Roy Cohn, for one.
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.
Once again, it is McCarthyism and its supporters, not Joe McCarthy himself, that is accused of being somewhat antisemitic.
It bears noting that your God is so inept he can’t defeat an iron chariot.
[shiver]Mufasa![/shiver]
He got stopped cold in Judges 1, but won the rematch in Judges 4.
By cheating, if you ask me. 
Midas didn’t have mud tires back then.
Comedy gold, I tell you.
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.
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 theNo 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.
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?
A tiny cut here, a single straw there-why should anyone care, right?
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?)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.