If USA is a secular country, how come "in God we trust" is written on its money?

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Joe McCarthy was lots of things, but I don't think he was anti-Semitic. In fact IIRC he had several Jewish aides.

Roy Cohn, for one.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

Claiming that the slogan "In God We Trust" is an expression of hatred is absurd. You come across very much like GEEPERS when you come out with things like this.

On printed money it is an expression of intolerance based on hatred of communism and by proxy atheism. As is "under god" in the amended pledge and the "So help me God" that was added to oaths.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

Roy Cohn, for one.

Once again, it is McCarthyism and its supporters, not Joe McCarthy himself, that is accused of being somewhat antisemitic.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Quite honestly yes. I believe He is that involved in all aspects of creation to this level and much more.

The reason for the saying I believe is God just wants to have His say to the people, bypassing the government's illusion of trust in government currency. In other words don't trust this money in your pocket to get you home this evening, it is only because I allow it that you can get home safely. The message is there for those who can heed it.

It is also Him demonstrating His absolute authority over our nation, along with the famed 'one nation under (the authority of) God' which is how I take this line of the pledge.

It is also Him laughing at our government's authority by ordering them to place His name above theirs.

It is amusing in many ways to me that these debates as to why things are, when the answer is because God has made it so and He does what He wants.

It bears noting that your God is so inept he can't defeat an iron chariot.

[shiver]Mufasa![/shiver]

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

It bears noting that your God is so inept he can't defeat an iron chariot.

He got stopped cold in Judges 1, but won the rematch in Judges 4.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

He got stopped cold in Judges 1, but won the rematch in Judges 4.

By cheating, if you ask me.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

He got stopped cold in Judges 1, but won the rematch in Judges 4.

Midas didn't have mud tires back then.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Midas didn't have mud tires back then.

Comedy gold, I tell you.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The "ism" makes it about the movement more than the man, look at the Peekskill Riots if you think it was not linked with anti-Semitism.

The Peekskill riots had vastly more racism involved than anti-Semitism.

Beyond that, I don't think the thugs involved were representative of most anti-Communists because the country was overwhelmingly anti-Communist and many anti-Communists, such as Rep. Jacob Javits spoke out against it.

Beyond that, labeling it an example of McCarthyism makes little sense because it occurred almost a full year before McCarthy's Wheeling, West Virginia speech, at a time when he was hardly known as a fervent anti-communist.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

On printed money it is an expression of intolerance based on hatred of communism and by proxy atheism.

I imagine those who pushed for the adoption of "in God we trust" as the country's official motto saw it as an expression of their values rather than one of hatred. The phrase comes from "The Star Spangled Banner" originally, it has a much longer history than McCarthyism. Here's a image of a 1873 nickel with the phrase on it.

Originally Posted by rat avatar

As is "under god" in the amended pledge and the "So help me God" that was added to oaths.

"So help me God", is actually optional. Under the No Religious Test Clause of the US constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

If the phrase is omitted it's entered as an affirmation rather than an oath.

I personally agree that religious phrases are not suitable for use on motto's, coinage, and in oaths of office, but I'm surprised anyone can get very worked up over this.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

I personally agree that religious phrases are not suitable for use on motto's, coinage, and in oaths of office, but I'm surprised anyone can get very worked up over this.

Would you likewise find "In Jesus We Trust" okay?

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Would you likewise find "In Jesus We Trust" okay?

As I just said, I don't think "in God we trust" is OK, I just don't think it's important, and I don't accept it's an expression of hatred and intolerance.

Was your point that that latter would exclude any non-Christian or non-Muslim theists?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

I personally agree that religious phrases are not suitable for use on motto's, coinage, and in oaths of office, but I'm surprised anyone can get very worked up over this.

A tiny cut here, a single straw there-why should anyone care, right?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

Was your point that that latter would exclude any non-Christian or non-Muslim theists?

Kinda sorta. Would you be "surprised anyone can get very worked up over this" if, instead of merely excluding folks who don't trust in God, it also excluded folks who don't trust in Jesus? (Or if, given your point about Muslims, our money were marked "In Muhammad We Trust", thereby excluding folks who don't?)

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

A tiny cut here, a single straw there-why should anyone care, right?

Slippery slope. Not seeing one. If anything, it's sloping against this sort of stuff, as the establishment clause is interpreted more narrowly* over time.


*that is, fewer and fewer things are allowed

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

A tiny cut here, a single straw there-why should anyone care, right?

This smacks of the slippery-slope fallacy to me I'm afraid. My attitude is that it's better to be a bit more tolerant, and to pick the battles that really matter. For example, preventing fundamentalists interfering with science curricula. What do you think is more productive, railing against every expression of religion or engaging with the religious moderates?

What I strongly disapprove of is the demonization of people with different religious or political views.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Kinda sorta. Would you be "surprised anyone can get very worked up over this" if, instead of merely excluding folks who don't trust in God, it also excluded folks who don't trust in Jesus? (Or if, given your point about Muslims, our money were marked "In Muhammad We Trust", thereby excluding folks who don't?)

