I’ll certainly grant that “In God we Trust” is a relatively minor establishment, compared to something like what England had with Anglicanism. But the Constitution doesn’t say that we’re allowed only minor establishment, or that major establishment is prohibited: It says that no establishment of religion is allowed. If we heeded the Constitution, we’d repeal that non-binding resolution and remove the phrase from our money, but the antidisestablishmentarianism of the Republicans is too strong to make that politically possible, and so we continue to defy the Constitution.
(and yes, I was sort of looking for an excuse to use that word)
This argument sounds like “Sure he slapped you. But don’t complain. That would only provoke him and then he might punch you. And if he does punch you, let it go. Otherwise he might get angry enough to stab you.”
This is an attack by believers on non-believers. If we’re being attacked why should we have to tread lightly? The other side’s already started a fight. What do we gain by not fighting back?
OK. So, who exactly in the United States is trying to remove all mention of religion from the “public sphere”?
And this is even more overwrought–Today, we change the national motto back to E pluribus unum; tomorrow, complete extirpation of all religious thought!
I don’t want to drive religion or religious people out of the public sphere. The ACLU or Americans United for Separation of Church and State aren’t trying to do that either. I don’t even think American Atheists is trying to do that. At most, all us militant atheists are really demanding is that, if religion is to be brought into the public sphere–a place where we all come together “to freely discuss” the issues–then it cannot be off-limits from robust criticism, any more than conservatism or socialism or healthcare reform or the Flat Tax are.
What I want is the separation of religion and government. I want all citizens to be equal before the law. And yes, “In God We Trust” is a stupid little side issue–though that demonstrably doesn’t stop many believers from treating it as being of world-shaking importance. But, “In God We Trust” isn’t just being put on a church sign someplace. It isn’t even some candidate for political office saying “I trust in God” in his stump speeches. It’s the national motto, and it says “In God We Trust”. Well, we don’t all trust in God (and those of us who do don’t all trust in the same God, or mean the same thing by “trusting” Him, or Her, or It, or Them). So, either Congress is lying (admittedly it wouldn’t be the first time) or I’m not an American.
Recognising that, by and large, it could be much, much worse, does not mean that you then stop and give up. Yes, it’s something annoying, rather than something horrifying; thank you for the suggestion that I would be unable to tell the difference between deprivation of vital rights and a minor statement of principles.
Anyway, I don’t believe it’s entirely fair to point to the (correct) point that most people in America are believers and then assume that they also don’t have any problem with this kind of thing. As for your backfires point - you know, I rather think you’ve applied the rule without understanding it yourself. Because likewise, I can point out that me saying there shouldn’t be a governmental decree of faith isn’t the same as me calling for the rounding up of believers into camps, or for atheistic indoctrination in schools. I think that, given that this is only an annoyance for me, it is probably only an annoyance for the other side to go against the idea. That’s the logical extension of your argument.
Also you started with a hilariously awesome strawman. Well done! I damn sure won’t be done until we strip all references to religion out of the world. That’s not a massive exaggeration at all.
Nonsense. The only reason we have what freedom we do from religion is because of people standing up to the believers.
More nonsense; in many states laws have been passed by the believers specifically to deny people their rights; homosexuals, to be exact. All over the country there are religious campaigns against the rights of women, gays, religious minorities. There are constant attempts by the believers to force schools to teach their lies to children. There are homosexual and atheist/agnostic kids sent off to “re-education” camps where they are brutalized into obedience or occasionally killed. There is the decades long fight to let AIDS alone so it can kill homosexuals. There are homosexual children driven to suicide, homosexuals ambushed and murdered. There are American Christians behind the push for the mass murder of homosexuals in Uganda, there is the recurring American imposition of the anti-abortion Mexico City Policy that has hurt and killed any number of women.
It’s not harmless; it’s a relentless force for evil in this country causing suffering and death. Both inside this country, and inflicted all over the world by us.
The Blue Angels have never buzzed a grandstand to the tune of an acoustic guitar. The Scorpions have been given honorary American citizenship in heaven and have their own BarcaLounger and 72 oz. soda waiting for them in the clouds as soon as they kick it.
Plus, they singlehandedly tore down the Berlin Wall.
Yes, as I quoted. In that same sentence they went on to list what those very truths were:
that all men are created equal
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
So by citing what you did you support my position. Thanks!
