# Ceremonial Deism - HORSEFEATHERS!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [March 1, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078 "2011-03-01T17:17:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/101 "2011-03-02T21:53:36Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Wait, so you \*are \*American? I could swear I’d seen things from you that implied you weren’t a U.S. citizen (though living here, I think).
Nope - still a limey, living in the glorious Commonwealth of VA. I was just impressed you no longer thought I had girly parts.
---
### Author:  [@Spit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spit)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/102 "2011-03-02T22:36:10Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Please, enlighten me: against whom am I intolerant and prejudiced? Oh boy, I really hope this is going to be an attempt to play the, “You’re being intolerant of my intolerance, so you’re a hypocrite!” card.
Well, actually that does make you a hypocrite.
prej·u·dice
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA
noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
**any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.**
3.
**unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.**
4.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
Yep, that seems to sum up your opinion of Christians.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/103 "2011-03-02T22:57:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Nope, there you go again. Funny, for someone who’s so concerned that I’m straw-manning him, you can’t even get my instructions to you right. What I told you to do was to shut your mouth after “I’m not American” when you get the urge to spew forth an opinion on a part of our culture you’re demonstrably ignorant about.
Yeah, like I’m going to take “instructions” from you. Fail.
Sorry, you are stuck with the crap that you spewed. No amount of issuing “instructions”, faking up straw-men, or premature claims of victory get you off the hook you idiotically created for yourself.
> [@](#):
>
> Not in so many words, no. But the thrust of your meaning is that I should have just kept my mouth shut instead of observing that you don’t have the background to have an informed opinion on this subject.
How about try ‘not at all’? The “thrust of my meaning” was exactly what I said: if you don’t like what I have to say, tough.
Other posters have answered with, you know, actual intelligent argument on the point. Not you. I guess for you telling others to “shut up” is the height of wit.
> [@](#):
>
> Being a minority in numbers doesn’t make a group a minority in power. Consider the percentage of the U.S. that’s “white” (IIRC approaching 50%), or the percentage that’s male (IIRC slightly under 50%).
>
> Wait, so you \*are \*American? I could swear I’d seen things from you that implied you weren’t a U.S. citizen (though living here, I think).
>
> My god, it’s almost as though someone who has a better grasp on our culture was able to explain why you, and your cite, completely missed the mark of the reality of the situation in the U.S.! What a shock.
>
> \*\*mhendo \*\*gets it, too. Just because somebody with a fancy position in our judicial system said something doesn’t mean it’s right. We’ve had some deeply disgusting things put on paper in our history by people across all branches of our government.
>
> Ceremonial deism is legal in the U.S., or we wouldn’t have this thread. So obviously there must be legal opinions in favor of it. What do you think the odds are that the judges who see no problems with having Christian-compatible (and only Christian-compatible) religiosity on government-related things are all… wait for it… Christian?
Make up your mind. Do you want me to “shut up”, or do you want to argue?
Oh, and you are provably wrong. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was followed by Newdow v. Carey, for complex procedural reasons (briefly, the plaintiff’s case in Elk Grove was turfed because the court found the person pursuing the case did not have the standing to do so; they refiled and tried again).
Read all about it here: [U.S. Pledge of Allegiance | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Religion, and Separation of Church and State | Britannica](http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003656#final)
Once again, the majority of the court decided, on March 11, 2010, as in Elk Grove … and guess who cast the deciding vote? Why, Madame Justice Dorothy Wright Nelson, who (surprise!) **isn’t Christian** :
> **[Dorothy Wright Nelson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Wright_Nelson)**
>
> Dorothy Wright Nelson (born September 30, 1928) is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
> Born in San Pedro, California, Wright received an Artium Baccalaureus degree from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1950, a Juris Doctor from UCLA School of Law in 1953, and a Master of Laws from the USC Gould School of Law in 1956. She was a research associate fellow at the Gould School of Law from 1953 to 1956. She was in private prac...
> [@](#):
>
> She is an active member of the Baha’i faith and served in the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of United States for many years.
It must burn to be so blatantly wrong. 😛
---
### Author:  [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/104 "2011-03-03T09:25:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> I would except the example of ‘inverted crucifixes’, because most Christians would not understand that as someone’s actual religious symbol - it would be taken more as a deliberate desecration of their own.
