From a purely aesthetic point of view, I think the designers would have done better to make the two bands on either side of the magnolia emblem white instead of gold. Or leave them off altogether. Navy blue, crimson, gold and white does not strike me as a pleasing combination. But I’m not a Mississippian, so I got no dawg in this fight. And it’s a huge improvement over the “Uppity Negroes, remember your place!” flag it replaces.
Of course, including that stupid motto reminds non-theists that they’re not important. But while “Fuck you, black people” is not an acceptable sentiment for American governments to express anymore, “Fuck you, atheists” is still A-OK to the majority of Americans.
I did have a stake in the Georgia flag change, and while I understand the current flag’s reference to the Confederacy, I don’t think it’s problematic. Most people don’t know or recognize that flag, as is shown by the number who call the Confederate battle flag - the white stars and blue saltire on a red field that Mississippi just removed - “the Stars and Bars”.
And I think the current Georgia flag is a good design. Although I agree with @JRDelirious that the pre-1956 blue band, red and white bars flag was better. Still, the current flag, and Mississippi’s new banner, are miles better than those boring state-seal-on-a-navy-blue-field beloved of so many Midwestern states.
Let me break it down for you. The “We” in “In God We Trust” on official U.S. currency refers to citizens of the United States. @MEBuckner is a citizen of the United States who doesn’t trust in a being he presumably does not think exists. So he scratches out “In God We Trust” because it’s not a true statement and he doesn’t wish to endorse it as such. Is that so hard to grasp?
Many designers are not very sanguine about having reds and blues right upon each other, from some old heraldic norm. But they may have had their reasons (and a white fimbriation between red and blue is associated with the confederate colors)
BTW the “new” Georgia flag also includes the phrase – which is not in the Seal of Georgia.
I would not be surprised if this is something that some “heritage” organization or a legislation packager like ALEC makes a point of bringing up for some legislator to offer as an amendment/demand wherever anyone is thinking of changes to flags or seals or other official symbols.
Although the motto was officially adopted kind of piecemeal through different periods in the nation’s history until it became truly general only in the 50s, it had apparently been banging around for a while – at least as far back as the original text of The Star Spangled Banner, in 1814, where the 4th stanza contains the line “And this be our motto: In God is our trust”.
Why? If Communist-fearing nominally god-believing Congresspersons were petty enough to put it on the money, then it’s hardly incredible that someone would be “petty” enough to take it off.
But I suppose that’s how microaggressions work. Get in as many as possible, and then be “shocked” that anyone would concern themselves responding or reacting to such a trifle. Like they’re the one with the problem.
It has been around since 1814 and on some currency since 1864. It is a part of history.
You might as well object to e pluribus unum, as it is in latin, the language those Papists use, thus clearly religious. Annuit cœptis means “He [God] has favored our undertakings” And of course “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.”
90% of American approve it’s use. It aint just a few rednecks in old Miss.
Well, that’s a bad flag, but only slightly worse than most state flags, the majority of which just slap the state seal on a bedsheet. It’s not the travesty that the Milwaukee flag is.
IMHO, something can only be petty if it actually affects someone in any way. Like if I were to get upset at you for misspelling a word–that would be petty.
But scratching something out is just making a statement. It’s saying “I don’t think this should be here.” And I think that’s entirely appropriate reaction.
I also note that something being history only means that it has the meaning history assigned to it. Many historical things can and should be removed. So it is not an argument to keep something.
“In God We Trust” evokes the addition of “… under god …” to the pledge of allegiance, which was done in the full heat and fervor of the McCarthy era. In that respect, it is somewhat more objectionable than just oh, it is only a generic deity. But at least it is small enough to not be a glaring eyesore.
I’m dubious. When was that poll done, and what was the question asked? I don’t get upset about it. (I rarely think about it.) But if you asked me whether i approved, i would say, “no”. If you gave me a scale i suppose I’d be in the “indifferent” range.