Hey, there! Log in / Register

Jamaica Plain church stamping Tubman's visage over Jackson on all the $20 bills it gets

Hope Central Church on Seaverns Avenue in Jamaica Plain isn't waiting for the current administration to be voted out: The Religion News Service reports the church has gotten an ink stamp of Tubman's profile and is using it on $20 bills:

"I'm taking such pleasure in this. Mr. Trail of Tears, gone!" laughed Ann Potter, who counts offerings for HCC, as she covered the former president’s face on bill after bill.

Neighborhoods: 
Ad:

Comments

to count Laura Ruth Jarrett, the pastor of Hope Central, among my neighbors and friends. I'm not much the religious type, but she is a delight and everything a pastor (or person) could ever aspire to be. Glad to see her doing this, glad to see the congregation behind her, and glad to see the church standing against white supremacy.

up
Voting closed 37

"Defacement of Currency

Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

https://www.moneyfactory.gov/resources/lawsandregulations.html

I mean should not a church take the high road? Or another question: Why do they feel that they are above the law in this regard?

While I too would like to see Jackson replaced, giving potential fodder for those "white supremacists" to use against one, is not the way to win your case.

up
Voting closed 52

What if Harriet Tubman had taken the “high road” instead of the Underground one?

up
Voting closed 59

Yes, seriously.

Let's not get off topic. I made a point about the law only and the breaking of the law (and laws are there for a reason).

Look at MLK. He did not break laws to make his point. Peaceful protests. Non-violence and civil disobedience.

up
Voting closed 38

Civil Disobedience is, in fact breaking the law. Google “MLK lawbreaker” for countless examples.

up
Voting closed 69

Martin Luther King Jr didn't break laws to make his point?? WHAT? Segregation WAS the law! Do you not know how many times he was thrown in jail for "breaking laws"?

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/mlk-topic/martin-luther-king-jr-arrests

Come on...

up
Voting closed 38

per the definition you yourself added, the bill would have to be unusable to be defacing. People put notes on bills all the time, including morons who proudly announce that "their" president lives here (the Lincoln Memorial on the $5). No one can even pretend that the delay in the Tubman $20 is anything but racism - the security work involved lasts exactly as long as Trump's assumed presidency??! What are the odds. Hiding that behind so called defacing the currency claims is ridiculous.

up
Voting closed 31

Is this a joke, what do you think people were disobeying?

up
Voting closed 7

You really believe MLK did not break the laws!? Are you serious!? He constantly broke the law and he was often jailed for it. Civil disobedience, like helping enslaved people escape, or protecting free blacks from capture, are breaking the law. And his protests were not always peaceful, albeit the violence more often from the other side. This sanitized view of MLK is horribly inaccurate and it has caused you to view current liberation movements incorrectly.

The second point is that it may not be against the law - read it. It clearly states that the action must be "with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued." That is clearly not the intent, so is it still illegal?

up
Voting closed 15

white people were all about arresting MLK at the time for all the breaking of (unjust) laws he was doing. see also "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

then, because he won, and because the tide of opinion changed, white people went in and whitewashed (lol!) the whole history, scrubbing him clean and handwaving all the nasty unpure technicalities and facts away.

up
Voting closed 21

Wow.

up
Voting closed 8

King was arrested 29 times!

You do know that sit-ins at lunch counters and Rosa Parks sitting in the front bus seat was literally breaking the law, right?

You cite civil disobedience, whyaduck; here is the dictionary.com definition of civil disobedience: "the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest." This is actually the first thing that appears in a Google search when you type "define civil disobedience".

Not only did King break the law, he publicly advocated for breaking laws. Let's look at what King himself wrote in the 1963 "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws...The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."...

...One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

It is astoundingly ignorant to make a comment and upvote a comment that states that MLK did not break laws when a.) breaking laws is what the civil rights movement was known for b.) you argue that civil disobedience is superior to law-breaking protests when the definition of civil disobedience is to break laws and c.) King himself is on record many times over encouraging the breaking of laws - King was prolific in writing and in speech; this is not super secret information that is hard to look up.

I strongly encourage everyone here to read more of Dr King's speeches and books and to maybe read some critical analysis of what he actually said and did so that misinformation like the comment above does not propagate.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

up
Voting closed 36

"What if Harriet Tubman had taken the “high road” instead of the Underground one?"