Well, the moment you name it an “inverted crucifix” you are saying that it is, indeed, not a cross with a very-low horizontal beam but a crucifix that’s been inverted… oh, wait, that could be a Catholic symbol (martyrdom of St Peter)
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/105 "2011-03-03T10:33:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> As for a “reasonable person”, obviously I’m siding with the judge here - a review of the history of the matter indicates that these things were adopted for reasons that made historical sense at the time, but may make less or no sense now that society has moved on.
It was put on the money then for the same reason people want it to stay on the money today; it is a pretty way of the government saying “This is a Christian nation, we hate all unbelievers, and we get off on rubbing the fact in the face of those unbelievers.” “Society” hasn’t moved on that much, especially that part of society that is still mired in Bronze age superstition; not moving on is much of the point. It’s done in the same spirit as those judges who want to wear the ten Commandments on their robes or hang them on the courtroom wall; it is a way of publicly emphasizing that you aren’t really considered an American unless you are Christian.
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> The judge is saying that the test must be an objective one and that this case doesn’t meet it - which I’m inclined to agree with. The mere fact that god is referenced on the coinage does not of necessity mean that this government, today, endorses a particular or any god, any more that a Roman Emperor Trajan endorsed having a republic by the use of the slogan SPQR on his coins, even though the reference to the Roman Republic could not have been more obvious.
A ridiculous claim; and obviously nothing more than an attempt to justify printing Christian propaganda on the money. Going by that standard, how could anything short of a god physically manifesting from the money qualify as a violation of the separation of church and state?
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> What is important is the use of the phrase itself. Like the all-seeing eye-in-the-pyramid on the Great Seal of the US, it isn’t what the thing means that is the significant part - is is simply part of the heraldry.
So I suppose if a Nazi flag was put on the money, we should also ignore what it stands for and shrug it off as part of the heraldry?
Of course I know your answer; _somehow_ that’s different. It’s only when the “heraldry” is for something you approve of that it doesn’t matter.
---
### Author:  [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/106 "2011-03-03T13:01:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> It “can be”, but doing so is dishonest. It means the Christian god, specifically. It was put on by the money by Christians who hated all non-Christians and wanted to institutionalize their hatred. That is the meaning and purpose of that phrase.
Cite?
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/107 "2011-03-03T13:59:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> It was put on the money then for the same reason people want it to stay on the money today; it is a pretty way of the government saying “This is a Christian nation, we hate all unbelievers, and we get off on rubbing the fact in the face of those unbelievers.” “Society” hasn’t moved on that much, especially that part of society that is still mired in Bronze age superstition; not moving on is much of the point. It’s done in the same spirit as those judges who want to wear the ten Commandments on their robes or hang them on the courtroom wall; it is a way of publicly emphasizing that you aren’t really considered an American unless you are Christian.
That’s a pretty strong statement: any proof for your quote?
> [@](#):
>
> A ridiculous claim; and obviously nothing more than an attempt to justify printing Christian propaganda on the money. Going by that standard, how could anything short of a god physically manifesting from the money qualify as a violation of the separation of church and state?
If it is “Christian propaganda” and transparently so, why did a Baha’i federal judge cast the deciding vote on the leading appellate decision affirming this reasoning last year? You would think that she, more than anyone, would disapprove of putting “Christian propaganda” on the money.
> [@](#):
>
> So I suppose if a Nazi flag was put on the money, we should also ignore what it stands for and shrug it off as part of the heraldry?
>
> Of course I know your answer; _somehow_ that’s different. It’s only when the “heraldry” is for something you approve of that it doesn’t matter.
Oh, you mean a swastika? Like these?
> **[Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century | United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century#United_States)**
>
> Because this was a popular symbol with the Navajo people, the Arizona State Highway Department marked its state highways with signs featuring a right-facing swastika superimposed on an arrowhead. In 1942, after the United States entered World War Two, the department replaced the signs.
> The original Penobscot Building in Detroit, Michigan, completed about 1906, "was named after the Penobscot Indian tribe and region of Maine, the boyhood home of one of the investors. An interesting feature in the ...
Got no problem with 'em. They are traditional native American symbols, also used by Buddhists. Why would I want them removed?
