I just learned this today, reading another thread.
I was taught, as a child, that the national motto is E Pluribus Unum–“Out of Many, One”–even though I was born 7 years after our fucking government made the change.
Is anyone else as horrifically offended by this as I am?
Why has this been allowed to stand?
Why hasn’t the ACLU been working to change this, instead of more simply removing it from the currency?
This is the most infuriatingly *sad * thing I’ve heard in a long time. I officially have almost no hope left for this country.
It IS Bush’s world, after all. What the hell am I doing here?
I, personally, am doing my part by using a Sharpie on every bill that comes into my greedy little paws. So far, nobody has refused to take money that has had the motto “In God We Trust” blacked or greened out.
It’s a small thing, but it gives me some satisfaction.
If you wish to join me in my futile fight against the US Mint, please be aware that a black Sharpie covers the words better. A green Sharpie, while more aesthetically pleasing, allows shadows of the words to show through.
lissener, despite the vast majority of posters on this board agreeing with you, I think you’ll find that the vast majority of the country is not offended by this, nor is it illegal. It is a classic example of ceremonial deism, and does not offend the Establishment Clause.
Were you to argue this point in front of the Supreme COurt someday, I hope you realize that every session of that venerable institution opens with, inter alia, “God save the United States of America, and God save this honorable Court.”
Well, let’s see. The phrase “In God We Trust” was established as the national motto in 1956. Bush was 10 years old at the time and in all probability was remarkably uninterested in the passage of that legislation.
So what * are * you doing here? Not making sense, surely.
While I’ve no doubt the courts would (and quite possibly have) rule in just this fashion, this just isn’t true.
A classic example of ceremonial deism would be something like Canada’s head of state also being the official head of the Church of England. That is merely traditional and ceremonial, in that the Queen doesn’t even pretend to have any true authority in Canada, or over the C of E, but the institution of the monarchy continues purely on an ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ basis. Of course, this couldn’t be called ceremonial deism, per se, but ceremonial Anglicanism sounds awkward.
IGWT, on the other hand, was instituted only a few decades ago, and was explicitly intended to mark out the US as a Christian country, as opposed to those godless commie bastards. That’s neither ceremonial nor deist, and certainly not a classic example of either.
Heh, I do this too. (I’m such a rebel! :rolleyes: ) While noone’s refused my money, I’ve noticed that a lot of people are eager to get rid of these bills first. Just doing my part to stimulate the economy!
And Bashere, I can’t find any Supreme Court case dealing with the motto, but the 10th Circuit in Gaylor v. US, said that the motto’s:
The 9th Circuit ruled similarly in Aronow v US, but I can’t find a copy of the actual decision to quote it… I’m led to understand by Snopes that the 9th circuit at one point said about the motto, but I don’t know if that’s Aronow or some other case:
False analogy. It doesn’t say “In Jehovah we trust” or “In Jesus we trust”; it says the much less Christiancentric “In God we trust”. The phrase does not exclude the other two major western religions, nor Hinduism (which believes in the “Divine Absolut” - though the Absolut takes on many forms), nor many other religions. Most religions have some concept of God. The vagueness of the phrase was obviosly intended to be inclusive. It could be said to exclude Buddhism, as that religion is non-theistic, but I seriously doubt the motto was intended to persecute Buddhists. I’ll grant that it may make some atheists uncomfortable, but your analogy/question refered to specific figures in specific religions and was therefore inept.
So, Reeder, your leftist kneejerk here is as ill considered as ever. All relevant arguments for and against the motto need to be based on whether or not it violates the establishment clause, not on bad analogies juxtaposing religous figures or on an imagined bias towards Christianity.
I guess it should be pointed out that ** if you just discovered today ** that we have a national motto, and you’re presumably no longer in grade school, then our national motto must not be particularly influential and certainly doesn’t have the force of law, or even the force of a your typical advertising slogan. So if it’s an offical endorsement of religion, it’s a mighty feeble one, isn’t it?
Please don’t smite me for this, because it is meant to be tongue in cheek:
We’ve all been told not to discuss present drug use on this forum because it’s illegal in the US, and we’ve been told not to discuss our filesharing activities because it’s illegal, but it’s perfectly OK to tell everyone that you’re violating a federal law by defacing money and call it ‘doing your part’?
