All monotheistic religions, I mean.
The American dollar shows "In God We Trust" on it.
Is this a case of idolatry, and deification of a worldly object?
Would this be considered heretical under your faith?
If so, would such heresy have been severely punished in the past? Would Yehovah, Ahuramazda, Allah, or God approve of some wordly creature signing a document in His/Its name?
Idolatry and deification would be if a person would walk up to the coin and say "You are my God." That would be idolatry and deification no matter what was or was not on the coin.
Absent that, it's not idolatry etc.
It would be forgery for someone to sign a document in God's name. For example, if I see a paper that says "I owe you $100, signed God", I would very much suspect that He did not actually sign that document.
What it says on the USA coins is not God speaking, but people expressing their sentiments about God, which I assume is OK with every religion.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
It's not just the money. Most of popular culture is.
If you read between the lines.
See John Carpenter movie They Live.
I worship Zeus and some of the other Gods.
I take offense to the whole idea of our fed reserve tickets excluding the other Gods.
Seriously, though, the statement 'in god we trust' on the money just seems to be a meaningless statement. Like many other things. Which sleeping minds just sort of except. Like 'support the troops' or 'protect our borders' or whatever. In god we trust could mean Bernanke trusts God. Or all people do. Or just people who own the dollars do. Or pieces of paper without brains trust God. Who knows? We all know if something is written down, it must be true. Otherwise, why would they write it there?
Seriously, though, the statement 'in god we trust' on the money just seems to be a meaningless statement.
It is meaningless. The Fed's monopoly status is creating the problem. True free-market banks may put religious statements on their coins - much like In-N-Out Burger does on its cups - and there'd be no problem. I don't think people should worry about the "In God We Trust" part, though; it just takes away from the real debate of fiat money.
Depends on the creed or belief. All of these religions have many different subsets, even calling some as "wholly monotheistic" may be wrong. That said, I don't think there is anything in Zoroastrianism that would out and out condemn it. It would, for all I know,be rather apathetic about it. Jewish, Christain, and Islamic creeds and practices, I can see how all can endorse, be apathetic to, and condemn all without contradicting much/any precedence...just how Marx may be called a libertarian.
its not a big deal...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Perhaps you had another point prateek?
This question you raise "If so, would such heresy have been severely punished in the past? Would Yehovah, Ahuramazda, Allah, or God approve of some wordly creature signing a document in His/Its name?"
Feels to me to have next to nothing to do with the "In God we Trust" statements on american money.
Hell I can see how even traditions within traditions can do it in all sorts of ways without contradicting the traditions. Customs, traditions, and "transcendental" things are tricky like that.
If anything the Gods would love it. Especially if for some reason they needed pieces of paper in lieu of some absolute omnipotence to know if you trust them or not.
The only problem being that you can't say which one or you displease all of them. You gotta play it cool and appeal to their vanity. "You're so vain. You probably think this fed note is about you!"
-
I mean it's a meaningless gesture for people. Because what does it even mean? It doesn't point to a doctrine or spell out any truth. It's just nonsense.
Let's do a bit of theology and semantics. Here are the possible meanings:
1) If you own US currency, then you trust God. Or such ownership proves your trust.
2) If you print US currency, you trust God. Or such printing proves your trust.
3) All people, without exception, trust God. Or being alive proves your trust in God.
4) Some unknown number of people trusts God (we), but not you or an untold number of other people. Or if you own money, you're an infidel.
5) All people except you trust God. Or being you means distrust in God.
6) Some unknown number of people, including you, trusts God. Or having read the statement, you can be assured of your own trust in God.
It can't be stated in the "language of logic", but it simply isn't playing that game. If the phrase "In God We Trust" is on the money of the culture, it could be simply seen as the highest affirmation of the culture to that which represents the cultures highest values, or at least the propaganda of such a thing. It isn't "logical" in that sense, but it isn't meaningless in the same sense as kissing a loved one isn't meaningless or calling Bach's Mass in B minor "sublime" isn't meaningless, or looking at a painting in an art museum and realizing it can't be stated logically isn't meaningless.
If I were to say "God bless you" to someone, it would mean "the highest of affections be with you". This makes sense on a dollar bill. Now what faiths do and don't reject money on the American dollar is another matter. And indeed it could point out to a doctrine: the traditions, cultures, and precedents endorsed by the USA government are within the tradition "of the highest value".
I think it depends. For most Christian denominations it is not problematic. Coins from both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires had religious iconography or symbolism on them. Some had images of Jesus. Others, such as Byzantine coins minted during the more iconoclastic periods, had only a cross or sometimes just a religious phrase on them.
I know many orthodox Jews who think that the phrase on money is rather distasteful, especially because one is not allowed to deal with money during the sabbath. I don't think that there is any official prohibition on it though, and I suspect that other Jews have different opinions.
All in all I think it is generally regarded as OK.