Wait - are we finished talking about the national motto and you wish to begin a new discussion having to do with some aspect of civil rights?
:rolleyes: Seriously? This is hardly obscure, it’s been discussed a fair number of times right here on the SDMB. This study comes up a lot, for example.
Because they refuse to either convert or kill themselves, the way Christians would prefer.
No, it’s greater towards atheists last time I saw a poll.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs;16155888
Because they refuse to either convert or kill themselves, the way Christians would prefer.
[/QUOTE]
The Christians who refuse to stop believing in God the way Atheists would prefer?
I’m sure you can make better arguments than this.
Lookee there-the poll says that 33.5% of Americans wouldn’t want their children to marry a Muslim, but 47.6% of Americans wouldn’t want their children to marry an atheist. Please note that this poll was done in 2006, and I believe that attitudes against Muslims weren’t exactly high back then.
Compared to different religions, perhaps – not true as an absolute statement. That is, I am certain atheists are viewed more fondly than arsonists or mimes.
Considering that that’s pretty much the opposite of what I said, of course.
Hardly. Perhaps better than child molesters, at best.
And I’m sure the KKK didn’t hate African-Americans as much as they hated drinking lye. :rolleyes:
I always thought it was funny to have a religious motto on money, since that Jesus guy told us we didn’t need it. 
Well, we atheists might be despised less than lawyers are, I grant **Bricker **that.
I think there’s a basic disconnect between the language Czarcasm and those like him use and ours. When they use the phrase “civil rights”, they’re not thinking about trial by jury, freedom of speech, right to vote, or anything else that’s actually in the Constitution. Instead they’re thinking about their own right to brush aside democracy and declare that the government can’t write words on its own money, and other similar “civil rights” that they’ve granted to themselves.
That does not mean the adoption as the official motto was not motivated by the Cold War.
There are two ways it could be removed:
-
Vote it off; and
-
Convince a court that its use is unconstitutional.
Neither seem likely in the near future, though method #2 is somewhat more likely - convince your highest court that it was wrong about “ceremonial deism” and that the use of the phrase infringes the seperation of church and state, and you are golden.
Well, this is in the Constitution:
Placing a religious statement upon currency surely qualifies, at least under the “separation” interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Well, duh. Obviously I’m talking about changing the law so that it wasn’t required. “I think the speed limit should be changed from 65 mph to 70 mph.” “You can’t because the law says it’s supposed to be 65!”
Please elaborate on this. What did “In God We Trust” do for our country that “E pluribus unum” couldn’t have done just as well?
Shoot, done better. E pluribus unum means something concrete about our nation, referring to both a federal union of states, and the concept of democracy. It’s a statement of principles.
In God We Trust means…we’re fond of God. It fails as statement of principles by virtue of being vague, and by violating another dearly-held principle, the separation of church and state.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Seriously? This is hardly obscure, it’s been discussed a fair number of times right here on the SDMB. This study comes up a lot, for example.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but your cite is far from conclusive, even if I’m to assume it’s still relevant…2006 was 7 years ago after all and attitudes change. But leaving that aside, and even assuming that this poll is accurate and accurately represents how Americans feel (which, frankly, I’m skeptical of without a series of polls), what this actually says is that people wouldn’t want their kid to marry an atheist (47.6%) and that atheists ‘did not share their vision of American society’ (whatever that actually means), 39.5%.
I’m, of course, aware that this has come up many times on this board, since I’ve participated in several of those debates, and I’m well aware of YOUR particular view on it as well, for similar reasons. Frankly, I find it laughable that many atheists feel persecuted by the vast majority of theists among us, and that they feel threatened by things like having ‘In God We Trust’ on the currency. In my experience, no one really cares if you are an atheist as long as you aren’t attempting to throw it in their faces and belittle them for being theists. Sadly, it seems that many of my fellow agnostics/atheists can’t resist poking at the theists and putting them down…which undoubtedly has a lot to do with poll results such as those you linked too. I’m sure that trying to get ‘In God We Trust’ off the currency is going to do wonders for that image as well. 
Atheist checking in. I don’t give 2 shits if it’s on the currency or not. I understand that we have a history of being a fairly religious people, and we’re simply not going to erect that legendary “wall of separation”. And I’m not even sure if that wall was meant to separate the government from a vague sense of spirituality or from organized religion, although I suspect the latter.
I have somewhat stronger feelings about “under God” in the pledge since there are so many instances when a person finds himself being asked to recite it over his lifetime. If we’re going to have a pledge (which I don’t really want anyway), it should not include references to a deity that many of us don’t believe in. Still, on the list of things that need changing, this is pretty far down there-- definitely below the need to change the “carried interest” tax advantage that hedge fund managers get.
To the proponent belongs the burden.
Lawyers are quite a despised group… and, all joking aside, I suspect would be more reviled in survey answers than atheists. This despite the fact that no one ever finds themselves falsely accused of a crime and says, “Quick, what’s the number of a good atheist?”
Ooooh! Made-up language. I see.
Yes, then I guess I’d need some sort of translation between Czarcasese and real English before answering that question.