Well, there is some controversy on that argument also, so I preferred to show a link.
I would tend to agree that the use of a popular image (from decades back) that happened to include a (barely discernible) religious image should not have raised any real hackles or been eliminated.*
However, when the action occurs through bureaucratic meddling and is loudly protested by the so-called religious, it is pretty foolish to start a rant in Great Debates excoriating “secularists” for having caused a problem.
- Parallel–but not quite–situations: Stow, OH wanted a new city seal and the council deliberately chose one that included an image of the bible, publicly stating that they wanted to profess their deep regard that the community had been founded by Christians. The ACLU took them to court and had the seal thrown out. Chesterland, OH wanted a new logo for the fire department and selected one that included images of the earliest church still standing in the community along with three other aged buildings. When some irate person went to the ACLU, Chesterland was asked why it was on the logo. The reply was that the church was a historic building in the community. The ACLU said “sounds good to us” and walked away without making any sort of complaint.
However, when the new motto was identified, no action was taken to remove the motto status of the original. The U.S. has, effectively, four mottoes. (Annuit Coeptis and Novus Ordo Seclorum are also official mottoes that have never been discontinued.) I will stick to the one I like.
Well, you certainly bandied the word “secular” around like a theist. Honest mistake.
So you’re an atheist, and the presence of a bible on your coinage doesn’t bother you?
You misunderstand. Lekatt describes himself as “spiritual” but not “religious”. He is, IIRC, not a member of any organized religious group.
No, he is not an atheist. He simply prefers to not identify his spirituality in terms of theism.
(I note with the fixed link in the OP, we still have not a shred of evidence that any “secularist” protested an image that included a bible.)
What, for Oklahoma?! Wouldn’t a mob of half-starved Cherokees coming off the Trail of Tears be more appropriate?
Seeing as how the OP put more effort into researching the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” question than into the Oklahoma quarter issue, I wonder if we should be discussing that instead.
I’m going to take a stab at it and say 4. Angels are bigger than you think, and not as graceful.
I think barring the depiction of a tiny book that everyone “knows” is a bible is a bit silly, but at the same time I can’t get worked up about it. However, by the same logic, how could that other (rejected) design legitimately depict a Native American peace pipe? Not everyone is a Native American.
I do wish the final chosen design had some kind of nod to the Native American experience in OK, though… the state bird and state flower? How terribly boring. They might as well have a logo that said “Oklahoma - Nothing to see here!”
Could they submit an identical “revised” version where they claim that the book is a copy of the “Origin of the species”?
Gee thanks, at least one person agrees with me. I had not anticipated the acrimony displayed by most posts. I agree the flower is very boring, and I don’t believe the “Bible” poses a threat to our government. I doubt most people even look at their quarters.
Good idea, that would fly.
I see the Golden Driller every day as I go to work. It is a splended work of art, however, it was never considered for the quarter. It would have been better than the bird.
I don’t know if the other three were ever “official” mottoes. They were and are still used as mottoes, but I don’t think there was any legislation establishing an official motto until the “In God We Trust” law.
“Is it always necessary to give-in on such trivial things?”
I think ‘such trivial things’ should not be allowed to slide by. The wall of separation should and does work two ways- preventing government from supporting a particular religious point of view and by not allowing (religious) groups to impose their views on others. This has allowed all types of religions to flourish here in ways not seen many other places. This is a good thing.
“In my humble opinion I believe the seculars are hurting their cause not helping it.”
I don’t see how you reach this conclusion.
I have heard a lot of Oklahomans talk about it. I believe it works this way. Those who are secularists will applaud it. Those who are religionists will condemn it. While those who really don’t care one way or the other see it as petty. So two groups will be unfavorable and one favorable.
I am not angered by the decision nor do I hate the secularists that brought about the decision either directly or indirectly. Life will go on for me as usual.
Lekatt you’ve drawn a false dichotomy. As a Jew, I strongly support Judaism. However, I also strongly support the seperation of church and state. Not all “secularists” are atheists and some, like myself, even identify strongly with an organized religion.
I don’t know about other people, but it wouldn’t bother me any. This country was built by a wide diversity of people belonging to many different religions, nationalities, and cultures. We are a country of toleration, at least we are supposed to be.
I know who you are Doc, who said secularists are atheists, not me. That is why I used the term secularist to better describe those opposed to religious symbols. Cool it.
2%. I get a cut of the proceeds of every secularist conspiracy.
Unfortunately, all the big money is in religion, so basically I get to super-size my fries every now and then.