New U.S. textbook aims to teach Bible

[Tony]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/01/life.bible.general.reut/index.html ...full article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Since the U.S. Supreme Court banned the promotion of religion in public schools in 1963, the Bible has virtually disappeared from most American classrooms.

But in recent years, as evangelical Christians have grown in numbers and gained political clout in the United States, Bible studies have been creeping back into schools.

Now, a new textbook for high school students aims to fill a gap by teaching the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, in a non-sectarian, nonreligious way as a central document of Western civilization with a vast influence on its literature, art, culture and politics.

"It's not about belief. It's about crucial knowledge and knowledge belongs in our schools," said Chuck Stetson, a New York investment banker who is the driving force behind and co-author of "The Bible and Its Influence" -- a glossy, 387-page book recently released and now being tested in a small number of schools mainly on the West Coast.



Religion in sheep's clothing?

Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the book sanitized the effect of religion throughout history, by minimizing Christian support for slavery and Christian anti-Semitism.

"To teach religion objectively, you really have to teach the good, the bad and the ugly and this book only teaches the good," he said.


I'd be much more inclined to support this book if it were re-written to include "the good, the bad and the ugly" of the Bible and it's history. Only presenting the "good" parts of the Bible seems like an attempt to promote christianity.

[clk]

Maybe the atheist groups should spend some time and money combatting this, instead of wasting their time on stupid bullsh*t like taking the word 'God' off of money.

[cbish]

Religion in sheep's clothing?
Perhaps. We had a "knock-down, drag-out" battle about ten years ago because our English dept wanted to create a course about the Bible. Their argument was that so much Literature has biblical references that it was foundational.

They settled on teaching a "bible" unit.

[Euromutt]

I can see the arguments for studying the Bible as an influence on art and literature. I'm reading Moby Dick right now, and there are so many allusions to scripture that it's certainly useful to know what Melville's referring to. But if you're going to go there, I think you need to be objective about it, and also point out, say, where Melville--or more correctly, Ishmael--twists the scripture to suit his own ends, glossing over glaring inconsistencies and the like.

From the CNN article:On the other side, Dennis Cuddy, a Christian who has worked as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education, said the book raised doubts about God and prompted students to ask the wrong questions.

"If you are going to teach the Bible, are you going to teach it as if it were the word of God? At the least, it should be taught as truthful. It shouldn't be presented as something that is false," he said.Without wanting to go too deeply into the false dichotomy Cuddy presents, if the Bible is going to be studied in taxpayer-funded schools, that study should be objective. The goal here is education, not indoctrination (one way or the other). Very simply, you have to take the contents as they come, examine corroborating evidence or lack thereof, and make your assessments based on that; you cannot posit a priori that Bible is truthful or false. And if closer examination indicates that at least certain parts of the Bible are not supported, or even flat out contradicted, by secular historical evidence, you should not attempt to whitewash that, because it's scientifically dishonest.

Cuddy's statement illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding, or possibly dishonesty, among such religious types who rail against the exclusion of religion from public schools. What they object to is the exclusion of their own religion, and (perhaps wilfully) fail to acknowledge that avoiding the topic of religion altogether also shields their children from being exposed to opposing viewpoints--both those of other religions and denominations, and of the non-religious--and some pretty uncomfortable truths. E.g. if you're a Biblical literalist, you're going to have a problem when your kid comes home from school and asks why, if the Bible is the direct word of God, He tolerates the existence of so many different versions. Or why there's zero historical evidence that the events described in Exodus ever took place. Or why, if God is Love, He directs and aids the Israelites in committing multiple acts of genocide in the book of Joshua. Or why the Gospels contain numerous contradictions. If you're going to study the Bible in serious and objective fashion, you can't gloss over that stuff. you either have to examine it warts and all, or just avoid the subject entirely.

[Tmy]

What class would this be taught in? In high school I had a greek mythology class. Thats basically the teaching of religion. A dead religion.

Id be ok with it as long as they called it "christian mythology". Man would that term really bring out their true colors.

[slingblade]

What class would this be taught in? In high school I had a greek mythology class. Thats basically the teaching of religion. A dead religion.

Id be ok with it as long as they called it "christian mythology". Man would that term really bring out their true colors.

I already use that term while teaching my 10-11 grade mythology class.
No one has a problem with it.

I'm an atheist, but I know the Bible is literature, and is historic (not the same as "history," please note). Students do need some kind of background into the Bible in order to better comprehend much of Western literature.

I am willing to teach such a class, if I can conduct it in the same way I do all my literature lessons on fiction or mythology.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm willing to accept that studying the Bible is useful to understanding literature, but I think it's silly to call it "crucial". If you can't understand something without studying the Bible first, it's not "great literature", it's derivative claptrap.

Maybe the atheist groups should spend some time and money combatting this, instead of wasting their time on stupid bullsh*t like taking the word 'God' off of money.It's not just the word "God", it's "In God we trust". If that isn't government endorsement of religion, than nothing is. Our national motto used to be, loosely translated, "everyone is welcome". Now it's, loosely translated, "f*ck you, atheists". How is that acceptable?

[Kerberos]

What class would this be taught in? In high school I had a greek mythology class. Thats basically the teaching of religion. A dead religion.

Id be ok with it as long as they called it "christian mythology". Man would that term really bring out their true colors.
In high school I was taught both a class Ancient lore (a losse translation, it was about Greek mythology) and one called Religion which obviously featured Christianity prominently. Christianity and Greek mythology were treated much the same way, and I found nothing in either class that offended me as an atheist. I suspect a hard core Christian would have been none to thrilled with it though.

[slingblade]

I'm willing to accept that studying the Bible is useful to understanding literature, but I think it's silly to call it "crucial". If you can't understand something without studying the Bible first, it's not "great literature", it's derivative claptrap.

That depends on what you mean by "understand."
Dante's Inferno isn't derivative claptrap, nor are the works of Shakespeare or Chaucer, just to name three obvious examples. But they all rely fairly heavily on Biblical references, and if you've never read the Bible, it's more difficult to connect to the themes, motifs, and motivations in those works. Even if you could understand what the works say, it's much harder to understand why they say it without some background in the Bible and Christianity as political and social motivators.

My experience so far as a (student) teacher is that even many of my Christian students haven't yet read the Bible. After all, it is reading, and many HS students have a severe allergy to the written word.

It's not just the word "God", it's "In God we trust". If that isn't government endorsement of religion, than nothing is. Our national motto used to be, loosely translated, "everyone is welcome". Now it's, loosely translated, "f*ck you, atheists". How is that acceptable?

It's not acceptable, and it excludes more American citizens than just atheists.

[TragicMonkey]

It seems to me that understanding the tenets and practices of Christianity would be vital to the study of European history, if nothing else.

As for literature and art, a student would need to know more Greek mythology than Christian mythology, although both would be handy. Funnily enough, they seem to merge quite a bit.

Although I don't see that one need study the Bible to study Christianity. For most of its history the religion was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and neither of those denominations bother too much with the Bible.

[clk]

Now it's, loosely translated, "f*ck you, atheists". How is that acceptable?

Are you serious? Do you really think that the government put that phrase on money just to piss off atheists?

See, this is the problem I have with atheist groups. They get all pissy about stupid crap that nobody gives a damn about, and meanwhile, there are Christian groups spending a lot of time and resources to get BS like ID taught in schools. Now that is what really needs to be combatted. Nobody gives a damn if the word 'God' is on money. If their 'belief' (for lack of a better word) in atheism is so fragile that a single word on a piece of paper shakes their faith, then that's messed up. The US has better separation of church and state than many many other countries in the world.