As an atheist, it makes little difference to me personally. I don't trust in God one whit, but if someone else expresses the sentiment it doesn't harm, exclude or offend me.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

I imagine those who pushed for the adoption of "in God we trust" as the country's official motto saw it as an expression of their values rather than one of hatred. The phrase comes from "The Star Spangled Banner" originally, it has a much longer history than McCarthyism. Here's a image of a 1873 nickel with the phrase on it.



"So help me God", is actually optional. Under the No Religious Test Clause of the US constitution:



If the phrase is omitted it's entered as an affirmation rather than an oath.

I personally agree that religious phrases are not suitable for use on motto's, coinage, and in oaths of office, but I'm surprised anyone can get very worked up over this.

Note I was talking about printed money, coinage was marked as "in god we trust", taken from the francis scott key poem, it was added as the North wished to claim that god was on their side.

Both sides had biblical arguments for their position but that is why it was added.

Printed money, the Oath and the Pledge were all amended in direct response to the red scare, It is very much related to Americans belief that communism was related to atheism.

My point about antisemitism was in relation to the claim that "god" was meant to be inclusive, and that is just false. It was meant to pass legal tests, just as you pointed out on the oath and there was no drive or intention to make the change to appease Jews and Muslims as claimed.

You can refuse the god part in oaths and the pledge but until recently it would have been political and social suicide.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

. . . look at the Peekskill Riots . . .

Gravy! I'd not heard of that. The summary on Wikipedia was breath-taking. The reaction in the House of Representatives, where the (old-style) Democratic members supported the criminality and condemned the victims was staggering. (Also nauseating.) I'd known about a lot of the evils of the era -- the blockading of the March to Selma, etc. But this one, for some reason, I'd never heard of.

It's also a case where organized religion comes off as mixed as the rest of the country. Yes, many churches worked hard to get civil rights laws passed, and to condemn the racism and bigotry of the McCarthy era. But, alas, many other churches worked just as hard to maintain segregation, and to organize the protests which became violent.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Note I was talking about printed money, coinage was marked as "in god we trust", taken from the francis scott key poem, it was added as the North wished to claim that god was on their side.

So it's not so bad on a coin, but on a banknote it becomes a expression of intolerance? Why assume that the congressmen who lobbied for the adoption of the motto in 1956 were primarily motivated by hatred rather than the wish to promote their values?

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Once again, it is McCarthyism and its supporters, not Joe McCarthy himself, that is accused of being somewhat antisemitic.

My post was solely to back up Ibn Warraq's assertion that Joe McCarthy had close advisers who were Jewish. I really don't care if our money says "In God we trust," "Science is groovy," "Hail Satan!" or "All glory to the Hypno-toad." I know a lot of this stuff got put in during the anti-communist fervor of the 50's, but it's not something that really bugs me.

Also, as far as Antisemitism goes, During the 50s you were much better off being a Jew in the US than in the USSR.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Yes, many churches worked hard to get civil rights laws passed, and to condemn the racism and bigotry of the McCarthy era. But, alas, many other churches worked just as hard to maintain segregation, and to organize the protests which became violent.

Joe McCarthy wasn't a racist or a bigot so it's pretty ridiculous to refer to "the McCarthy era" in that context.

McCarthy was, aside from his later-on acquired virulent anti-communism, was generally regarded as a moderate Republican and while he was no Javits or Humphrey, was generally supportive of Civil Rights.

By contrast, one of his most vocal critics, Bill Fulbright(whom McCarthy called "Senator Halfbright" was a racist and a staunch segregationist.

Similarly, it's a bit odd that everyone is blaming "McCarthyism" for something that happened two years after McCarthy was censured by the Senate and was politically destroyed and a national joke.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Joe McCarthy wasn't a racist or a bigot so it's pretty ridiculous to refer to "the McCarthy era" in that context.

McCarthy was, aside from his later-on acquired virulent anti-communism, was generally regarded as a moderate Republican and while he was no Javits or Humphrey, was generally supportive of Civil Rights.

By contrast, one of his most vocal critics, Bill Fulbright(whom McCarthy called "Senator Halfbright" was a racist and a staunch segregationist.

Similarly, it's a bit odd that everyone is blaming "McCarthyism" for something that happened two years after McCarthy was censured by the Senate and was politically destroyed and a national joke.

I know it helps your argument to pretend I was talking about the man as an individual, but you are fighting windmills.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

I know it helps your argument to pretend I was talking about the man as an individual, but you are fighting windmills.

Unless Trinopus is a sock-puppet, the above comment makes no sense since I wasn't referring to your comment but to his, so no I wasn't "pretend[ing] [you] were talking about the man as an individual".

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

I imagine those who pushed for the adoption of "in God we trust" as the country's official motto saw it as an expression of their values rather than one of hatred.