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/108 "2011-03-03T15:55:36Z")
> [@villa](#):
>
> Nope - still a limey, living in the glorious Commonwealth of VA.
Oh, okay, good. The “at least” made me think that I’d gotten the gender right but the nationality wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> I was just impressed you no longer thought I had girly parts.
When I misgender someone and they correct me, I tend to remember it. I think you and \*\*Zeriel \*\*are the only guys here I thought were women, though, and in both cases I think it was your names that gave me the idea.
> [@Spit](#):
>
> Yep, that seems to sum up your opinion of Christians.
Hahahaha. Show me where I’m prejudiced against Christians, please. The only statement I’ve made about them in this thread is that Christian Americans, as a whole, are prejudiced against atheists–which they demonstrably are.
As for individual Christians, my only judgement about them is that they believe in something because of faith (i.e., made-up shit) instead of facts and evidence. So long as they do not also want to force me or anyone else to follow their same made-up shit, I couldn’t care less what they believe or how they practice that faith. Some of the best people I know happen to be Christians–so are some of the nastiest.
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> If it is “Christian propaganda” and transparently so, why did a Baha’i federal judge cast the deciding vote on the leading appellate decision affirming this reasoning last year? You would think that she, more than anyone, would disapprove of putting “Christian propaganda” on the money.
It’s not Christian propaganda so much as it is monotheistic propaganda that’s compatible with Christianity. Guess what the Bahá’í Faith is? Oh, right, monotheistic. So “In God We Trust” presents no problem for Bahá’ís.
Seriously. Go find me some “ceremonial deism” that \*isn’t \*compatible with Christianity and isn’t also _in_compatible with multiple non-Christian or non-monotheistic belief systems.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/109 "2011-03-03T16:25:40Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> It’s not Christian propaganda so much as it is monotheistic propaganda that’s compatible with Christianity. Guess what the Bahá’í Faith is? Oh, right, monotheistic. So “In God We Trust” presents no problem for Bahá’ís.
>
> Seriously. Go find me some “ceremonial deism” that \*isn’t \*compatible with Christianity and isn’t also _in_compatible with multiple non-Christian or non-monotheistic belief systems.
That’s moving the goal posts.
The original claim was that judges approved of “ceremonial deism” because they were Christian. You made that claim here:
> [@](#):
>
> What do you think the odds are that the judges who see no problems with having Christian-compatible (and **only** Christian-compatible) religiosity on government-related things are all… wait for it… Christian?
[Emphasis added]
**Der Triths** made the claim “ceremonial deism” was really not-very-disguised Christian propaganda (and exclusively and explicitly Christian propaganda) here:
> [@](#):
>
> It was put on the money then for the same reason people want it to stay on the money today;\*\* it is a pretty way of the government saying “This is a Christian nation, we hate all unbelievers, and we get off on rubbing the fact in the face of those unbelievers.”\*\* “Society” hasn’t moved on that much, especially that part of society that is still mired in Bronze age superstition; not moving on is much of the point. It’s done in the same spirit as those judges who want to wear the ten Commandments on their robes or hang them on the courtroom wall; it is a way of publicly emphasizing that you aren’t really considered an American unless you are Christian.
>
> A ridiculous claim; and obviously nothing more than an attempt to justify printing **Christian propaganda** on the money. Going by that standard, how could anything short of a god physically manifesting from the money qualify as a violation of the separation of church and state?
[Emphasis added]
Both of you made a point of stating that this was really all about pressing Christianity on folks - you used the term (emphasized here and above) “…Christian-compatible (and **only** Christian-compatible) religiosity …”.
Are you now willing to admit that this was all horseshit?
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/110 "2011-03-03T16:36:40Z")
As for the challenge to find some ceremonial deism that may be incompatible with Christianity and isn’t incompatible with multiple belief systems - that’s easily done: the symbolism on the great seal.
> [@](#):
>
> The 1782 resolution adopting the seal blazons the image on the reverse as “A pyramid unfinished. In the zenith an eye in a triangle, surrounded by a glory, proper.” The pyramid is conventionally shown as consisting of 13 layers to refer to the 13 original states. The adopting resolution provides that it is inscribed on its base with the date MDCCLXXVI (1776) in Roman numerals. Where the top of the pyramid should be, the Eye of Providence watches over it. Two mottos appear: Annuit cœptis signifies that Providence has “approved of (our) undertakings.”[2] Novus ordo seclorum, freely taken from Virgil,[3] is Latin for “a new order of the ages.”[4] The reverse has never been cut (as a seal) but appears, for example, on the back of the one-dollar bill.