[Melendwyr]

Although I don't see that one need study the Bible to study Christianity. For most of its history the religion was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and neither of those denominations bother too much with the Bible. This statement is both grossly inaccurate and (at least to the factions referenced) insulting to the point of being a slur.

Don't make me break out the toddler death ninjas.

[Melendwyr]

Nobody gives a damn if the word 'God' is on money. Clearly, the people you're complaining about do care.

If their 'belief' (for lack of a better word) in atheism is so fragile that a single word on a piece of paper shakes their faith, then that's messed up. The US has better separation of church and state than many many other countries in the world. Your statement may be true, but that's not what they believe. The US doesn't need to have better separation than most places - it simply needs to keep the two separate. Nothing less is permitted, and the states of other countries are not relevant.

[clk]

Clearly, the people you're complaining about do care.


They're just about the only ones.


Nothing less is permitted, and the states of other countries are not relevant.

Yes, the state of other countries is very important if you want a society that has realistic goals and expectations. If you know that the US has better separation of church and religion that most other countries, then why would you waste your time on very petty issues ('God' on money) instead of major ones (ID taught in schools)? Hell, why would you ever waste your time on petty issues instead of major ones?

[pgwenthold]

Are you serious? Do you really think that the government put that phrase on money just to piss off atheists?



Well, that is basically why they added the phrase "under God" to the pledge, so it's not the biggest stretch.

Actually, I wouldn't say they did it to piss off atheists. Just to exclude them.

[TragicMonkey]

This statement is both grossly inaccurate and (at least to the factions referenced) insulting to the point of being a slur.

Don't make me break out the toddler death ninjas.

Really? I was raised Catholic, and nobody read the Bible. We got the significant bits read out during the Mass, but certainly nobody was exhorting people to read the Bible, or using the word "Biblical" as a synonym for "good", or obsessing over the book like Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists all seem to. The theology of the Roman Catholic Church owes more to Aquinas and the various councils and conferences like Niceaea (I know I spelled that wrong) than it does to the Bible. The Greeks have their Fathers of the Church, who wrote volumes of extra-Biblical theology.

I went to a rather religious school and was surrounded by fundies. They venerate the Bible as much as Catholics do Mary and all the saints put together. They read the damn thing, or bits of it, and draw whole giant bits of meaning out of single phrases. That Reformation business decided them that they can each interpret the word of their god without needing a priest or a hierarchy or holy men or centuries of scholarly agreement. Which is very democratic of them, but I don't think the popes have found Christianity, with its omnipotent dictator, particularly democratic by nature.

"That's not in the Bible" is, to Catholics, not an argument against a theological position or religious practice. It's not an insult, either. The Bible is important, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the religion. It was immensely difficult to get this to sink in during theological arguments at my school, because to most of the students it had to be in the Bible, or somebody's interpretation of what was in the Bible. The Bible is much more important to Protestants, even to the point that they chucked out several books that they didn't like. They simply couldn't leave them in because that would make it official, whereas Catholics simply ignore or interpret as symbolic or purely historic anything that doesn't fit. (Like the creation myths, and all the anti-graven images business.)

[TragicMonkey]

Well, that is basically why they added the phrase "under God" to the pledge, so it's not the biggest stretch.

Actually, I wouldn't say they did it to piss off atheists. Just to exclude them.

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.


Yeah, so appropriate for the US today.

[glsunder]

Any "good" christian should be in favor of teaching the bad and the ugly in the history of christianity. Lest history repeat itself. On the other hand, without that bad and ugly, would christianity be where it is today?

[Melendwyr]

Really? I was raised Catholic, and nobody read the Bible. We got the significant bits read out during the Mass, but certainly nobody was exhorting people to read the Bible, or using the word "Biblical" as a synonym for "good", or obsessing over the book like Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists all seem to. So you intended only to draw a comparison regarding the relative importance of the Bible between the various sects of Christianity. Got it. Toddler ninjas withdrawn!

It's clearly untrue to say that Catholics and Orthodox don't use the Bible - but they do use it differently.

[Melendwyr]

They're just about the only ones. Well, duh.

If you know that the US has better separation of church and religion that most other countries, then why would you waste your time on very petty issues ('God' on money) instead of major ones (ID taught in schools)? Hell, why would you ever waste your time on petty issues instead of major ones? If you don't mind the little things, you'll never be able to control the big ones. Why do you think the religious references were added to coins in the first place? If it's not important that they're there, why were they put there in the first place?

Finally, comparisons to other countries are irrelevant. Why are you bringing them up?

[Art Vandelay]

Are you serious? Do you really think that the government put that phrase on money just to piss off atheists?I never said that they did. I just said that this phrase is patently offensive to atheists, and declares this nation to be hostile to all that do not believe in God.

See, this is the problem I have with atheist groups. They get all pissy about stupid crap that nobody gives a damn about, and meanwhile, there are Christian groups spending a lot of time and resources to get BS like ID taught in schools. What is "stupid" about complaining about being told that you're not welcome in this country? As long as there are worse problems, should we completely ignore everything else? Why are you complaining about ID when there are millions of people dying of AIDS in Africa? Clearly, we shouldn't do anything about ID or the money until AIDS is completely wiped out.

If their 'belief' (for lack of a better word) in atheism is so fragile that a single word on a piece of paper shakes their faith, then that's messed up.If your math skills are so poor that you can't even count to four, that's messed up. I am not claiming that I have a problem with a single word, or that my "belief" is being shaken, and your constant attacks on strawmen is poor form. What I'm saying is that I'm offended. What is so difficult about that concept?

(And if the Christians faith is so weak that not constantly seeing references to it shakes it, that messed up.)

The US has better separation of church and state than many many other countries in the world.It also has better race relations. I guess we should just scrap all those anti-discrimination laws, as they're clearly superfluous.

They're just about the only ones.So, absolutely no one cares about this... except for the ones who care about it. Got any more pearls of wisdom?

What you're really saying is "I realize that there are people that care about this, but f*ck them. I don't care about them, they aren't important. No one that matters cares about this."

Well, same to you.

[Complexity]

Maybe the atheist groups should spend some time and money combatting this, instead of wasting their time on stupid bullsh*t like taking the word 'God' off of money.

I think we're capable of battling both. Actually, battling either one is a side-attack on the other.

I've seen nonsense from a few people stating that it is isn't worth the trouble to remove every f***ing trace of religious garbage from US currency, courtrooms, government buildings, ceremonies, etc.

I support efforts to remove all of that - I live in this country too, and don't want anyone to believe that all of us are superstitious morons.

[UserGoogol]

Hell, why would you ever waste your time on petty issues instead of major ones?

Because there are a lot of people who care about the seperation of church and state, and even more lawyers. Michael Newdow is just a guy. If he wants to fight one minor unjustice, he should feel free, because there are still plenty of people to fight the more serious injustices.

[slingblade]

They're just about the only ones.
If you know that the US has better separation of church and religion that most other countries, then why would you waste your time on very petty issues ('God' on money) instead of major ones (ID taught in schools)? Hell, why would you ever waste your time on petty issues instead of major ones?

Because one is related to the other. How can you not see that?

"Obviously we are a Christian nation--look at our money! See? In GOD we trust! So naturally we should be teaching Intelligent Design in our schools."