She would have been killed. She had to be as tough as the slavers and slave hunters that were looking for their 'stolen property'.
She risked her life on an almost continuous basis.

This image shows her as she was at the time, a young woman not to be trifled with, a woman willing to fight for a just cause, freedom for her people. It captures her spirit.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/h7lKlMH.jpg)

up
Voting closed 28

It is hard to make a revolver look cool.

Well done.

I think we should have more badasses with guns on currency.

up
Voting closed 8

This isn't exactly new and it's not clear that it's illegal.

up
Voting closed 20

sounds like it meets the definition of defacement to me.

up
Voting closed 36

Whether or not it's defacement, you put a concern of mine into words. I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting this bill in the fear that someone else may not accept it from me. The "principal image" being masked makes it look like funny money. This is quite different than "where's George?" on singles.

When the Treasury comes out with the real bills, great. Until such time, I'll refuse these and ask for a plain $20.

up
Voting closed 20

So what about those counterfeit test markers which stores use frequently? They efficiently draws a permanent black strip across the bill.

up
Voting closed 14

One is an insignificant mark done to insure integrity of the currency. The other is deliberate defacement of one of the key identifying elements of the bill.

up
Voting closed 13

Either way you're defacing the bill. Beyond that it's a matter of taste.

The real security features (micro printing, microchip, watermark) remain visible either way.

up
Voting closed 14

If intent is a relevant consideration in this (and the law states that it is), neither is defacement or illegal.

up
Voting closed 9

This isn't exactly new and it's not clear that it's illegal.

As unbiased a source as POTUS 45 holding up a report summary and saying "100% exonerated!", to be sure....

They do link to some of the specific passages of law, though, which does talk about defacing, disfiguring and rendering (currency) unfit to be reissued. A thick stamp image like that blocks part of the detailed design image (as printed by the US Treasury)? A thick stamped image that isn't engraved like everything else on the note? I think that a reasonable person could entertain reasonable doubts that such a note was authentic and safe to accept and/or spend.

This group seems to hang their argument on the rationalization that they don't intend the currency to be unfit for circulation, they want it circulated. They also push the notion that because nobody has faced legal penalties for defacement yet that it's illegal to refuse it as legal tender. If it's as dodgy as the photo suggests, a person/business has some right to decline.

If someone thinks the stamping is a good idea, here's an idea for a first-level test: go to the bank, make a deposit through the no-envelope bill-scanning ATM, see if it rejects the bill, see if the deposit is verified.

up
Voting closed 8

is duly noted.

up
Voting closed 13

You can see from the text of the law that you posted that this is not "defacement", any more than using a counterfeit-detection marker would be. Stamping an image that is not profane and doesn't advertise a business over the face on the bill clearly does not fall under "mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together", and is clearly not being done "with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued". It's obviously the opposite: these bills are intended to remain in circulation. The denomination of the bill is also not obscured.

More info: https://www.stampstampede.org/faq/yes-its-legal/

up
Voting closed 14

Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates,

No damage to the structure of the bill

unites or cements together,

No gluing bills together

or does any other thing

Okay, sure, that's pretty general...

to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System,

Right...

with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued,

Ah. Seems like an artistic modification of the portrait on the bill may not actually constitute a violation, based on this wording. Is there precedent for the "Where's George" project or other stuff like that?

up
Voting closed 19

Taping a torn bill is illegal? Who knew.

up
Voting closed 6

...with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued...

Where is the intent to render the bill unfit to be reissued? I don't think intent can be proved here.

up
Voting closed 14

Right there in the legislation you cite:

'with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued"

up
Voting closed 7

Evangelical churches teach bigotry and pray for genocide by God wiping out homosexuals. Seems to me that praying for deaths of millions is much worse than stamping an image on paper money.

up
Voting closed 10

Before the Supreme Court decision that effectively nullified sodomy laws I was a criminal everytime I committed a sodomy crime. By your reasoning I should have remained celibate and refused the joy and health of a loving relationship by refusing to have sex with the gender that nature made me to be sexually attracted to.