Plenty of Christians complain that this eye-in-pyramid is _incompatible_ with Christianity, because (they allege) it is a Masonic symbol; the motto providence has “approved of our undertakings” is clearly supernatural/religious (it presupposes an active concious “providence”) but is not obviously incompatible with other religions containing a personification of fate or providence.
The obverse of the Great Seal is also on the currency, the one dollar bill.
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/111 "2011-03-03T17:13:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> Both of you made a point of stating that this was really all about pressing Christianity on folks - you used the term (emphasized here and above) “…Christian-compatible (and **only** Christian-compatible) religiosity …”
You’re misreading me and conflating my posts with those made by another person ( **Der Trihs** ). This is a complex issue.
1.) “Ceremonial deism” in the U.S. is created by the Christian majority.
2.) It is, however, not always explicitly Christian (e.g., “In God We Trust” vs. a plaque with the Ten Commandments).
3.) Because it is often not explicitly Christian, people in other monotheistic faiths can be more comfortable with it than those whose beliefs are incompatible with this “ceremonial deism.”
4.) The ceremonial deism almost never directly contradicts Christian beliefs, and where it does, AFAIK it will be \*only \*in a place where there are references to multiple religions \*including \*Christianity. There will never, to the best of my knowledge, be a lone reference to anything that explicitly excludes Christianity. (For more on what entails a specific exclusion, see my response to your other post below.)
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> Plenty of Christians complain that this eye-in-pyramid is _incompatible_ with Christianity, because (they allege) it is a Masonic symbol
An eye-in-a-pyramid is in no way incompatible with Christianity. “Incompatible with Christianity” would mean something that \*directly refutes \*a fundamental tenet of Christian belief, e.g., “In God **s** We Trust” or “one nation, trapped in a cycle of rebirth until we follow our dharma, with liberty and justice for all.”
Look, I snapped at you pretty harshly when you first posted, and it seems clear that you do actually want to discuss this. But you have to understand that you are, without making any judgements about you as a person, _ignorant of this aspect of American culture_, just as I am ignorant of many aspects of Canadian culture.
---
### Author:  [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/112 "2011-03-04T16:19:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> The issue is whether you are endorsing a specific religion (in this case, Christianity) or if you are just endorsing the general idea of religion. The latter is more inclusive, and so less of an “infraction”, if you will.
>
> Supposing we put “In Jesus we trust” on the currency. Or, how about “In Saint Christoper we trust”?
Hello Mr. Mace. I’m not sure this is an issue where cites can trump perception. My perception is that the motto is clearly an endorsement of the God of the Bible. This is the [best cite](http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/coins/worden-coinage0306b.htm)I have for that:
[INDENT] “One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked,” Watkinson wrote to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase on Nov. 13, 1861. “I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.”
“You are probably a Christian,” he told Chase. “What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?”
(…)
Watkinson proposed that “instead of the Goddess of Liberty,” the nation’s coins should depict 13 stars, the American flag, the all-seeing eye crowned with a halo, and the words, “God, Liberty, Law.”
```
"This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection...."
Seven days later, Chase wrote to his subordinate, Mint Director James Pollock:
"No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay, with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."
Pollock, former governor of Pennsylvania, set to work experimenting with half dollars and gold coins.(...)
Pollock explained in a Dec. 26, 1861, letter to Chase: "The motto adopted ['God Our Trust'] was selected in consideration of its having become familiar to the public mind by its use in our great National Hymn, the 'Star Spangled Banner.'"(...)
Chase evidently dragged his feet, because Pollock reminded him six months later that he hadn't replied. It was late 1863 before Chase got on the ball.
By that time, 11 Protestant denominations had teamed up to form the National Reform Association. Its aim was to reform the Constitution to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." Pollock was a member.