Fighting the "little things" strengthens the fight against the big things.
Tonight I have to grade a 12th grader's opinion essay in which he says that people are trying too hard these days to take all the religion out of our government where it's always been, and he can't understand why.
He believes it's only "morally corrupt scum without religion" who think the 10 Commandments don't belong on the City Hall lawn. This "new fad against religion in government" should be squashed.

This is why we fight the "little" things.

[clk]

I never said that they did. I just said that this phrase is patently offensive to atheists, and declares this nation to be hostile to all that do not believe in God.


Really? Care to point out hostile acts against atheists that were caused by four words on a piece of currency?


What is "stupid" about complaining about being told that you're not welcome in this country?


Can you point out where on the dollar bill it states that atheists are not welcome in the United States?


As long as there are worse problems, should we completely ignore everything else?


We should ignore very petty issues, yes.



So, absolutely no one cares about this... except for the ones who care about it. Got any more pearls of wisdom?


Please. If 'nobody' were taken literally every time it were used, it would never be used, because clearly it does not refer to every single person on the entire planet.


What you're really saying is "I realize that there are people that care about this, but f*ck them. I don't care about them, they aren't important. No one that matters cares about this."


And you're lecturing me about strawmen?

[clk]

"Obviously we are a Christian nation--look at our money! See? In GOD we trust! So naturally we should be teaching Intelligent Design in our schools."


"In God we trust" does not imply Christianity in any way. It does not imply any specific church in any way. It could apply equally to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It is an extremely vague statement in terms of religion.

[TragicMonkey]

"In God we trust" does not imply Christianity in any way. It does not imply any specific church in any way. It could apply equally to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It is an extremely vague statement in terms of religion.

Extremely vague? It's a positive assertion, by a government body, that the people of this country acknowledge God. Apart from printing "Not Atheists!" on the money, they couldn't make it less vague.

[clk]

It's a positive assertion, by a government body, that the people of this country acknowledge God.

So basically it's a statement of fact that the vast majority of people in the United States believe in God.

[TragicMonkey]

So basically it's a statement of fact that the vast majority of people in the United States believe in God.

It's the US government making a religious statement, in violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.

If it were meant to be a demographic statement, which would be a strange thing to place on currency, it would read "x% of us trust in God".

[slingblade]

So basically it's a statement of fact that the vast majority of people in the United States believe in God.

Knowing the caveat against polls, several taken in the last few years seem to indicate just that.

I googled the string "believe in god polls" and got several different links to polls indicating that roughly 90% of Americans profess a belief in God.

What those mean, exactly and if anything, I can't tell you.
Statement of fact? I dunno. Numbers the media can manipulate? You betcha.

[clk]

It's the US government making a religious statement, in violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.


It's not making a religious statement, it's making a factual statement.


If it were meant to be a demographic statement, which would be a strange thing to place on currency, it would read "x% of us trust in God".


You are splitting hairs here. To an extent, money is made to look nice. It would look weird if it said "90% of us trust in God". Plus, every time the census came out, they would have to change it to "89% of us trust in God", or "91% of us trust in God". But basically the point is the same. "In God we trust" = "the vast majority of us believe in God".

[TragicMonkey]

I suppose if 98% of the country admitted enjoying oral sex, we should make mention of the fact on the coinage? Currency is no place for demographic factoids.

There is no relationship between currency and religion. The statement was added there specifically to make the country look more religious, specifically Christian.

[TragicMonkey]

It's not making a religious statement, it's making a factual statement.

Only if you decide that "we" means "the majority" and not "everybody". Oddly enough, the US government was specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority and preserve the rights of minorities.



You are splitting hairs here. To an extent, money is made to look nice. It would look weird if it said "90% of us trust in God". Plus, every time the census came out, they would have to change it to "89% of us trust in God", or "91% of us trust in God". But basically the point is the same. "In God we trust" = "the vast majority of us believe in God".

And "the vast majority of us believe in God" is relevant and appropriate to put on the currency of a nation that purports to follow the separation of church and state and keep government out of religion?

[clk]

There is no relationship between currency and religion. The statement was added there specifically to make the country look more religious, specifically Christian.

Maybe, but it is still a statement of fact.

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe, but it is still a statement of fact.

The vast majority is non-Jewish. Should we have "Not Jewish" put on the currency? It's a fact.

[clk]

And "the vast majority of us believe in God" is relevant and appropriate to put on the currency of a nation that purports to follow the separation of church and state and keep government out of religion?

If you want to argue that the phrase is irrelevant because it is just demographic information, then fine. But don't get mad at me when I think it is a petty issue. Technically, the name of the Treasury Secretary on bills is irrelevant too, but you don't see me complaining about it.

[TragicMonkey]

If you want to argue that the phrase is irrelevant because it is just demographic information, then fine. But don't get mad at me when I think it is a petty issue. Technically, the name of the Treasury Secretary on bills is irrelevant too, but you don't see me complaining about it.

I'm not getting mad, I'm merely pointing out that the arguments against removing the phrase are ridiculous. Asserting the matter to be "petty" doesn't mean we should accept your position without argument.

[slingblade]

If you want to argue that the phrase is irrelevant because it is just demographic information, then fine. But don't get mad at me when I think it is a petty issue. Technically, the name of the Treasury Secretary on bills is irrelevant too, but you don't see me complaining about it.

Wheee! Straw man!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Putting the word "God" on federally issued bearer notes establishes some form of religion. God is a religious concept. Money is a federal concept. Oil and water, forced to live in sin together, as it were.

ETA: Considering the title of the textbook in question (we were talking about a textbook, if you'll all check your notes): "The Bible and Its Influence," and going by the title alone, I'd say it's a necessary minor subject. I could see using the textbook in a unit on said subject, and it's possible I might be able to justify a semester or trimester course on it. I can't say until after I read it.

Without having read it, therefore, I say the text is worth investigating.

[clk]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.



Which law established a religion? And which religion did it establish?


Putting the word "God" on federally issued bearer notes establishes some form of religion.


No, it doesn't. It says "In God we trust". That is a statement of fact. Agree or disagree?


God is a religious concept. Money is a federal concept. Oil and water, forced to live in sin together, as it were.


Yes, and the statement "In God we trust" is factual in nature.
If Bush signed legislation that included statistics on religion, such as "90% of Americans believe in God", would that be a violation of church and state? After all, God is a religious concept, and legislation is a federal concept.

[Mark]

Yes, and the statement "In God we trust" is factual in nature.

What "fact" is being stated?

That we trust in God? Which God? Who is meant by "we?" And what is meant by "trust?"

I'm serious...I don't see what the "fact" is that makes the statement factual.

[clk]

I'm not getting mad, I'm merely pointing out that the arguments against removing the phrase are ridiculous. Asserting the matter to be "petty" doesn't mean we should accept your position without argument.

You don't think that advocating the removal of a FACTUAL STATEMENT from currency is petty? What else do you think we should remove? Should we remove all references to God, regardless of context, from every piece of federal paperwork that we have?

[clk]

What "fact" is being stated?

That we trust in God? Which God? Who is meant by "we?" And what is meant by "trust?"


God is the being that 90% of the US believes in. "We" is 90% of the population of the United States.

[TragicMonkey]

You don't think that advocating the removal of a FACTUAL STATEMENT from currency is petty? What else do you think we should remove? Should we remove all references to God, regardless of context, from every piece of federal paperwork that we have?