In what passed for the debate about the contemporaneous insertion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, Presbyterian minister George Docherty opined that "An atheistic American is a contradiction in terms...If you deny the Christian ethic, you fall short of the American ideal of life." The part about "atheistic American" being a "contradiction in terms" was quoted by the Congressman (Louis Rabaut) who introduced the bill to change the Pledge. (Rev. Docherty also referred to atheists as "spiritual parasites".) I suppose that was all an expression of the values of Rev. Docherty and Congressman Rabaut, but it all also strikes me as being pretty bigoted against atheists, and certainly not the sort of values that ought to be enshrined in law by an act of Congress.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

In what passed for the debate about the contemporaneous insertion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, Presbyterian minister George Docherty opined that "An atheistic American is a contradiction in terms...If you deny the Christian ethic, you fall short of the American ideal of life."

That's interesting, I can understand better where people are coming from now. Without that important bit of context, ranting about it comes across as unhinged.

[gamerunknown]

It's a genetic fallacy to presume that because it had its root in anti-Communist sentiment the reason it persists is the same. It's a two wrongs fallacy and false dichotomy to appeal to fighting larger battles rather than this minor trespass.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Joe McCarthy wasn't a racist or a bigot so it's pretty ridiculous to refer to "the McCarthy era" in that context.

He certainly was a bigot. In any case, the era is more than the man.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by gvozd

Easy question, and waiting answers.

In God We Trust History

[Kearsen]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

People think paper money is totally obsolete?

If so, please forward all remaining paper money to my address, via PM (to everyone just to cover all the bases)

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

He certainly was a bigot.

When did he ever express racist or anti-Semitic sentiments?

His beliefs and actions were odious but being rabidly anti-communist or, for that matter, rabidly anti-capitalist isn't bigotry.

In any case, the era is more than the man.

It's foolish to use the phrase "the McCarthy era" when referring to beliefs and actions he didn't support and had nothing to do with.

Moreover, for it to be remotely meaningful, the term "McCarthy era" should refer to 1950-1954 which is after the Peekskill riots and two years before the adding of the phrase "In God We Trust" to the paper currency.

Anyway, while I'd rather it not be on the one dollar bill, having "In God We Trust" being on it doesn't bother me any more than having the Star of David does, and the Star of David has been on the one dollar bill far, far longer.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Anyway, while I'd rather it not be on the one dollar bill, having "In God We Trust" being on it doesn't bother me any more than having the Star of David does, and the Star of David has been on the one dollar bill far, far longer.

No it hasn't. I mean, there's a six-pointed star-shaped arrangement of smaller stars (13 of them, natch) above the eagle on the reverse of the bill--I assume that's what you're referring to. But that's not a "Star of David", which is a specific six-pointed star (made of two interlocking equilateral triangles) used as a symbol of Jewish identity or Judaism. Atheists (and other secularists) don't object to "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" because the phrase contains the letters "g" "o" and "d".

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

When did he ever express racist or anti-Semitic sentiments?

His beliefs and actions were odious but being rabidly anti-communist or, for that matter, rabidly anti-capitalist isn't bigotry.



It's foolish to use the phrase "the McCarthy era" when referring to beliefs and actions he didn't support and had nothing to do with.

Moreover, for it to be remotely meaningful, the term "McCarthy era" should refer to 1950-1954 which is after the Peekskill riots and two years before the adding of the phrase "In God We Trust" to the paper currency.

Anyway, while I'd rather it not be on the one dollar bill, having "In God We Trust" being on it doesn't bother me any more than having the Star of David does, and the Star of David has been on the one dollar bill far, far longer.

You can pretend that the witch hunts that McCarthy pushed have no relation to the red scare but you are just playing mental games.

The phrase is on the printed dollar, in oaths and in the pledge all due to the irrational intolerance of the time.

You may want to go look up the meaning of "bigiot" again

a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations were working out if intolerance and trying to force protestant ideals on everyone through shame or force.

There actions were bigiotry, against both atheists and socialists.

[monavis]

The words;IN GOD WE TRUST or UNDER GOD,have little meaning, when one looks at the price that crime costs this country. If the 95% can be called Christians, I wonder, if Jesus would see them as he did the Pharisee's. Too many talk the talk,but few walk the walk!

Perhaps if we didn't put so much value on things and more on people it may have some meaning?What good has come from the words being on the money or the pledge?

[monavis]

The words;IN GOD WE TRUST or UNDER GOD,have little meaning, when one looks at the price that crime costs this country. If the 95% can be called Christians, I wonder, if Jesus would see them as he did the Pharisee's. Too many talk the talk,but few walk the walk!

Perhaps if we didn't put so much value on things and more on people it may have some meaning?What good has come from the words being on the money or the pledge?

[monavis]

Originally Posted by monavis

The words;IN GOD WE TRUST or UNDER GOD,have little meaning, when one looks at the price that crime costs this country. If the 95% can be called Christians, I wonder, if Jesus would see them as he did the Pharisee's. Too many talk the talk,but few walk the walk!

Perhaps if we didn't put so much value on things and more on people it may have some meaning?What good has come from the words being on the money or the pledge?

I apologize for the double post. I had to leave the computer for awhile and din't realize I had already posted. Proof I am far from perfect.