Religious mottos under scrutiny again

[Polycarp]

I rather like our adopted state’s motto “Esse quam videri” – “to be rather than to seem.” Definite improvement over New York’s “wood shavings”

If Ohio is in the market for a new motto, I have a couple of suggestions:

“Minimis non perspiri” (“Don’t sweat the small stuff”)

or, as a guaranteed avoider of this sort of case,

“Est” (“It is” – you figure out what it means!)

RT, I’m all in favor of a Congressional chaplain – and for a more-or-less secular reason. It means that our venal Congresscritters occasionally, when the chaplain gets guts enough, hear something about doing things ethically. Not necessarily Christian ethics – just ethics. And even the most opposed-to-religion-in-government among you would have to agree that most Congressmen and Senators could use a reminder that they need to act in accordance with a common good from time to time.

[Freyr]

Can anyone doubt that the God of this statement is anything other than the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims?

If we were to ask the people who passed this law, which God they’re referring to, something like “The God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, of course!” is how they’d answer.

If you sampled the population of Ohio and asked, which God does that refer to, what do you think the answer would be?

This motto is simply the endorsement, by the state of Ohio, of specifically Judeo/Christian/Islamic religious tenets.

[Unauthorized_Cinnamon]

I LOVE Doctor J’s suggestion. To those theists who don’t think it’s a big deal, imagine that every year you had to sign a document that said prominently “There is no God, Get Over It,” (state tax return) as well as any other documents you might submit, like job or license applications; imagine seeing this phrase emblazoned above every courthouse door and written on the side of every state trooper’s car. It would make you uncomfortable, even angry, right? That’s why the prohibition on government endorsement of religion is a good idea.

As for people who think the majority rules in cases like this, you really need to educate yourselves about the purpose and function of the Bill of Rights - the whole point is that there are some rights that can’t be overriden, even by the majority.

Scylla, I suppose we should wait until we’ve solved hunger and poverty before we prohibit random searches of private homes or require trials before jailing criminal defendants, too. :rolleyes:

Polycarp, I agree - NC’s motto is great. If a state with a Baptist church on every corner can have a secular motto, I’m sure Ohio can manage it, too. (Of course, Landover Baptist is in Ohio, so that might make up for any difference ;))

[tracer]

Polycarp wrote:

“Est” (“It is” – you figure out what it means!)

Why, it means Werner Erhard’s now-defunct Large Group Awareness Training program!

http://skepdic.com/est.html

[Scylla]

Back in the olden days when those mottoes were thought up they didn’t enjoy the modern enlightenment of our current PC attitudes.

Back then, they weren’t oppressing anybody.

Only now do we understand the great and lasting harm and oppression that occurs when an atheist sneezes and a nice old lady says “God bless you.”

Maybe to solve this dilemma we can see if any of the people that thought up these mottoes are still alive. Then, we can sue them!

Than we can take tax payer dollars from the poor, hire a bunch of underprivileged workers to take down the mottoes and replace them with “I’m ok, you’re ok!”

And after we take all this time and effort and spend millions of dollars arguing about it, we can sit back and feel smug and self-satisfied that we’ve fought this great evil and made the world such a better place.

[Scylla]

Aeryn sun:

I’m sorry, but my identity isn’t exactly dependant on what’s on top of my state’s tax-return.

“Scylla, I suppose we should wait until we’ve solved hunger and poverty before we prohibit random searches of private homes or require trials before jailing criminal defendants, too.”

I also understand that people in red cars are more likely to get a speeding ticket than in other colors. To date, I can think of damn little that we’ve done to correct this heinous injustice (It works both ways.)

Do you really equate these state mottoes with such blatant and horrible violations of basic civil rights, or do you think it might be a question of degree?

[VileOrb]

I’d just like to say I’ve always been amused by the Maryland motto: “Where men act and women speak.” Any feminists want to start any legal action over that one?

[Unauthorized_Cinnamon]

I also understand that people in red cars are more likely to get a speeding ticket than in other colors. To date, I can think of damn little that we’ve done to correct this heinous injustice (It works both ways.)

I’m not sure what your point is, Scylla. Mine was that this motto is prohibited by the Constitution, and you seem to think that all society’s ills should be eradicated before enforcing that document.

Of course, there are plenty of worse examples of governments endorsing religion. I don’t recall any witch-burnings recently, for instance. However, while there are degrees of constitutional violations, we guard against even a “trivial” act because it is the best way to prevent the more egregious ones from occurring.

We throw out a confession of murder if the police screwed up and questioned the defendant after he’d asked for an attorney. In that specific case, the violation of the Constitution seems trivial, and the harm of not admitting the confession is certainly greater than that borne by Ohio in the present case. However, we do it because it is the best way we have found to discourage police officers from proceeding down a path toward torture-extracted “confessions.”

And besides all that, is it too much to ask that my government treat me as a full citizen regardless of my beliefs, without sending countless reminders that it thinks believers are superior?