Is the presence of religious statement appropriate on the currency of a nation with a government that is supposed to refrain from making religious statements?

[TragicMonkey]

God is the being that 90% of the US believes in. "We" is 90% of the population of the United States.

The majority is also non-Jewish. I think it is equally appropriate, therefore, to put the words "We're Not Jewish" on the currency. You can't object to that, can you, seeing how it's "factual"?

[clk]

Is the presence of religious statement appropriate on the currency of a nation with a government that is supposed to refrain from making religious statements?

It is not a religious statement. It is a factual statement.

[clk]

The majority is also non-Jewish. I think it is equally appropriate, therefore, to put the words "We're Not Jewish" on the currency. You can't object to that, can you, seeing how it's "factual"?

No, because it would look weird. Currency is supposed to look nice. "In God we trust" sounds like nice verbiage. I never said that we should add more demographic information to currency. I only said that it is petty to be offended by factual statements on currency and insist on their removal.

[TragicMonkey]

No, because it would look weird. Currency is supposed to look nice. "In God we trust" sounds like nice verbiage.

Oh, so it's your opinion on what "sounds nice" that makes the statement appropriate.

I never said that we should add more demographic information to currency.

You only argued that a demographic statement, if accurate, is appropriate and shouldn't be removed. Therefore if the currency already read "We're Not Jewish", you would object to the removal of those words, right?

I only said that it is petty to be offended by factual statements on currency and insist on their removal.

It seems petty of you to object to the factual statement "We're Not Jewish" on the currency.


Suppose the currency read "We Don't Believe In God", and the majority of the country were atheists. Would you be using the same arguments?

[clk]

Oh, so it's your opinion on what "sounds nice" that makes the statement appropriate.


Yes. That's why it doesn't say "We believe in God", because "In God we trust " sounds nicer.


You only argued that a demographic statement, if accurate, is appropriate and shouldn't be removed. Therefore if the currency already read "We're Not Jewish", you would object to the removal of those words, right?


Yes. To clarify, it would be appropriate if the vast majority of the country felt that it was important that they were not Jewish, and it was something that they felt was important to them. But why would you do this? It's easier to put what you are than what you aren't


It seems petty of you to object to the factual statement "We're Not Jewish" on the currency.


No, I already said that I don't want to add any more demographic information or remove it. I don't care what it says.


Suppose the currency read "We Don't Believe In God", and the majority of the country were atheists. Would you be using the same arguments?

Yes.

[Art Vandelay]

Really? Care to point out hostile acts against atheists that were caused by four words on a piece of currency?I said that the words themselves are hostile. Pay attention.

Can you point out where on the dollar bill it states that atheists are not welcome in the United States?I already have.

We should ignore very petty issues, yes.That wasn't your argument. Quit trying to move the goalposts.

Please. If 'nobody' were taken literally every time it were used, it would never be used, because clearly it does not refer to every single person on the entire planet.If you refuse to use words to mean what they actually mean, then I will not accept responsibility for misunderstanding your posts. If someone says "nobody", then yes, absent some reason to think otherwise, I will assume they mean "nobody". "Nobody has run a mile under four minutes", for instance, would not be true merely because the vast majority of people have not run a mile in under four minutes. Once it has been established that you are not using the actual meanings of words, your posts become rather meaningless.

And you're lecturing me about strawmen?What have I said that could possibly be interpreted as what you said? My post wasn't a strawman, it was a perfectly valid interpretation of your words. You can hardly complain that you did not literally say it, as you have already said that you don't expect your words to be taken literally. I think it's pretty clear what you're implying, and you have done nothing to explain how it's wrong.

"In God we trust" does not imply Christianity in any way. It does not imply any specific church in any way. It could apply equally to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It is an extremely vague statement in terms of religion.One would have to be monumentally ignorant of American politics to even consider the possibility that it was motivated by pro-Hindu feelings. It's quite obviously an assertion of Christian identity. The words themselves are not specific to Christianity, but given the context, it's clear what the intent is.

So basically it's a statement of fact that the vast majority of people in the United States believe in God.No, it is not. It says that believing in God is an essential characteristic of Americans, and implies that atheists are not included in the concept of "we". By "we", it clearly means not "the majority of us", but "collectively, this nation". It means "it's true for most people, and the other ones don't matter".

Even if it were a statement of fact, the choice to include it on the money makes a statement apart from the factual content. You aren't seriously going to argue that the choice of what "facts" to highlight isn't a political statement, are you? You don't seriously dispute that the phrase was motivated by religious considerations, do you? If a statement of fact is made with religious intent, then it's a religious statement.

I can just imagine playing Bridge with you.
"I have had FOUR HEART operations. But I've never seen a KING using a SPADE. I'm thinking of buying NINE DIAMONDS. Anyone been to CLUB FIVE, FOUR?"
"Hey! No table talk."
"What are you talking about? I'm not saying anything about my hand. I'm just making idle chit-chat."

It would look weird if it said "90% of us trust in God".Of course it would look weird. Because demographic statements would be out place. Which is exactly TM's point: it is clearly not a demographic statement, because demographic statements aren't the sort of thing found on money. The reason "90% of us trust in God" looks more weird than "In God we trust" is because the former is a demographic statement, and the latter is not.

If you want to argue that the phrase is irrelevant because it is just demographic information, then fine. You're the one arguing it's just demographic information, not him. Nice rhetorical ploy, there.

[clk]

I said that the words themselves are hostile. Pay attention.


How are factual statements hostile?


I already have.


So to you, "in god we trust" equals "atheists are unwelcome in the united states"?


That wasn't your argument. Quit trying to move the goalposts.


Yes, it was. My original post: "Maybe the atheist groups should spend some time and money combatting this, instead of wasting their time on stupid bullsh*t like taking the word 'God' off of money."


If you refuse to use words to mean what they actually mean, then I will not accept responsibility for misunderstanding your posts. If someone says "nobody", then yes, absent some reason to think otherwise, I will assume they mean "nobody". "Nobody has run a mile under four minutes", for instance, would not be true merely because the vast majority of people have not run a mile in under four minutes. Once it has been established that you are not using the actual meanings of words, your posts become rather meaningless.


You have a poor understanding of the English language. When a word like 'we' is used to refer to a small group of people, then usually it means everyone. But when 'we' is used in a phrase like "in god we trust", it usually means the majority or vast majority, because it's referring to millions of people.


What have I said that could possibly be interpreted as what you said? My post wasn't a strawman, it was a perfectly valid interpretation of your words. You can hardly complain that you did not literally say it, as you have already said that you don't expect your words to be taken literally. I think it's pretty clear what you're implying, and you have done nothing to explain how it's wrong.


Wrong. If I hated atheists so much, then why would I use my same arguments if the country were mainly atheist, and the bill said: "we don't believe in god"?


One would have to be monumentally ignorant of American politics to even consider the possibility that it was motivated by pro-Hindu feelings. It's quite obviously an assertion of Christian identity. The words themselves are not specific to Christianity, but given the context, it's clear what the intent is.


You are beginning to sound paranoid, as if the government is trying to subtly make atheists feel unwelcome by inserting small phrases into currency.

If the government wants to make an assertion of a Christian identity, there are more direct ways to do it. They don't have to rely on people knowing what their 'intent' is.