So sometimes it is necessary to ignore laws that that are designed to or have the effect of maintaining immoral rules.

up
Voting closed 9

You need to be reminded of MLK's word on this matter:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season ..."

up
Voting closed 7

the same always as moral. the church IS taking the high road.

up
Voting closed 23

It is of their opinion (the church) that Jackson should be replaced but many others in this country may feel differently. It is better to build a consensus than go rogue, no?

up
Voting closed 18

There WAS a process over replacing Jackson on the bill, you know. That ship has sailed.

up
Voting closed 44

There was a consensus. There was a multi year process that resulted in the decision to put Tubman on the bill. Many other people and particularly women were considered. Tubman was chosen. The ones who have "gone rogue" is the Trump administration and they have done so based on the same racism they have always built upon.

up
Voting closed 40

Nice use of the passive tense to omit the fact that the decision to change the twenty was pushed through by a Democratic president, and the delay is being done by a Republican president.

Pure politics from *both sides*.

up
Voting closed 2

It doesnt need to be pushed through.

So sorry but Congress doesnt get a vote on it, all it takes is the Treasury Sec and a signature from the President.

An outside group started a group (with support from female politicians) to get 'Women On 20'

There was a poll and Tubman won.

And because our infantile President still can't handle that the black guy before him is wildly more intelligent and liked he must, yet again, try to reverse everything Obama ever did.

up
Voting closed 21

It’s passive voice, not passive tense.

up
Voting closed 9

You don't seem to know much about this issue. All of the things you have asserted, about MLK, about the legality of the "mutilation" of the bill, about the process of selecting Tubman are incorrect and easily verified. It is troubling that you feel comfortable posting your thoughts as fact instead of asking the question. Google before you post.

up
Voting closed 30

It was announced in 2016.

Now it's delayed.

Not a few weeks, or even months. But years.

As in, not until Trump leaves office.

It has nothing to do with security or design problems but to satiate a racist toddler.

up
Voting closed 34

... after the end of Trumps 3rd term? :-(

up
Voting closed 1

What a limited understanding of Andrew Jackson

up
Voting closed 14

What are we missing?

up
Voting closed 9

up
Voting closed 6

Limited understanding of Jackson? What do you THINK your antagonist understands about Jackson, and what are they missing?

Put up or shut up, don't use Google to wipe your lazy ass.

up
Voting closed 7

He want to kill all people native to this continent.

Or do you support genocide?

up
Voting closed 13

the only higher authority you answer to is established law then perhaps. it doesn't matter if many people feel "otherwise" --the church is still taking the high road. not complicated buddy.

up
Voting closed 4

last time i heard about people counting money in church a dude named jesus christ was flipping over tables.

up
Voting closed 14

They got those nice bread baskets with looooong sticks to make sure EVERYBODY pays up.

Ya know, for heaven or whatever.

up
Voting closed 11

They were money *lenders* and it was a temple. You need to listen more closely next time.

up
Voting closed 8

called spocking - bills still in print. Not illegal per the govt, they just ask them to please stop. Not fighting racism, he just looks like Spock man

https://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-canada-stop-drawing-leonard-nimo...

up
Voting closed 9

Notwithstanding that President Obama had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate in 2009 and 2010 that produced no Tubman $20 bill, President Trump should now speed the process for this very worthy woman who shared the same ideals.

After all, Ms. Tubman fought against the very foundations of the Democrat party, slavery and secession, while proudly exercising her second amendment right to carry firearms and devoutly practicing her Christian faith. Trump should unveil the bill next year or early in his second term.

up
Voting closed 21

There he is, right on time with his dewy-eyed innocence about the Southern Strategy that has been pointed out to him thousands of times and his masterful command of second-grade level shade with his talk about the "Democrat party". Even Dubya could do better than you, you old mullet.

up
Voting closed 34

Mention Democratic party of that late 19th century to imply that the Democractic party of the early 21st century is the same.

Use respectul sounding terms such as Ms. Tubman to create credibility while at other times coming across as racist as a Klansmen.

Conflating the false interpretation of the 2nd Amendment with devout practice of a Christian faith.

Deny the obvious racism of The Traitor by calling for him to unveil the new $20 bill this year or in his failed 2nd term - in other words, put it off so that most people forget about the issue.

Slick, slimy and sleezy.

up
Voting closed 17

Easy fix for this, anytime you get one rip in half and turn it in to your bank for a new one.

up
Voting closed 15

And remember Jerry, "it's not breaking the law if you believe it."

up
Voting closed 4