```
The association wanted to change the Constitution’s preamble to read: “We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union…” [/INDENT]
None of that shows that every politician who has supported the implementation of the slogan sees it as referring to the Biblical God, but that seems the most likely belief of the people active in the implementation.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/113 "2011-03-04T16:28:08Z")
> [@Baal\_Houtham](#):
>
> Hello Mr. Mace. I’m not sure this is an issue where cites can trump perception. My perception is that the motto is clearly an endorsement of the God of the Bible. This is the [best cite](http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/coins/worden-coinage0306b.htm)I have for that:
You may wish to refer to the outcome of the court case your link references (see posts above).
In that case, decided last year, the history of the issue was pretty thoroughly referenced, and the majority essentially stated that while it was obvious that _some_ of the people involved in putting references to god into the oath of allegiance and the like were thinking in terms of Christian exclusivity, that was not sufficient to establish on an objective test that this was its purpose.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/114 "2011-03-04T16:39:44Z")
> [@Baal\_Houtham](#):
>
> Hello Mr. Mace. I’m not sure this is an issue where cites can trump perception. My perception is that the motto is clearly an endorsement of the God of the Bible. This is the [best cite](http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/coins/worden-coinage0306b.htm)I have for that:
>
> [INDENT] “One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked,” Watkinson wrote to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase on Nov. 13, 1861. “I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.”
> “You are probably a Christian,” he told Chase. “What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?”
> (…)
> Watkinson proposed that “instead of the Goddess of Liberty,” the nation’s coins should depict 13 stars, the American flag, the all-seeing eye crowned with a halo, and the words, “God, Liberty, Law.”
>
> ```
> "This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection...."
>
> Seven days later, Chase wrote to his subordinate, Mint Director James Pollock:
> "No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay, with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."
> Pollock, former governor of Pennsylvania, set to work experimenting with half dollars and gold coins.(...)
> Pollock explained in a Dec. 26, 1861, letter to Chase: "The motto adopted ['God Our Trust'] was selected in consideration of its having become familiar to the public mind by its use in our great National Hymn, the 'Star Spangled Banner.'"(...)
> Chase evidently dragged his feet, because Pollock reminded him six months later that he hadn't replied. It was late 1863 before Chase got on the ball.
> By that time, 11 Protestant denominations had teamed up to form the National Reform Association. Its aim was to reform the Constitution to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." Pollock was a member.
>
> ```
>
> The association wanted to change the Constitution’s preamble to read: “We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union…” [/INDENT]
>
> None of that shows that every politician who has supported the implementation of the slogan sees it as referring to the Biblical God, but that seems the most likely belief of the people active in the implementation.
I can accept that most people think “God” refers to the Abrahamic God, but that’s still more inclusive than the Christian Saints. Still, one can argue that “God” is more generic than just the God of the Bible (for Jews, Christians and Muslims), but there is no argument to be made that the Christian saints are anything but Christian (with perhaps a little overlap into the Muslim faith for some, like Mary, but that is the exception, not the rule).
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/115 "2011-03-04T16:40:16Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> You’re misreading me and conflating my posts with those made by another person ( **Der Trihs** ). This is a complex issue.
>
> 1.) “Ceremonial deism” in the U.S. is created by the Christian majority.
>
> 2.) It is, however, not always explicitly Christian (e.g., “In God We Trust” vs. a plaque with the Ten Commandments).
>
> 3.) Because it is often not explicitly Christian, people in other monotheistic faiths can be more comfortable with it than those whose beliefs are incompatible with this “ceremonial deism.”
>
> 4.) The ceremonial deism almost never directly contradicts Christian beliefs, and where it does, AFAIK it will be \*only \*in a place where there are references to multiple religions \*including \*Christianity. There will never, to the best of my knowledge, be a lone reference to anything that explicitly excludes Christianity. (For more on what entails a specific exclusion, see my response to your other post below.)
The subject may be “complicated”, but your quotes were not. I see no misunderstanding of “…Christian-compatible (and only Christian-compatible) religiosity …”, or your reference to Judicial bias towards Christianity.
> [@](#):
>
> An eye-in-a-pyramid is in no way incompatible with Christianity. “Incompatible with Christianity” would mean something that \*directly refutes \*a fundamental tenet of Christian belief, e.g., “In God **s** We Trust” or “one nation, trapped in a cycle of rebirth until we follow our dharma, with liberty and justice for all.”