No, it is not. It says that believing in God is an essential characteristic of Americans,


No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't even imply that.


and implies that atheists are not included in the concept of "we". By "we", it clearly means not "the majority of us", but "collectively, this nation".


When 'we' is used to refer to a large number of people (like 270 million) it means the majority. That's why when Bush says "we believe in freedom" it means that the majority of Americans believe in freedom, not every single one of them.


Even if it were a statement of fact, the choice to include it on the money makes a statement apart from the factual content. You aren't seriously going to argue that the choice of what "facts" to highlight isn't a political statement, are you?


"in god we trust" highlights the fact that most americans believe in god, and god is an important part of their lives. That's probably why they want to put it on currency, they probably think it is a tribute to him or something.



You don't seriously dispute that the phrase was motivated by religious considerations, do you? If a statement of fact is made with religious intent, then it's a religious statement.


I have no idea why they put it there. But that does not change the fact that the phrase is a factual statement.


Of course it would look weird. Because demographic statements would be out place. Which is exactly TM's point: it is clearly not a demographic statement, because demographic statements aren't the sort of thing found on money. The reason "90% of us trust in God" looks more weird than "In God we trust" is because the former is a demographic statement, and the latter is not.


No, currency is made to look nice and official. It would be bizarre to write 90%, because writing "in god we trust" means the same thing and sounds nicer.


You're the one arguing it's just demographic information, not him. Nice rhetorical ploy, there.


Huh?

[slingblade]

Which law established a religion? And which religion did it establish?



No, it doesn't. It says "In God we trust". That is a statement of fact. Agree or disagree?

Disagree vehemently. I'm a citizen of this country, which makes me part of this "we," and I don't believe in god.

So, "In God a Certain Number of Us Trust," but definitely not "we."


If Bush signed legislation that included statistics on religion, such as "90% of Americans believe in God", would that be a violation of church and state? After all, God is a religious concept, and legislation is a federal concept.

What are you talking about? For me to even begin to answer this, you'd have to be more specific as to what you mean by "legislation." You'd have to explain how and why a law (legislation) contains statistics and other damned lies.

You'd have to know what you're talking about, and you don't.

[slingblade]

oopsie.

[clk]

I'm a citizen of this country, which makes me part of this "we," and I don't believe in god.

So, "In God a Certain Number of Us Trust," but definitely not "we."


You are making an extremely narrow interpretation of 'we' that no reasonable person would make. Do you think that Bush should be outlawed from using the word 'we' in speeches? After all, he is the chief representative of the US. What if he goes to another country and says "we believe in freedom" (he actually does this all the time)? Surely not every single person in the United States believes in freedom, it's probably more like 99.9%. Do you think that Bush should be reprimanded every time he uses the word in this fashion?




What are you talking about? For me to even begin to answer this, you'd have to be more specific as to what you mean by "legislation." You'd have to explain how and why a law (legislation) contains statistics and other damned lies.


Let's say Bush was signing a law that would outlaw the teaching of ID in schools. Let's suppose that in the legislation, there were statistics that showed how many people believed in God and in intelligent design, for reference purposes. Hell, let's assume that the law made it mandatory to teach evolution, and Bush wanted to lower the number of people who believed in God, so it included statistics. Would you be against the use of the word 'God' in legislation, even in purely statistical form?

[TragicMonkey]

Do you not see that the placement of a motto on our currency suggests more than just "the majority, with a possible exception or two"? Where a statement is made conveys meaning as well. To be appearing on our currency makes it look like an official, government-sanctioned statement. It's not meant to convey "the majority of Americans believe in God", it's meant to convey "believing in God is part of what America is about". A motto is meant to be representative of the whole, a summation of a belief that defines the group--not making mention of one of many possible beliefs that also include the exact opposite.

Bush can mention God all he wants, because we know he's just a guy in an office. He doesn't speak for everyone and nobody thinks he does. He can say that "Jesus is Lord" til he's blue in the face. But we can't have "Jesus is Lord" inscribed on the White House portico, because the White House belongs to ALL the people, and a statement there implies acceptance, approval, and agreement on behalf of all the people.

[clk]

Do you not see that the placement of a motto on our currency suggests more than just "the majority, with a possible exception or two"? Where a statement is made conveys meaning as well. To be appearing on our currency makes it look like an official, government-sanctioned statement. It's not meant to convey "the majority of Americans believe in God", it's meant to convey "believing in God is part of what America is about". A motto is meant to be representative of the whole, a summation of a belief that defines the group--not making mention of one of many possible beliefs that also include the exact opposite.


Dude, a motto doesn't matter. It is like a state bird or flower. It makes no difference what it is. It doesn't matter if the national animal is a bald eagle or a velociraptor. Nobody cares. And by nobody, I mean the vast majority of people. What the atheists are trying to do is the equivalent of changing the national animal, or a state flower. And then you wonder why I think it is petty.

If you and Art Vandelay are offended by factual statements, then so be it. Judging by your reaction to four words on a piece of currency, I can only suggest that you two should never read a census document, because the facts in there would likely send both of you into a state of depression.

The government did not put "in god we trust" just to exclude atheists. If they want to exclude atheists, then they will come to your house, point an M16 at your face, and haul your ass off to Guantanamo. There will be no ifs, ands or buts (or 'we's) about it. If they want to make atheists feel excluded, they have more effective ways to do it. Even if they had to rely on putting words on currency, they would be more direct. Instead of "in god we trust", they could put "atheists suck".



Bush can mention God all he wants, because we know he's just a guy in an office. He doesn't speak for everyone and nobody thinks he does.


If Bush doesn't speak for the American people, then who does?

[TragicMonkey]

Dude, a motto doesn't matter. It is like a state bird or flower. It makes no difference what it is. It doesn't matter if the national animal is a bald eagle or a velociraptor. Nobody cares. And by nobody, I mean the vast majority of people. What the atheists are trying to do is the equivalent of changing the national animal, or a state flower. And then you wonder why I think it is petty.

If it doesn't matter, why keep it there?

If you and Art Vandelay are offended by factual statements, then so be it. Judging by your reaction to four words on a piece of currency, I can only suggest that you two should never read a census document, because the facts in there would likely send both of you into a state of depression.


Make up your mind. Is it meant to be a statement to convey a demographic factoid, or not? If so, why is it on the currency? If not, why is it on the currency?

The government did not put "in god we trust" just to exclude atheists. If they want to exclude atheists, then they will come to your house, point an M16 at your face, and haul your ass off to Guantanamo. There will be no ifs, ands or buts (or 'we's) about it. If they want to make atheists feel excluded, they have more effective ways to do it. Even if they had to rely on putting words on currency, they would be more direct. Instead of "in god we trust", they could put "atheists suck".

Did you read the Wikipedia article I quoted and linked to above? They did put the motto on there to exclude atheists.




If Bush doesn't speak for the American people, then who does?

So you can't differentiate between the president and America itself?

[Complexity]

Love ya, TM. :monkeyr:

Confusion to our enemies.

[clk]

If it doesn't matter, why keep it there?


Because it will cost millions of dollars to change it. And I don't want millions of dollars of tax payer money to be spent on waste. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay money just because a few people are unable to cope with factual statements.


Did you read the Wikipedia article I quoted and linked to above? They did put the motto on there to exclude atheists.


Roosevelt made it a motto to differentiate the US from Russia during the Cold War. The Russians did not allow religious freedom. We did.
If the official Russian animal were a cat, we probably would have changed ours to a dog.

