Atheistic Coinage

I recently received a cryptic email in response to my article, ‘Atheistic Coinage’. It simply asked “Don’t you do your research?” My answer, in ordinary terms, is “You’re too darn tootin’ I do!” I always welcome true comments to my work, but have to respond to mistaken judgments.

---

The writer (who may, or may not, be genuine) was, it seems, annoyed that I had not looked at the Snopes site. I politely replied that this one (that is, the Snopes’ comments) had “got away from me”. There is a very good reason for this… I don’t even look at Snopes for political notes! Why not? Well, let’s just say that certain sites are a little too left for my liking. Maybe I’m doing Snopes down, but that’s my opinion. Could be wrong, of course. Most folks are naïve when it comes to politics and what politicians say or do. For example, politicians like to ‘leak’ certain news to the media, often using an indirect route. This is what they do when they want to ‘test the waters’ of public opinion. If the opinion is adverse, they say the leak was unofficial and had no basis in truth. (Like almost everything politicians say?). But, if the opinion seems favourable, along comes the ‘official’ version a short while later. Another ploy used by government is to use nasty-type groups to do all the dirty work. They do it by getting people who are unrelated to the instigator to talk to members of the group, maybe in a bar, and ‘let slip’ information the group loves to hate. The group then goes off like a rocket and tells the media. The same principle applies – if the result is favourable, along comes the official version! If not, the plan is just shelved for a while and those who get wind of the plans are ridiculed as ‘conspiracy theorists’. It happens all the time. We can see from the secretive, furious activity undertaken by speaker Pelosi, that Democrats like to write their laws first and then dump them on the country. They don’t bother with public opinion, or even with Congressional study and comment. They just do it. But, other things are ‘leaked’. Another sad truth is that some websites and publications are not altogether objective. Shock-horror, they are, er… biased in favour of left or right. Now, a bias can either be genuine and factual or it can be furtive and designed to mislead. When it misleads it is called ‘prejudice’. In my own work I give my view based on research(whether my views are liked or not is another matter), not on unfounded prejudice. This is not to say I speak without presupposition. Everyone has presuppositions. I have two – ‘Christian’ and ‘truth’. With these facts in mind, let us take a brief look at the ‘atheistic coinage’ issue again…

Truth-or-Lie Websites

In response to the claim that the government left off the words on new dollar coins, Snopes was quite emphatic, calling the claim ‘false’. Now, any researcher worth his salt will not just allow one source to give him a definite answer, and will not let any source guide his conclusions unless thy are based on truth. Rather, he will use that information to do even more research. That is what I did in my original article – I left out a lot of background material and gave readers the summary… especially as other ‘truth-or-lie’ sites said something different. Now, if you read the Snopes comments you will see they are not straightforward. They only gave one side of the story, using a mixture of opinions, and this makes any researcher suspicious. Was this deliberate? You’ll have to discover that for yourselves. The Snopes information is mixed, but it does not tell us government actually did mint coins without the words “In God We Trust”! Rather, Snopes comes to the conclusion that government did not and will not produce a coin without the words “In God We Trust”. This is what I refer to as an “Oh dear” moment!

The Dept of the Treasury

The words “In God We Trust” was originally put on coins because of religious fervour during the Civil War and because Secretary Chase asked for a suitable motto. (Letter to James Pollock, Philadelphia Mint, 20th Nov. 1851). The legal position is that no government can remove the words without legislation. Fast-forward to now, and the Treasury admits that it minted, and put into circulation, dollar coins that did not have the words “In God We Trust” anywhere on them. They were even of a different weight and size, though Snopes says they were ‘similar in size etc’! Snopes went on to say that emails saying the coins did not have the motto on them were an “erroneous assertion”! MSNBC Business news (AP, 8th March, 2007) reported that “An unknown number of new dollar coins have gone into circulation without their edge inscriptions”, quoting a US Mint spokesman. He added that they were “mistakenly struck” and were selling at $50 a coin. So much for not being minted! They apparently got past inspectors, and 300 million were struck, with about 50,000 handed out to the public. Estimates as to how many actually made it to the streets vary, but the number was large, which is why they only fetch about $50. From that time on (2007) email ‘conspiracy theories’ emerged… and it is these that Snopes refers to without once referring to the huge number of circulating coins free of the motto. Are they just ‘theories’? Without resorting to conspiracy theories, my point is this:

• Some websites claim that no coins of this type were minted.
• Obviously they were, in large numbers, and this was admitted by the Mint.
• Government claimed it was an error… it is very hard to accept this, given the extreme and stringent inspection system in mints around the world. There is not just one inspection, but many, all along the minting process! I find it difficult to swallow that 300 MILLION coins got past exceptional quality checks!
• That this could easily be part of government spin is not unusual or beyond belief.
• That it began before Obama became president is also not unusual – the government at the time was dominated by stealthy Democrats, who have been crushing Christian values for years.
• I see no problem accepting that this may have been an ‘unofficial leak’ used to gauge public opinion, given the government record on doing such things, both in the US and the UK.