>
> Look, I snapped at you pretty harshly when you first posted, and it seems clear that you do actually want to discuss this. But you have to understand that you are, without making any judgements about you as a person, _ignorant of this aspect of American culture_, just as I am ignorant of many aspects of Canadian culture.
I see you are unwilling to drop the nonsense about me being “ignorant”, but I’ll simply choose to extend my “ignorance” to ignoring any further reference to it - as it is now boring me.
As to your challenge - that is easily met. Unless of course you think that Christianity contains room for concepts such as the Goddess of Liberty:
> **[Liberty (personification)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(goddess))**
>
> The concept of liberty has frequently been represented by personifications, often loosely shown as a female classical goddess. Examples include Marianne, the national personification of the French Republic and its values of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, and the female Liberty portrayed in artworks, on United States coins beginning in 1793, and many other depictions. These descend from images on ancient Roman coins of the Roman goddess Libertas and from various developments from the Renaissance Th...
The very symbol of the US to many is a big freaking pagan goddess, whose statue graces the NY harbour. And, it may be noted, many US coins.
> **[Statue of Liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty)**
>
> The Statue of Liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World; French: La Liberté éclairant le monde) is a colossal neoclassical sculpture of a robed and crowned female on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, within New York City. The copper-clad statue, a gift to the United States from the people of France, was designed by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and its metal framework was built by Gustave Eiffel. The statue was dedicated on October 28, 1886.
> The statue is a figure of a classical...
> [@](#):
>
> The statue, a gift to the United States from the people of France, is of a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/116 "2011-03-04T19:02:49Z")
But **Malthus** , you don’t _understand_! It’s a complex issue!
Or else **Shot From Guns** is being an idiot again.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/117 "2011-03-04T21:03:12Z")
Sooooo you don’t actually address any of the points I made. I take back what I said about you being interested in debate, **Malthus**. Clearly, you’re just desperate to prove that you’re not ignorant of the role religion plays in American culture (and ironically, by doing so, confirming that you are).
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/118 "2011-03-04T21:16:37Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Sooooo you don’t actually address any of the points I made. I take back what I said about you being interested in debate, **Malthus**. Clearly, you’re just desperate to prove that you’re not ignorant of the role religion plays in American culture (and ironically, by doing so, confirming that you are).
You provided a challenge; I answered it. Your challenge was to identify an example of “ceremonial deism” that was incompatible with Christianity. The answer: the use of the Goddess of Liberty. Ball’s in your court.
Or of course you can simply sling more insults, thus showing you don’t have the guts to admit you’ve been beat - just as you were over the ‘judge must be Christian’ crack. Up to you, really.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/119 "2011-03-04T21:51:24Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> You provided a challenge; I answered it. Your challenge was to identify an example of “ceremonial deism” that was incompatible with Christianity. The answer: the use of the Goddess of Liberty.
A goddess that wasn’t worshiped for centuries by anyone by that point in history. As opposed to the Christian God, worshiped by the majority of the country then and now. You might as well use an actress being referred to as a “screen goddess” as evidence she’s a religious figure.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078/120 "2011-03-04T21:59:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> A goddess that wasn’t worshiped for centuries by anyone by that point in history. As opposed to the Christian God, worshiped by the majority of the country then and now. You might as well use an actress being referred to as a “screen goddess” as evidence she’s a religious figure.
I’m not arguing anyone today actually worships her. Indeed, the whole premise of “ceremonial deism” is that the use of a diety is intended as symbolic, not literal. In the case of the Goddess of Liberty, that is obviously the case!
The issue is whether her use is “incompatible” with Christianity. That it certainly is, as Christians (and Jews and Muslims) tend to strongly oppose using depictions of pagan gods (depending of course on denomination).
The use of a Goddess of Liberty as civic symbol certainly has a strong anti-Christian _history_. You will recall that the Statue of Liberty was a gift of the French, and in France said Goddess was expressly used in the Revolution as a civic replacement for Christianity. From the above link on the Goddess of Liberty:
> [@](#):
>
> In 1793, during the French Revolution, the Notre Dame de Paris cathedral was turned into a “Cult of Reason” and for a time “Lady Liberty” replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ceremonial-deism-horsefeathers/573078.md?page=7)