Like I said before, if the government wants to make atheists feel excluded, then they will do it, and you will have no doubt that they are doing it. They don't have to resort to changing a motto here, or changing a state flower there.



So you can't differentiate between the president and America itself?

You didn't answer my question. If the President doesn't speak for the American people, then who does? Have you heard of 'diplomats'?

[RandFan]

Did you read the Wikipedia article I quoted and linked to above? They did put the motto on there to exclude atheists.Hey TM, thanks for the link. I read the article and I don't see what you do. Atheist isn't mentioned until near the end.

Many also argue that the motto, along with the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance), was made official simply because of US opposition to the atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), the main adversary of the United States at the time. The Soviet Union didn't come into being until long after "In God We Trust" first started appearing on our money.

Don't get me wrong. The statement should go. Politically I don't think this is a the right fight to wage.

[TragicMonkey]

Because it will cost millions of dollars. And I don't want millions of dollars of tax payer money to be spent on waste. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay money just because a few people are unable to cope with factual statements.

Considering that we change the machinery that prints the money all the time to foil counterfeiters, it shouldn't cost "millions of dollars" to simply exclude the motto from the next set of printing plates or whatever they use.

And perhaps the cost of change would be offset by the savings from having a slightly-less complex design? If you're going to penny-and-penny the issue, a blank space has got to be cheaper than printed or embossed words.


Roosevelt made it a motto to differentiate the US from Russia during the Cold War. The Russians did not allow religious freedom. We did.
If the official Russian animal were a cat, we probably would have changed ours to a dog.

The original thought behind the motto was "We need for America to acknowledge God". Is this appropriate today? Does it matter what the Russians did or didn't do, or what people thought fifty years ago? Change is allowed, you know, especially when not changing makes no sense. It doesn't matter what the people thought America was fifty years ago; we don't have to defer to their opinions of what America is and ought to be and ought to write on our money. It's the current population that matters. The US is now a country with a population of widely varied beliefs. To protect those beliefs, the government is specifically supposed to avoid making religious statements. It's supposed to remain secular. Does "In God We Trust" appearing on the money suggest the government, via the Mint, is staying out of making religious statements?


Like I said before, if the government wants to make atheists feel excluded, then they will do it, and you will have no doubt that they are doing it. They don't have to resort to changing a motto here, or changing a state flower there.

They are doing it, by printing a religious statement on the damn money.

You didn't answer my question. If the President doesn't speak for the American people, then who does? Have you heard of 'diplomats'?

You think the president's job is to be a spokesman? Oddly enough, I thought he or she was supposed to be an executive, and execute the operations of government. Not be "spokesman", or a public relations rep.

As for who speaks for the American people, the American people do. And this American person is saying that there's no reason to keep a religious statement on the money in flagrant violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.

[TragicMonkey]

Hey TM, thanks for the link. I read the article and I don't see what you do. Atheist isn't mentioned until near the end.


I was referring to the letter quoted, and the official response, that addressed the "need" for America to "acknowledge God" and junk. They don't use the word "atheist" because they don't have to: elevating religion necessarily means doing so at the expense of atheism. I don't have to announce a desire to get rid of light if I'm waging a campaign to promote darkness, it's inherent via the nature of the two things.

[RandFan]

I was referring to the letter quoted, and the official response, that addressed the "need" for America to "acknowledge God" and junk. They don't use the word "atheist" because they don't have to: elevating religion necessarily means doing so at the expense of atheism. I don't have to announce a desire to get rid of light if I'm waging a campaign to promote darkness, it's inherent via the nature of the two things. Hmmmm......

Did you read the Wikipedia article I quoted and linked to above? They did put the motto on there to exclude atheists. It seems to me that they put the motto on the money to denote that the country believed in God, and, should the United States pass away future generations would know that the United States was a nation that Believed in God (predominantly).

I will point out that while "atheist" isn't used early on "heathen" is used from the very start and certainly there is no substantive difference so I will withdraw my earlier point.

[TragicMonkey]

It seems to me that they put the motto on the money to denote that the country believed in God, and, should the United States pass away future generations would know that the United States was a nation that Believed in God (predominantly).

But that's not the case any more. The majority of the population may believe in God, but that's not the same thing as the United States believing in God. We don't think of the nation the same way that the past generations of Americans did. We don't expect most everybody to be the same, we don't expect that the majority will get whatever it wants, we make allowances for minority viewpoints and we accomodate them by not insisting that whatever 51% of the population wants is what the nation itself wants. The concept of statehood has changed over time. Modern people expect both more and less from their nation; we no longer define our nation as a collection of shared cultural values, and we no longer define "American" as buying into whatever those cultural values are. America isn't God, Mom, and Apple Pie, and Americans aren't people who believe in God, Mom, and Apple Pie. America is now Whatever You Believe, Whoever You Love, and Whatever You Prefer To Eat, which makes Atheist, Grandpa, and Tacos just as American as Jewish, Aunt Betty, and Pizza, and Baptist, Mom, and Guacamole.

[clk]

Considering that we change the machinery that prints the money all the time to foil counterfeiters, it shouldn't cost "millions of dollars" to simply exclude the motto from the next set of printing plates or whatever they use.

And perhaps the cost of change would be offset by the savings from having a slightly-less complex design? If you're going to penny-and-penny the issue, a blank space has got to be cheaper than printed or embossed words.


If this is true, then fine, take it off altogether, provided that the cost to the taxpayer does not increase. Or leave it on. I really don't care one way or another. But what will happen is, the President will start a commission to come up with a new motto, and those bastards WILL figure out a way to spend millions of dollars.


It doesn't matter what the people thought America was fifty years ago; we don't have to defer to their opinions of what America is and ought to be and ought to write on our money.


The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and it laid out how the founders felt America ought to be, and we're still going by that. What do you think of that? The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time, and their opinion is followed for decades into the future, until their ruling is reversed.


It's the current population that matters. The US is now a country with a population of widely varied beliefs. To protect those beliefs, the government is specifically supposed to avoid making religious statements. It's supposed to remain secular. Does "In God We Trust" appearing on the money suggest the government, via the Mint, is staying out of making religious statements?


It's not making a religous statement, it is making a factual statement.


You think the president's job is to be a spokesman? Oddly enough, I thought he or she was supposed to be an executive, and execute the operations of government. Not be "spokesman", or a public relations rep.


He is essentially the chief diplomat/spokesman of the US when he travels overseas. So yes, he is kind of a spokesman, although that is a misnomer.

[slingblade]

Tragic Monkey posted:
It doesn't matter what the people thought America was fifty years ago; we don't have to defer to their opinions of what America is and ought to be and ought to write on our money.

And CLK posted in response:

The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and it laid out how the founders felt America ought to be, and we're still going by that. What do you think of that? The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time, and their opinion is followed for decades into the future, until their ruling is reversed.

A. The Constitution is hardly just a moldy bit of parchment with some dead guy's personal opinion scribbled on it.

B. There is a substantial difference between the personal opinion of Joe Schmoe, and the legal opinion of the Supreme Court.

C. Your logic is dismal.


It's not making a religous statement, it is making a factual statement.

No, it is not. I am a citizen and I am an atheist. I do not trust in any gods.
The statement is not a fact, and is not "factual," because it does not represent the view of every. single. citizen. of. the. U.S.

Period.

[clk]

No, it is not. I am a citizen and I am an atheist. I do not trust in any gods.
The statement is not a fact, and is not "factual," because it does not represent the view of every. single. citizen. of. the. U.S.

