Should "In God We Trust" be removed?

Published on April 14, 2009 By CharlesCS In Current Events

While I, personally, would never send someone to MSNBC.com, I received an email today where MSNBC.com has a Live Vote currently that asked the following question:

from newsvine.com where you can comment about the Live Vote

Link

So what do you think? Should it be removed or is this argument stupid as some on the newsvine.com site say?

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?"

I figured one visit to this particular artticle of the site would not hurt much and instead could yield some interesting results. I recommend you try it just to see what people have voted so far.

Then I recommend you check out a link at the bottom

Comments (Page 15)

211

mommie4life

on May 01, 2009

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.^[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Looks to me like they were doing their job and upheld the Constitution instead of changing it.

212

stevendedalus

on May 02, 2009

Looks to me like they were doing their job and upheld the Constitution instead of changing it.

Looks to me like you're really going strong in exercizing the mind.

213

lulapilgrim

on May 02, 2009

MOMMIE4LIFE

There is a saying that I believe sums up the freedom system that the US was founded on quite well. It says that one person's freedom ends where another's begins. Meaning that your freedoms shouldn't take away someone else's freedoms.

LULA POSTS:

Take the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision as a prime example...a majority of justices found somewhere a freedom to privacy (later called a woman's right to choose abortion) which deprives the unborn baby's freedom to be born, or his right to life.

MOMMIE4LIFE POSTS:

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Looks to me like they were doing their job and upheld the Constitution instead of changing it.

I disagree with your conclusion. The Supreme Court didn't change the Constitution, they somehow found a "right" to abortion which isn't there. Up until Roe v. Wade, we here in the US always recognized that killing the unborn baby in the womb was a crime and a particularly ugly one not a women's Constitutional "right to privacy".

The US Constitution is supposed to guarnatee right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not authorize killing in the womb under the right to privacy. There is nothing private about abortion. The decision to procure an abortion directly affects the life an an unborn baby...he dies. The Constitutional responsibility is to "promote the general welfare", and as a result, laws often restrict personal liberties becasue some personal decisions have a direct and negative, even deathly impact on others.

The devil is in the details and he is very cunning indeed. The big lie emphasizes the mother's right to a private life over society's responsibility to protect its weakest members. Abortion propaganda keeps us focused on relishing personal freedom rather than on creating a just social order under the laws of Almighty God who forbids us from killing another innocent human being.

Roe v. Wade made abortion on demand throughout all nine months (and with Obama even killing the baby if he survives a botched abortion) and for any reason (Doe v. Bolton) the law of the land. It's the worst kind of injustice imaginable; a tyranny imposed upon those who are surely the most victimized and horribly oppressed members of the human race..unborn babies held hostage in their mother's wombs.

214

mommie4life

on May 02, 2009

In 1970, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"). McCorvey claimed her pregnancy was the result of rape.^[4]^[5] The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas.

The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the merits, but declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.^[6] The district court's decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment, and the court also relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, regarding a right to use contraceptives. Few state laws proscribed contraceptives in 1965 when the Griswold case was decided, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s.^[7]

Roe v. Wade ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. Following a first round of arguments, Justice Harry Blackmun drafted a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness.^[8] Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. joined the Supreme Court too late to hear the first round of arguments. Therefore, Chief Justice Warren Burger proposed that the case be reargued; this took place on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers stepped in to replace Wade. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order, but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.

Also from the wikipedia article mentioned above.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The above is what the Ninth Amendment states.

Now let's put two and two together and create a scenario. Now from how you posted that I will assume that you're male, so I will address you as such though your profile doesn't state (yes I looked, but just so as to attempt to not affend them). Let's say that your wife is home alone and while she is sleeping a man breaks into the house. Finding her asleep he then rapes her violently, against her wishes, and leaves her tied up to your bed for the police to find. Because your wife wasn't on birth control at that time for whatever reason she finds herself pregnant with the rapist's child. You're telling me that your wife HAS to have that child even if it's against her wishes, even if it's a daily reminder of something that she is trying her hardest to forget, even if it drives her to suicide later on in life? You're telling me that a child has more rights than the childs mother does just because it's unborn? If so then I think you should take a hard look at what the Bible says again, since that's where you're basing your principles. Society has changed a LOT since Biblical times and you need to take that into consideration, not to do so doesn't give the book justice.

215

lulapilgrim

on May 02, 2009

Let's say that your wife is home alone and while she is sleeping a man breaks into the house. Finding her asleep he then rapes her violently, against her wishes, and leaves her tied up to your bed for the police to find. Because your wife wasn't on birth control at that time for whatever reason she finds herself pregnant with the rapist's child. You're telling me that your wife HAS to have that child even if it's against her wishes, even if it's a daily reminder of something that she is trying her hardest to forget, even if it drives her to suicide later on in life? You're telling me that a child has more rights than the childs mother does just because it's unborn? If so then I think you should take a hard look at what the Bible says again, since that's where you're basing your principles. Society has changed a LOT since Biblical times and you need to take that into consideration, not to do so doesn't give the book justice.

Not that it's important, but I am a she.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that in most wrenching cases of rape, emotionally we might want to have the baby aborted. But emotions don't always lead to the right conclusion.

The reality is that while the rape is horrible, there is now an innocent life and two wrongs don't make a right. It makes sense to punish the rapist, but not the innocent baby in the womb with death.

In my view, killing an innocent baby in the womb to relieve the suffering of the woman can never be justified. The woman should carry the baby to term and give him up for adoption.

In the Holy Bible, the child of rape was allowed to live and the rapist was put to death...How far have we come from that? Penalties against rape are lenient and the product of the rape, the child in the womb gets the death penalty.

216

mommie4life

on May 03, 2009

Obviously you're dead set in your ways. I don't think that a unborn baby's life should come before it's mother's. If there was a medical situation in where both were indangered and there was only one who could survive the mother is chosen first. If someone wants an abortion bad enough they'll get one whether it's regulated or not. Whether a woman gets an abortion or not they have to deal with it for the rest of their life. I would rather see the woman's mental health preserved than have her take her life or her child's life or both later on.

217

jdcriveau

on May 04, 2009

NEVER SHOULD WE REMOVE IN GOD WE TRUST

AND I WILL GLADLY DEFEND THAT

if you are looking for freedom of the mind

if your are looking for the truth

if you see the very fault of our inner governmental circle

if you believe you are important and you matter

if you are unhappy at what is

if you believe we can make a better tomarrow

then now go to youtube.com

go to jdcriveau check out those videos

support him pass them on to others

join jd to make the united states the country it should be

remember the party system in congress brought us to this point

it is now our time to make it a free governmential body

it is now our time to give all congress a term limit

vote in indepentents not party people

REMEMBER WE ARE FREE WILL PEOPLE AND WE DO NOT NEED A POLITICAL PARTY

TO TELL US HOW TO THINK AND WHAT WE ARE

SO GO TO YOUTUBE.COM CHECKOUT jdcriveau

you deside where you stand and if you agree with jdcriveau then support jd

pass jd on to others

help jd free this nation and in turn we will be an example for the rest

thank you

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!