Urban Legends Site

Unlike Snopes, this site calls the email rumour ‘partly true’. This is because it documents the Treasury ‘mistake’ resulting in a huge number of coins being put onto the streets and this was the basis for ‘rumours’. To suggest that Snopes, or any website making comments, is ‘more true’ than the theories that arose after the minting, is to be rather unbalanced. Many ‘conspiracy’ theories seem to have at least a grain of truth in them. And many truthful suspicions are based on actual sneaky government plans. Why should a website that compares available quotes be more ‘reasonable’ than any others? Especially if certain sites appear to be pro-Obama and pro-Democrat. It is feasible, therefore, that coinage without the wording was planned, but was put off by public opinion, whether it is called ‘conspiracy theory’ or not. Surely I am being paranoid? No, I am putting together reasonable and actual conclusions based on governmental track-records. And ask yourself this: why should government suddenly tell us, after about 150 years, they will be inserting the words, unless there was substance to the idea that they would not? There would be no reason to say anything at all if everything was above board. Sarah Palin made reference to this in a 2009 speech, but, as is now usual, the media lampooned her for it. This is because the liberal media are in love with Obama and Marxism, so anything said by Palin will automatically be treated as garbage, because that is how the Democrat spin-doctors have been working since before the last election. They do everything in their power to destroy Palin, so why believe what they say? Interestingly, the change now made to the coin was talked about in 2006 reports (such as WND, 27th Nov., 2006). The wording would be put on the edge of the coin instead of on the front or back. Yet, in 2009, both a Republican and a Democrat proposed that the inscription should remain on either front or back. Again, the timing and the responses are not those the Democrat government would support! It simply does not fit its PC and very ungodly proposals in total… unless it is a temporary measure to sidetrack objectors. The wording was not adopted as official government policy until 1957, when some semblance of God still remained in government halls. The last decade or two, however, have witnessed a decline in morality, ethics and genuine political will. Does this mean the opposition, then, are always right? No.

A Cheap Stunt?

Theodore Roosevelt didn’t like use of the motto on coins. He felt that it cheapened the words (Letter to William Boldly, 11th Nov. 1907). In 1956 Congress wanted to show it was nothing like communism – which is based on atheism - so it made use of the motto using law. (Today, the opposite applies). It does not ‘prove’ that all atheists are communist, only that communism itself is atheistic. This is why I say there is more to any change of coin-wording than meets the eye. Really, what may happen (or not) to the coins is only what is going on country-wide in many other areas of life, forced upon the nation by rampant atheists. Even if the coins are not amended in the near future, the sentiment of godlessness is very apparent throughout government in its rejection of anything Christian. Yes, there are Christian Congressmen, but they are too small in number to make a difference. This is why Christians, in particular, are interested in what is going on. As far as I am concerned, the wording is not required nor is it particularly relevant to most people. But, the move from a Christianised ethos to an atheistic, PC one, is bringing in more and more suppression and repression.

And…There’s more!

Legal eagles have continuously fought each other over the constitutionality of the phrase on coins and in government papers. (Congressional Research Service: David Ackerman, American Law Division, 10th July, 1996). However, courts did not accept it to be unconstitutional. But, times are changing, and judges are now becoming their own law-makers, disregarding their role as provers of laws made by the people, and making themselves the law itself. Add to this the fact that Obama is choosing anti-God judges and atheists to serve him (not the country) in key roles, and the whole matter of the coins pales into insignificance… Though the coins are significant as indicators of government skullduggery. Court decisions were in favour of keeping the phrase on coinage, because it reflected the country’s religious fervour. Which is exactly why atheists want it removed, just as they want every religious inscription removed from all official papers, buildings, etc. But, they don’t stop there – they also push to get it removed retrospectively from memorial crosses, etc., even though they were erected at a time when Christian beliefs were high and many in the armed forces believed in God! It is this fascist dictate that I loathe, not the beliefs of atheists. They can believe whatever they wish, so long as they don’t force the rest of us to accept what they say. Conspiracy theory or not, this will rumble on, because atheists are becoming more and more strident, and are at the root of most anti-Christian movements. The latest law-suit was filed by, guess who – yes, an atheist, Carlos Kidd, who demanded the phrase “In God We Trust” be taken off the coins. Before too long these objectors will meet atheist judges and the circle will be complete. The matter is very plain to define: Let atheists say what they like, but let them vie in the open marketplace with others, whether Christian or not. Right now, atheists in all their hues – some quite rotten, if not filthy – are riding rough-shod over everyone, using law to make their point. And it is this resort to law that shows the true fascist nature of the atheists who make them. If their beliefs were genuine they would let them stand the rigors of public debate. Here I must add a point: that not all atheists are actually atheists. Most I have met think they are atheists; they have no real philosophical view, but think they don’t believe in God. These folks are welcome to their views. The atheists we are talking about in this article are those very few who hate Christians and Christianity with a poisoned venom. They want to obliterate anything to do with God. Again, I say that genuine Christianity does no harm to anyone, but makes a nation great. It has been said to me recently that maybe it would be a good thing for government to be godless. What a terrifying thought! Look to Stalin’s government (that is, the puppet government that shook to his rants) for an example of what happens when rulers are godless! Godlessness is associated with what is vile, or hateful, or loathsome. We’ve already got atheistic peripherals in place by law: sexual wickedness, sexual predatorship of children, evil school sessions, refusal of professors to allow students to think properly, loss of jobs because of thoughts and words… the list is growing by the minute, and there really are people in government who beaver away 24x7 to undermine everything Christian. At the same time, fake and poor Christians only fuel atheistic fervour. It is now time for real Christians to stand up and be counted, with genuine lives based on genuine doctrine. Atheism has nothing to offer but heartache. And hardened atheists are out to get you! Finally, when you want to research an issue, look at the entire spectrum of evidences, not just one source that may (or may not) be biased. The error of both sides of this coin is to be subjective. Let conclusions arise from the evidences. Maybe the removal of a phrase on a coin is only a theory, maybe a rumour. But, given the nature of current governments throughout the West, what is called a ‘theory’ may, indeed, be more factual than is thought. As a Will Smith film poster once said: “It isn’t paranoia when they really are out to get you!” Barry Napier runs christiandoctrine.com. The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009. For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: barry.napier@ntlworld.com

---