Period.


Why? Why are you people so daft? This has got to be the tenth time I am explaining this. When 'we' is used to refer to a large amount of people (such as 270 million), it DOES NOT MEAN EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN. It means vast majority. But by your definition, I guess the President should be outlawed from using the word 'we' in every speech, because clearly when he says "we believe in freedom", not every. single. citizen. of. the. US. believes in freedom. Perhaps you could head a tribunal that reprimands every politician when they use 'we' to refer to the vast majority of Americans.

[TragicMonkey]

The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and it laid out how the founders felt America ought to be, and we're still going by that. What do you think of that? The Supreme Court makes rulings all the time, and their opinion is followed for decades into the future, until their ruling is reversed.

And we amend the Constitution, and reinterpret it all the time to reflect changes in culture, attitude, technology, etc. Times change, and we change with them.



It's not making a religous statement, it is making a factual statement.

Again with this? Look, either it's a factual statement conveying a demographic factoid about a majority of the current population believing in a deity called "God", or it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government. If the former, why is it appropriate to appear on the currency? We don't put other demographic factoids like "Most of us are white" or "Most of us are overweight" or the average annual income on the currency or anywhere else. It seems clear to me that it's not meant to be a demographic factoid, it's meant to be a motto. Mottos are not factoids of interest. They are statements meant to represent the whole.

In either case, it's inappropriate.

[TragicMonkey]

Why? Why are you people so daft? This has got to be the tenth time I am explaining this. When 'we' is used to refer to a large amount of people (such as 270 million), it DOES NOT MEAN EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN. It means vast majority. But by your definition, I guess the President should be outlawed from using the word 'we' in every speech, because clearly when he says "we believe in freedom", not every. single. citizen. of. the. US. believes in freedom. Perhaps you could head a tribunal that reprimands every politician when they use 'we' to refer to the vast majority of Americans.

It is you who seem unable to grasp the difference between a motto and a statement by a president.

[clk]

Again with this? Look, either it's a factual statement conveying a demographic factoid about a majority of the current population believing in a deity called "God", or it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government. If the former, why is it appropriate to appear on the currency?


Who said it was appropriate? I never said it should be on there. I just said that we shouldn't spend extra money to take it off.
I said it doesn't matter what the motto is, because mottos are completely meaningless.



It is you who seem unable to grasp the difference between a motto and a statement by a president.


Dude, the President is the chief representative of the American people, and when he makes a foreign policy speech or talks to a foreign head of state, he is representing the United States, whether you like it or not. When he says 'we', that means Americans, but not every single American, just the majority. You said that the American people speak for themselves, but think about this. How are you going to interact with other countries? Do you want all 270 million people to come up with policies and fax them to another country? No, it is easier to elect a leader who is a representative of a country and speaks for the country. That's one job of the President.

[TragicMonkey]

Who said it was appropriate? I never said it should be on there. I just said that we shouldn't spend extra money to take it off.
I said it doesn't matter what the motto is, because mottos are completely meaningless.

Its presence costs money as well. If it's inappropriate it should be removed. If it's meaningless, why the fuss?


Dude, the President is the chief representative of the American people, and when he makes a foreign policy speech or talks to a foreign head of state, he is representing the United States, whether you like it or not. When he says 'we', that means Americans, but not every single American, just the majority. You said that the American people speak for themselves, but think about this. How are you going to interact with other countries? Do you want all 270 million people to come up with policies and fax them to another country? No, it is easier to elect a leader who is a representative of a country and speaks for the country. That's one job of the President.

Sigh. What is the purpose and nature of a motto, as opposed to a statement made by an official at one point in time?

[clk]

Its presence costs money as well.


How?


If it's meaningless, why the fuss?


That's what I am wondering.


Sigh. What is the purpose and nature of a motto, as opposed to a statement made by an official at one point in time?

Mottos don't really have a purpose. They are just there for formality. Many countries don't even have mottos, and that shows how meaningless they are. They are completely unnecessary.
An offical statement by the President serves the purpose of representing the American people.

[TragicMonkey]

How?

Does embossing words in metal plates for printing require more work than not embossing words in metal? Does printing words in ink cost more than not printing anything at all?

That's what I am wondering.

I'm wondering why you struggle to preserve something you consider meaningless, I mean. I don't find it meaningless, and I want it removed.



Mottos don't really have a purpose. They are just there for formality. Many countries don't even have mottos, and that shows how meaningless they are. They are completely unnecessary.

Then they should be removed.

But you're wrong. Mottos are meant to represent the whole, to present a definitive official statement.

An offical statement by the President serves the purpose of representing the American people.

Not in the same way that a motto does.

[RandFan]

But that's not the case any more. The majority of the population may believe in God, but that's not the same thing as the United States believing in God. We don't think of the nation the same way that the past generations of Americans did. We don't expect most everybody to be the same, we don't expect that the majority will get whatever it wants, we make allowances for minority viewpoints and we accomodate them by not insisting that whatever 51% of the population wants is what the nation itself wants. The concept of statehood has changed over time. Modern people expect both more and less from their nation; we no longer define our nation as a collection of shared cultural values, and we no longer define "American" as buying into whatever those cultural values are. America isn't God, Mom, and Apple Pie, and Americans aren't people who believe in God, Mom, and Apple Pie. America is now Whatever You Believe, Whoever You Love, and Whatever You Prefer To Eat, which makes Atheist, Grandpa, and Tacos just as American as Jewish, Aunt Betty, and Pizza, and Baptist, Mom, and Guacamole. I have no disagreement.

[clk]

Does embossing words in metal plates for printing require more work than not embossing words in metal? Does printing words in ink cost more than not printing anything at all?


If you are mass producing money in the manner that the US Mint does, I think the cost is negligible.


I'm wondering why you struggle to preserve something you consider meaningless, I mean. I don't find it meaningless, and I want it removed.


I'm not struggling to preserve it, I don't care whether it is removed or not. Since it is meaningless, it doesn't matter what it says. It would not make the slightest bit of difference to me if the motto were "Chuck Norris kicks ass" (inspired by this: http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=48451) instead of "In god we trust".



Then they should be removed.


If it is cheaper to remove it in the long run, then yes. But in reality, I think the government would just replace the current motto with something else, and it would end up costing more money.


But you're wrong. Mottos are meant to represent the whole, to present a definitive official statement.


No, they are not, and they are as important as the national animal or the national flower. They don't mean anything. They are merely a formality, put on money to make it look nicer.
Many countries don't even have mottos, which show you just how important they are.



Not in the same way that a motto does.

Yes, you're right. What the President says is about 100 times more important than the motto. If the motto were to say "Chuck Norris kicks ass" instead, nothing at all would change. Nothing would be better, and nothing would be worse. The US would pretty much be the same as before. When the President makes a speech however, it usually has far reaching consequences.

[TragicMonkey]

If you are mass producing money in the manner that the US Mint does, I think the cost is negligible.

So you're willing to spend money to print something you regard as utterly meaningless on the money.


I'm not struggling to preserve it, I don't care whether it is removed or not.

Then why argue against removing it?

Since it is meaningless, it doesn't matter what it says.

Then it could instead be a scurrilous reference to your mother, and you wouldn't object.


If it is cheaper to remove it in the long run, then yes. But in reality, I think the government would just replace the current motto with something else, and it would end up costing more money.