For the record, it is not my position that “Creator” was intended to be synonymous with the Christian God.
Sure it does. It matters that they not be the whims of monarchs. This is not a new concept. It’s presented in Antigone, by Sophocles a few thousand years ago. It just turns out that the Founders believed that these rights did sprout from God. That fact is the moral underpinning of the DofI and the founding of this country. You may not want it to be, but too bad. It is. That is what they thought. They even, you know, wrote it down.
And of course that’s an attitude that helped lead to and justify such things as slavery; God “obviously” ordained black’s position as slaves. Having rights that “sprout from God” means you have no rights at all, since anyone can just say God disapproves of you. Rights from “God” are even more of a whim than those guaranteed by a monarch.
I’m unsure why you’re saying the point was that such rights didn’t extend via the whims of monarchs. The monarchs claimed divine inspiration for their actions, in the same way that the writers of the DofI did. As you point out, it’s not a new notion that such rights arose from God - that’s what George III would have thought, too (though basing arguments on what that particular King thought is not the best idea, I think it’s clear what I mean).
The DofI is inherently problematic on this point because of that. “Don’t trust men who claim that the divine hand works through them - the divine hand works through us!”. It’s a bit shortsighted in that regard, unfortunetly.
Anyway; I think the problem is that “Creator” must be defined - and reduced further, given that this being is also considered trusted - which seems rather difficult (and, though I don’t agree with Der Trihs that your own position is that you’re secretly thinking about the Christian God as being that Creator, i’d think it’s fair to say a lot of people probably are). But, perhaps more to the point, it still doesn’t make “In God we Trust” acceptable, because, even if such rights are inalienable solely because of the existence of such a Creator, they are inalienable regardless of whether such a being is believed in or trusted. Such rights, i’d hope you agree, would extend to me regardless of my own lack of faith. Such rights would still exist even if every person on Earth were athiest, or a believer in some deity or deities incompatible with the defined Creator. So the statement is an inaccurate statement of this important foundational point.
And beyond even that, even something inherent to a foundation is not necessarily something you want to keep. The foundation of your nation also involved the subjugation and continued oppression of a native people, which doesn’t really seem all that worthy of recognition and support, despite how vital it was in order to get, well, the land founded upon.
Quoting the Founding Fathers as proof of the existence of God is the ultimate Appeal to Authority.
Don’t over-mythologize the idea of “founding” as it pertains to the Declaration of independence. The wording of the DoI is not a magic spell that dictates for all time not only the laws and collective beliefs of the USA but the nature of God Himself. The DoI was important only because it declared our independence in writing, and the rest is elaboration based on some of the philosophical thinking of the time.
“Founding” is a long, drawn-out process, and the real founding began with the Constitutional Congress, which drew up the blueprints. It was during this process that God was deliberately kept out.
But if we must persist, the “Creator” or “Nature’s God” need to be understood as completely transcendent of anything specifically religious. You could say, “Man was meant to have rights from the very beginning”, or “It’s only natural that we’re entitled to rights” and it wouldn’t change the meaning.
After all, humans came from evolution, so the entitlement to rights must have evolved along with us. This doesn’t preclude the idea of a “Creator” in a metaphorical–or real–sense. But creators create; they don’t make promises and keep them.
The critical point is that there is no suggestion that the “endowment” of our rights occurred as some discreet event performed by the Almighty at some point in human history (let alone in 1776). Rather, rights-by-creation is inferred as an underlying or pre-existing principle. That’s not the same thing as insisting that a god who reliably intervenes in human affairs is currently at work.
I suspect it really was, for most of the founders. They were at a crossroads between disagreeing with the established churches of the time, and not being able to quite let go of the whole Creation thing since nobody had yet suggested another possible way we could have landed on this rock. So they were left with a weird, godless godlihood akin to the Supreme Being invented by Robespierre - not a beard in the sky doling out rules to mankind and doing its thing but more of an allegorical personification of a set of virtues found in man, and a celebration thereof.
IMO, “Nature’s God” is very much to be understood in the light of Natural Philosophy which, as a rule, was strongly opposed to canonic doctrines or at least willing to test their veracity… which back then counted as “strongly opposed”.
It depends how you take that statement. I see it as in line with ‘one nation under God’, meaning God, not the US government, is in control. ‘In God we trust’ = Don’t trust the government, trust in God.
Some may take that as trust in religion, but that’s not the motto and in my personal experience quite different.