All right.
I disagree. But that’s the nice thing about opinions. I still respect you, and cherish your contrary opinion as an example of the great strength of this country.
How about a motto that doesn’t exclude ANYONE Bricker? Wouldn’t that be much better?
It’s possible E Pluribus Unum might not be universally LIKED, but it excludes no one. It says our strength as Americans lies precisely in our differences.
Not only is In God We Trust, not universally liked, it explicitly excludes many Americans.
Seems counter to the spirit of what makes America, America, or at least the ideal America, if not the reality.
And if a not insignifcant portion of the population takes it to mean the Christian god, is the number of citizens excluded still too small to worry about?
I cherish you, too.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. Board of Education
The Supreme Court does reverse itself from time to time, you know.
Well, I don’t know if that would be MUCH better, but I’d allow it would be an improvement.
Frankly, though, it seems such a small improvement that it’s not worth the cost.
ETA: there are a non-zero number of folks who believe we should retain differences and resist the "one’ message of E Pluribus. So I don’t agree it excludes no one.
How do you know that? If a person decides that they desire to be endlessly offended by minor things, he or she can claim to be excluded by “E Pluribus Unum” just as easily as by “In God We Trust”. Any Rand’s followers generally go berserk at any attempt to treat individuals as a group. “E Pluribus Unum” surely excludes them, doesn’t it?
The point being, you can’t satisfy everybody. Atheists who have decided that they want to be offended and excluded by four tiny words on their money do not have any right or expectation to have the government remove those words than any other group has to control the government undemocratically.
Yes, because they are taking it in error; I don’t see why we should scurry around and adjust something because of an error in perception.
NM
I don’t know, I think something like “Liberty and Justice for All” would be both more inclusive and more of an accurate representation of what America stands for.
Don’t get me wrong, it would be hugely controversial to make that change at this point, but only because it’d be replacing a reference to God. So we’d have people crying “war on religion” and all that. But if our money had said “Liberty and Justice for All” from day 1, I can’t imagine anyone having a problem with it.
If it excluded a small number at random I’d be less bothered than I am by it excluding them systematically based on their religion.
Also, ceremonial or not, I can’t really see what else “God” could be taken to mean. At best, maybe you could stretch it to mean “Whatever God or gods you believe in”, but that still excludes atheists.
Because he is obviously a Divine Accountant.
I want it changed. I don’t like a constant reminder of my fellow citizens’ ignorance plastered all over my money.
“Majority Rule” folks:
Should the current trend toward a rational worldview continue and atheists exceed 51% of the population, are y’all cool with the changes that could take place?
May I ask what the cost would be? What price would be acceptable to increase the feeling of inclusion felt by 13 million atheists and agnostics (not to mention religions that worship a diety other than God).?
Of course not; that would be “Tyranny of the Majority”.
I’m cool with it. Hell, when you can show me that we are talking about more than 1% of the population that’s annoyed about having ‘In God We Trust’ on the currency, then I’ll consider it seriously. Right now, it seems to be a minority view even among atheist/agnostics, or at least one that is pretty minor on the annoyance/we MUST do something scale.
However, if enough people want to change it? Feel free. Same goes with gun control…you get enough Americans to vote for it then I’m good. Same with UHC. Same with…well, anything. That’s why we HAVE such a system, and why it was designed to change and shift as our societies changes and shifts. And, in actual fact, you don’t really need 51%…you just need more than a few percent of really loud whiners to get stuff through, or some sort of awareness of the general population that there is some sort of issue, and that they actually care about it enough to take notice and do something.
Good luck with that on the ‘In God We Trust’ issue…and I mean that. I think there are other, more pressing issues, but what the hell…no skin off my nose if we change the currency AND the motto. Personally, I think our motto should be ‘Greed is Good’. 
First things first. I’d be happier if God were not referenced on official documents and money, etc. Separation of church and state and all that. Plus, it’s a lie. We trust in $, much like Ayn Rand.
Second, to answer your question as to how one changes the culture to make it more atheist friendly? To make a friend, you have to be a friend. The leaders of your movement should not be obnoxious jerks. Not saying they are, but put forward people who are friendly as your leaders. Bill Maher and Woody Allen aren’t exactly warm and cuddly. And both of them spend way too much time wondering about whether God exists. For FSM’s sake, you guys are atheists, act like you really don’t believe there is a God. But still, be friendly about it. Jesse Ventura doesn’t count either. May I recommend Ashley Judd, as she seems available now that she isn’t running for KY Senate. I don’t know her religious affiliation, if any.
Start an atheist caucus. Get an agenda together so that you can admit what is on it and deny that other things are on it. Such as, admit that you want to remove religion from government and have atheists not be subject to hatred for things that are on it. Forcing everyone to be atheists would be off the agenda, so you can be clear about that. Persuading people to be atheists can be a big deal for some, not so much for others, but where is it on the agenda/platform?
I have no problems with the phrase on some of our currency for pluralistic reasons. Putting it on all of our currency smacks of “Shoving religion down your throat”, which is bad civics and bad theology.
Pretty much, yeah. Believers will swing on this issue and I think the carried interest loophole is more important.
Cross out the T and you get “In God We rust”. Visit the Where’s George website and you will see that such actions are not strictly illegal.
I support such legal activities.
It shoves religions down our throats, which is bad theology.
I thought I’d look up this claim. I think it’s a fair one, but to elaborate, the 2007 Pew poll on religion measured 1.6% self-identified atheists, 2.4% self-identified agnostics, 5.8% secularly unaffiliated (whose stance on funny green pieces of paper is unclear) 0.6% Hindus, 0.7% Buddhists and 2.9% other. So that “Very small number” encompasses 1.6% at the low end and 14% at the high end. IMO the best estimate would be closer to the lower percentage.
Past threads:
If USA is a secular country, how come “in God we trust” is written on its money?
What’s the argument that the Pledge and “In God We Trust” are Constitutionally okay?
There is no movement. Anyone who claims to be leading me is telling a lie. We are people who happen to share a single belief.
ETA: Religious folk: is Fred Phelps your leader? Cause I think he’s a jerk.
Man, you have THAT right! :smack: Look at some of the debates we’ve had just on whether agnostics are (cowardly) atheists on this board in the past. Vicious. Trying to get atheists/agnostics to agree on anything is like herding cats…really independent and stubborn cats.