Not really. I mean, I vote and I’m an activist, and I would definately like to see the motto changed. But the fact is, it’s not necessarily illegal for Congress to do this, given the existing case law on the First Amendment since the founding fathers. Jefferson, no doubt, would be horrified that they replaced his motto with a divisive expression of official piety. But the motto is legal, and as such, you can’t kick it out of public schools simply because it’s insulting, presumptive, and false.
Why not a motto that says, “In Waharg the Mighty we trust”? Or “In The Giant Serpent Bird we trust”? It’s all the same flapdoodle. My main problem with the motto is it just makes you look stupid. But I’m not really very upset about it, because I’m used to religious types lookin’ stupid.
And when they put up the Ten Commandments, the Hindus can just deal, right? (There are lots in my school district I am happy to say.)
When they put a cross on the wall, because this is a Christian nation, after all, Jews and Moslems can just deal.
Next the Catholics and Mormons can just deal, then the Presbyterians, then everyone but the Baptists (or whoever comes out on top.) Remember, the Texas football prayer case was filed not by atheists, but by a Catholic and a Mormon. First Amendment protections are not just for atheists, but for eveyone.
The only equivalent we have here in the UK is “Printed by the Bank of England” - and somehow I doubt that would raise a debate in the classrooms - simpyl a few giggles.
I dunno about whether it was Jefferson’s idea, but our national motto until I was seven was “E pluribus unum” – One out of many – which personally says a whole lot more for me, as a practicing Christian, than IGWT.
Well, I’ve thought a bit more about the issue. The plaques themselves do not really offend me-- it’s the way they were presented. I dislike the fact that a church group bought the stupid things with good money (which could have been donated to the poor, for instance) and placed them in a place where they knew someone would be offended. We’re not all Christians. I know of at least one Wiccan and a Buddhist.
It annoys me that the teachers felt they had no choice, that they had to put the plaque up. I understand that it is the school’s wall, that the school has the right to paint it orange if they want to, but it’s the teacher’s environment. S/He has to work there.
It annoys me that the plaques are so gosh-darn large. They take up valuable wall space.
I am annoyed, and I’m sure there’ll be a lawsuit over this, but I doubt I’ll head it. I’m only annoyed. I’m sure someone else will find this to be a big enough deal to start a lawsuit over it, and I’ll cheer them on, but I have neither the time nor the feeling to do much myself. If JSA starts something, I might go along, but I doubt it will. Three people (out of ~160 members) showed up to the meeting this morning. The one who stayed was bothered by the plaques, but, like myself, too busy to do anything about them.
My problem with this motto stems not from the word God, but the word “We”. The statement makes trust in God a definitive characteristic of us, that is, Americans. That atheists (or polytheists, or animists, or Buddhists) are excluded from the polity is implicit in this motto, and that is what I object to. In fact, this motto expresses the exact opposite sentiment from E. Pluribus Unum, which is - or can be read as - a statement of inclusion. IGWT is a statement of what defines “us” as seperate from those Godless commies, atheists, and other undesirables. As an undesirable and a proud American myself, I resent my less-tolerant countrymen trying to marginalize me.
If it were “In God a fair chunk of us Trust, usually”, or “It is a frequently, though not universally, observed characteristic of us that Trust is sometimes placed in God”, or “It is not uncommon to find among us folks who have a somewhat trusting feeling toward some ‘God’ concept along the Judeo-Christian lines”, well, then I wouldn’t have any problem with it. On the other hand, “E. Pluribus Unum” I like, and it’s pithy.
I agree with a lot of what you say - but just dealing with stupid remarks by other people is different with just dealing with the government doing it. I’m glad that racist remarks are no longer socially acceptable (different from when I was a kid) but I’d be against laws against them. However, some lout saying something insensitive is very different from the government saying it.
Any private person can insult me as an atheist all they want. I’ll deal with that - it’s their right to say it. But when the government does it, that’s a different story. I bet if a teacher in the OPs school put up “One nation under no god” on his wall the school would have a fit. That is not something the teacher, as a representative of the state, should do. Putting up “In God we Trust” is no different. Before you know it, some president will say atheists aren’t good citizens. (Whoops! Already happened!) And you do know the 10 commandments step already happened, right?
Ah, yes, good old “Red Tom” Jefferson, the socialist statist! :smack: :dubious:
W/R/T your second sentence, the point to the sentiment is that 13 sovereign states were coming together to form one unified federal government in which each would maintain a part of its sovereignty and cede another, carefully-designed part to it – that’s what the original motto was coined to symbolize.
Huh. They must have rewritten the rules for Latin since I was in school, when e by itself was the preposition “from” that changed to ex before vowels and certain consonants.
Y’all got taught Latin different from me, then. But I’m willing to accept that the nuns in catholic high school MIGHTA made the occasional mistake…
In any case, Voyager, your restate definitely makes clearer what you’re getting at and it makes sense to me now.
My point about ‘what I actually wrote’ was more to try and make clear that not only would I not want to see “In God We Trust” but I ALSO would not want to see “One nation under no God” OR the Ten Commandments, OR a passage from the Quran, OR a buddhist mantra. I’d like to keep “God” out of it (whether referring to his existence or lack thereof ) because what I’d like to see, frankly, is the kids focused on the freakin’ lesson on the blackboard more than anything.
My explaining my personal view (where I said “deal” but which doesn’t change my thought on posting these various messages) was to clarify that my reasons for objecting to these are probably less based on principle than yours or many. But I do agree with you even if it’s more out of a sense that it’s not NECESSARY, rather than a strong feeling that it’s not ACCEPTABLE… This is the idea I’m trying to get across using “deal!” as shorthand… I simply don’t understand the vehemence behind some of the objections, though I support the objection itself.
But if someone feels the need to have some sort of inspirational saying plastered in schoolrooms, I will say again I do NOT have a problem with e (ex…whatever) pluribus unum. I feel it’s a good message without bringing “hot button” issues into it (and I don’t think it has any sorta socialist overtones myself).
Allow me to clarify, Apos: my sense of you has always been that you are conscientious and outspoken person. That’s why the seeming passivity struck me as odd–for you especially.
In any case, so what if it’s not illegal (given existing case law) but only “insulting, presumptive, and false”? One can contest something on principle simply b/c it’s insulting, presumptive, and false, despite being legal. And that’s apart from the fact that in this case the legal (or constitutional) status of such things is, and always has been, controversial and debatable.
The truth is that separation of church and state is being eroded on a day-to-day basis. There is a concerted movement on the part of some religious people–one that is largely supported by the current administration–to promote that erosion as vigorously as possible. Under the circumstances, it behooves people who are concerned to be as vigilant and as resistant as possible.
Aside: that’s not a backhanded way of urging the OP to do more than he or she is willing to at present. We can’t always find the time or the energy to combat the things we’d like to combat if we had nothing but boundless time and energy to devote to such causes! I’m sure sympathizing with your teachers’ point of view will help alot.
Aside to Brian, isn’t there some sort of really old Latin phrase that appears somewhere in British officialdom (though not necessary on money) that mentions the deity and the monarchy in some way? Regina something? Rex something? Memory is failing…
Mandelstam: Not ringing a bell on the latin british thing, though I always hear the ENGLISH rendering of the Queens’s full title as Elizabeth, By the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Britain, Scotland and Ireland, blah blah. Wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a latin equivalent kicking around too. Elizabeth Regina Grazia Deus etc…
