Which president firmly believed in the separation of church and state and thought it unconstitutional to have "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency; he tried unsuccessfully to have that legend removed.

That would be Teddy Roosevelt.

Quoting from the above source: "As President he firmly believed in the separation of church and state and thought it unconstitutional to have In God We Trust on U.S. currency, not because of a lack of faith in God, but because he thought it sacrilegious to put the name of the Deity on something so common as money. He tried unsuccessfully to have that legend removed."

The source, Wikipedia, also mentions that Teddy Roosevelt was teh first President to have a black man dine in teh WHite House. I have seen that statement often, but suspect that it is in error. Lincoln invited Frederick Douglas to a reception in the White House, and it seems to me that a meal would have certainly been served. Lincoln is even quoted as calling Douglas "my friend Douglas"

"teh" ????

A typo.

Yeah, Jelp, you got the answer and my source -- whether DG approves is another matter.
Thanks, guy!

Just to be clear about Teddy Roosevelt, he wanted the motto "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. coins because "he thought it sacrilegious to put the name of Deity on somethings so common as money." (Jelp01's link). T.R also said:

quote:

"But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

That doesn't sound like an issue with separation of church and state.

I also learned that our founding fathers chose "E Pluribus Unum" as the (secular) motto, while "In God We Trust" became popular around the time of the Civil War. In the 1950's, under Eisenhower and McCarthyism, "In God We Trust" was added to paper currency, around the time that the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance and "So help me God" added to judges' oaths of office.

I have no quarrel with the wih the fact that Roosevelt tried to remove the words. It sounds like something he would do. But do remember this about Wikipedia (a source I often use to start research) - Anyone can go into the data bank there and edit anything. I could add that Roosevelt had a picture of Mike Tyson tatooed on his rear, and it would stay on until someone complained.

below from Wikipedia -

1. Introduction
2. Learn more about editing
3. Explore Wikipedia

See the "edit this page" tab at the top of each article? On Wikipedia, you can edit pages whenever you want, logged in or not.

What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly, and their creators banned.

How can I help?
Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia—anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold...but don't be reckless! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source of information on the Internet!

That is incredible! More importantly, it makes Wikipedia a non-credible source!

quote:

Originally posted by Kelleygirl:
Yeah, Jelp, you got the answer and my source -- whether DG approves is another matter.
Thanks, guy!

Who cares what DG thinks? You were the one who asked the question, not him!

quote:

Originally posted by Professor:
Just to be clear about Teddy Roosevelt, he wanted the motto "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. coins because "he thought it sacrilegious to put the name of Deity on somethings so common as money." (Jelp01's link). T.R also said:[QUOTE] "But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

That doesn't sound like an issue with separation of church and state

I can understand where you're coming from on this; it is a different aspect as to why one would want this motto removed. But if one would take the Bible literally it does say (not sure this is verbatim but should be close enough) "Render unto Caesar's, what is Caesar and what is God's to God." Could say separation is a directive from God, no?

You're right, Jelp, who cares what DG thinks!

quote:

Originally posted by Sailracer:
That is incredible! More importantly, it makes Wikipedia a non-credible source!

I would say a non-authoritative source. Credibility is conferred by accuracy, i.e., correspondence with known facts, even if there is no explicit authorship. I've spot-checked Wikipedia on topics familiar to me, and found it to be pretty solid. Of socially contentious issues such as abortion, Wikipedia seems to use broad-minded and dispassionate descriptions. Overall, for an "open source" knowledge base, it's surprisingly better than I would have expected, given its vulnerabilities.

By making pages editable they become correctable as well. Every change you make on a page is permanently recorded in that page's revision history. Pages that are most likely to be targets of vandals and pranksters (e.g., the Home page) are protected from editing. But those are kept to a minimum.

So you wouldn't cite Wikipedia.com as a scholarly reference or link in a peer-reviewed publicatoin, because Wikipedia is formally fallible [say that 3 times] . But it usually gives the right answer, easily, with tons of hyperlinks to boot. Perhaps the biggest fear is that the articles will be of lower quality or standards than, say, a standard textbook on the same subject. But I haven't found that to be the case. So I think the experiment is still going pretty well.

Now this is based on my own experience and some general reading. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any good articles on the "Wiki Philosophy". Nor have I read or seen any articles that are truly critical of Wikipedia.

Challenge: Find a "bad" article in Wikipedia, then a start a new AP thread by posting the link.

Optimists will see Wikipedia as self-correcting and self-expanding in breadth and depth. Pessimists (and paranoids!) will see it as an actual or potential breeding ground for all manner of pranks, frauds, and hidden political agendas. Today I'm an optimist.

Methinks you guys are dissing Wiki unfairly. The "Wiki way" won't wilt. Weally.

quote:

Originally posted by kellygirl:
But if one would take the Bible literally it does say (not sure this is verbatim but should be close enough) "Render unto Caesar's, what is Caesar and what is God's to God." Could say separation is a directive from God, no?

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. The same source translates it as: “Give to worldly authorities the things that belong to them, and to God what belongs to God.” I suppose you could call it a directive from God for the separation of church and state. I'll have to remember that one.

But the Bible affirms the existence of a one-and-only god, putting God first and the worldly affairs of men second. And since this passage is from the New Testament, it is a teaching of the Christian religion in particular.

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which embodies the country's founding principles, puts men and their government first. The state does not recognize any deity and puts religious expression outside of itself, on the other side of a Jeffersonian "wall of separation" that most Americans agree is implied by the wording of the 1st Amendment. However many Christian fundamentalists ("Let's put prayer and Bible study back in public shools") interpret the Establishment Clause as not actually mandating this wall of separation.

And that's kinda scary to me.