest of us can just move out of the country to somewhere that has an idea of what LIBERTY actually means.