[Scylla]

These things are artifacts of a different time period. They have no more power to hurt you than a pair of bellbottom blue jeans, or an old 45 of “Disco Duck.” They are that relevant.

They will fade without your help.

Your state government doesn’t care enough about you to personally oppress you.

[Kimstu]

Scylla: *Back in the olden days when those mottoes were thought up they didn’t enjoy the modern enlightenment of our current PC attitudes.

Back then, they weren’t oppressing anybody. *

Dang, Scylla, I wish you’d at least do a little research before tossing out your condescending comments about “modern PC”! For your information, yes, many people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries objected to such “trivial” violations of SOCAS as these. Here is James Madison on the subject:

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation
between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others. (Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of
Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad, 1987, p. 39.)

Or John Leland in 1791:

Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of the mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either
one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious
opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government.

And scores of others. There have always been plenty of people who understood the ways in which even “trivial” endorsements of religion by government were offensive to the principle of separation between church and state. Just because we haven’t always avoided such endorsements does not mean that nobody before us ever objected to them.

[Scylla]

Not everybody liked disco either.

[sqweels]

Although I don’t object to getting rid of the slogan, I sometimes wish the ACLU types would choose their battles a little more carefully. These types of issues give ammunition to those conservatives who are complaining that the “liberal elites” are trying to eradicate all traces of religious expression from “the national conversation”. These folks need to have SOCAS clarified for them, but I figure if we can demand abortion rights, evolution in schools exclusively, gay marriage, etc., we can throw the fundies a bone and let them keep their harmless little slogans here and there.

[vanilla]

God Bless You. So mnay people say it, yet its really just superstition.
Its something people say without thinking.
Ohio motto: How about To each his or her own?

[Lauralee]

can not ‘GOD’ be anything to anyone? it fits many if not all. just insert your ‘GOD’.

Technically, that would only work if it was “god” with a small “g”.

Yeesh… I’m agreeing with Satan again.

[MKM]

Hey Lauralee! Are you wearing your “Satan is my friend” T-shirt too

[tracer]

I wonder if Drain Bead has had an “I’m married to Satan” T-shirt made yet…

[dal_timgar]

i’m not a christian and i can see how it shows a religious bias BUT.

how much is it going to cost to remove, is it chiseled in stone, will it make the building uglier to remove or cover.

at some point you have to decide, THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

Dal Timgar

[tracer]

True, the motto was adopted back in 1959. You’d think if it was considered a violation of the SOCAS, someone would’ve challenged it immediately, not 40 years later.

[Polycarp]

They’re still engaged at the last I heard, tracer.

I do have a great idea, though: Start threads in the three appropriate forums (MPSIMS here, ICU at Fathom, and the Tables at the Pizza Parlor) giving DB advice on dealing with the wiles of Satan in her life – tongue in cheek, of course!

I’ll print them off and bind them and present it to her when she takes up residence here.

[Gaudere]

Well, wasn’t that [1950s] when we wanted to show that we were so very different from those Godless commies? I believe we also got “In God We Trust” on every piece of our money and “under God” added to the pledge right then.

“We profess our faith in a Supreme Being on our coins marked “In God we trust.” It seems more appropriate to me to recognize the Deity in our spiritual dedication to the flag, the symbol of our God-given freedom. Our belief in God highlights one of the fundamental differences between us and the Communists.”

                     --Rep. Charles G. Oakman, Congressional Record, Appendix, p. A2527

"Mr. Speaker…
Dr. Docherty and I are not of the same Christian denomination, but I may say that in this matter he has hit the nail right on the head. You may argue from dawn to dusk about differing political, economic, and social systems, but the fundamental issue which is the unbridgeable gap between America and Communist Russia is a belief in Almighty God. From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship. Unless we are willing to affirm our belief in the existence of God and His creator-creature relationship to man, we drop man himself to the significance of a grain of sand and open the floodgates to tyranny and oppression.

An atheistic American, as Dr. Docherty points out, is a contradiction in terms.

This country was founded on theistic beliefs, on the belief in the worthwhileness of the individual human being which in turn depends solely and completely on the identity of man as the creature and son of God. The fraudulent claims of the Communists to the role of champions of social, economic, and political reform is given the lie by their very own atheist [sic] materialist concept of life and their denunciation of religion, the bond between God and Man, as ‘the opium of the people’… It is therefore, most proper that in our salute to the flag, the patriotic standard around which we rally as Americans, we state the real meaning of that flag. From their earliest childhood our children must know the real meaning of America. Children and Americans of all ages must know that this is one Nation which “under God” means “liberty and justice for all.”
–Congressional Record, House, February 12, 1954, p. 1700

Yee-hah. Sounds like a fun time period to be objecting to official government endorsement of religion (Christianity, specifically). :rolleyes:

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-11-2000 at 06:28 PM]