Your power to predict the future is amazing. Perhaps replacing a motto that offends some with one that offends none is worth it?


No, they are not, and they are as important as the national animal or the national flower. They don't mean anything. They are merely a formality, put on money to make it look nicer.

I cannot possibly answer this, except to say that this is your opinion and it is not shared by me, or the people who put the motto on the currency in the first place. Just as a deconstructionist can choose to find or not find any meaning in a written text, so you may continue to insist that there is no meaning in any given statement. This does not, however, make you right.

Many countries don't even have mottos, which show you just how important they are.

Many countries do not have polio vaccinations, elections, or clean drinking water, which shows you just how important they are.

Yes, you're right. What the President says is about 100 times more important than the motto.

I'm not talking about importance, I'm talking about representation.

If the motto were to say "Chuck Norris kicks ass" instead, nothing at all would change.

Except that many of us would be unhappy that our currency lacks dignity, and conveys an actual lie.

Nothing would be better, and nothing would be worse. The US would pretty much be the same as before. When the President makes a speech however, it usually has far reaching consequences.

If you only wish to contemplate great matters, feel free. In the same manner, you can insist that brushing your hair or using deodorant doesn't matter on the grand scale of things. Perhaps it doesn't. Will you refuse to bother, since it's not important enough?

We're running in circles here. Plainly, you will never be persuaded because you simply don't care. Since you don't care one way or the other, why are you arguing against changing the motto? You're expending a great deal of time on a matter you profess to find insignificant.

[clk]

Then it could instead be a scurrilous reference to your mother, and you wouldn't object.


No, I wouldn't object. In fact, it could say "hey you. yeah, you. F*CK YOU", and I still wouldn't give a damn.



Your power to predict the future is amazing. Perhaps replacing a motto that offends some with one that offends none is worth it?


No matter what the motto is, I'm sure some people will manage to become offended by it.



Many countries do not have polio vaccinations, elections, or clean drinking water, which shows you just how important they are.


Please don't equate four words on a piece of paper to the polio vaccine. Any country can have a motto. It would take 5 minutes to create one. Some countries may want a polio vaccine, but they may not have the resources to acquire it.


I'm not talking about importance, I'm talking about representation.


Yes, and the President represents the American people.


Except that many of us would be unhappy that our currency lacks dignity, and conveys an actual lie.


It's not a lie. Chuck Norris kicks ass.



We're running in circles here. Plainly, you will never be persuaded because you simply don't care. Since you don't care one way or the other, why are you arguing against changing the motto? You're expending a great deal of time on a matter you profess to find insignificant.

My original point was that the whole motto issue is trivial compared to the ID issue, so if the atheists care so much about keeping religion out of federal places, they should focus on that instead.

[TragicMonkey]

No, I wouldn't object. In fact, it could say "hey you. yeah, you. F*CK YOU", and I still wouldn't give a damn.

That is your prerogative. It does not, however, mean that everyone else has to share your lack of feeling.

No matter what the motto is, I'm sure some people will manage to become offended by it.

I see. So let's not correct any offense, because another offense might occur. Better to suffer one irritation for certain than risk another.


Please don't equate four words on a piece of paper to the polio vaccine. Any country can have a motto. It would take 5 minutes to create one. Some countries may want a polio vaccine, but they may not have the resources to acquire it.

I'm not equating them, I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of "Well, Johnny doesn't have to go to violin lessons!" as an argument. Yes, some countries don't have mottos on their currency. This fact is irrelevant to a discussion over the propriety of our motto on our currency.

Yes, and the President represents the American people.

He or she does not represent the concept of America, though. No single person does, or can.


It's not a lie. Chuck Norris kicks ass.

Now you're being plainly delusional.

My original point was that the whole motto issue is trivial compared to the ID issue, so if the atheists care so much about keeping religion out of federal places, they should focus on that instead.

If the air conditioner in your car is busted, would you refuse to get it fixed because the transmission's out as well? Or would you take the car in to the shop and list both items as problems to be fixed? The existence of a greater outrage does not make a lesser outrage acceptable.

In this case, both problems are symptomatic of the same underlying issue, the intrusion of government into religion and religion into government. Which is how the heck we got onto this massive parenthetical debate to start with.

[clk]

If the air conditioner in your car is busted, would you refuse to get it fixed because the transmission's out as well? Or would you take the car in to the shop and list both items as problems to be fixed? The existence of a greater outrage does not make a lesser outrage acceptable.


I think the ID issue is more like the transmission being busted, while the "in god we trust" issue is more like having a speck of dirt on the car. If you want to present the motto issue as being a threat to the separation of church and state (which I disagree), a better analogy would be that the motto issue is like an ant, and the ID issue is like a tiger. The atheists are worried about not being bitten by the ant, but should be focusing on the tiger in the room.

[clk]

This reminds me of an article Maddox wrote once. I pretty much agree with the major points in the article.


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=pledge
What pisses me off about hippies like Newdow, is that they'll bitch and moan about semantics on currency and government documents, but you never hear them complain that they don't get to work on Christmas. Why? If his whole beef with the Pledge of Allegiance is that the phrase "under God" violates separation of church and state, then why isn't he making a fuss about our government observing Christmas? Christmas is a religious holiday, and since our government observes it, how is that separation of church and state? Why isn't he bitching about that? I'll tell you why. Because Christmas gives him paid vacation, and hippies like Newdow only bitch about "grand sweeping problems with society" as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.

[TragicMonkey]

The atheists are worried about not being bitten by the ant, but should be focusing on the tiger in the room.

I can only say that some atheists are focusing on both. The ant, however, seems much harder to deal with, possibly because so many people who get upset at tigers seem willing to tolerate ants.

[TragicMonkey]

This reminds me of an article Maddox wrote once. I pretty much agree with the major points in the article.

Yeah, nothing like calm and reasoned debate that doesn't descend to personal attacks.

[clk]

I can only say that some atheists are focusing on both. The ant, however, seems much harder to deal with, possibly because so many people who get upset at tigers seem willing to tolerate ants.

All I can say is that I think it is 1000000 times more important to stop lies from being printed in text books (ID) than it is for facts to be printed on currency.

[RandFan]

I can only say that some atheists are focusing on both. The ant, however, seems much harder to deal with, possibly because so many people who get upset at tigers seem willing to tolerate ants.Interesting. I'm still not convinced that from a political stand point that this fight is a good one. It plays into the hands of those who claim that atheists are targeting Christians and their way of life. Which is clearly BS. But hey, I wasn't elected head of the secret atheist society so it's not my decision to make. :)

[TragicMonkey]

Interesting. I'm still not convinced that from a political stand point that this fight is a good one. It plays into the hands of those who claim that atheists are targeting Christians and their way of life. Which is clearly BS. But hey, I wasn't elected head of the secret atheist society so it's not my decision to make. :)

In a civil rights struggle, you can't waste your energy worrying about what the oppressors might think.

[clk]

In a civil rights struggle, you can't waste your energy worrying about what the oppressors might think.

I resent the fact that you dislike Chuck Norris. Maybe you think Macgyver is better, but I think it's bullsh*t that he can hotwire a car using only a paperclip.

[TragicMonkey]

I resent the fact that you dislike Chuck Norris. Maybe you think Macgyver is better, but I think it's bullsh*t that he can hotwire a car using only a paperclip.

Don't say that in front of Patty and Selma!

[RandFan]

In a civil rights struggle, you can't waste your energy worrying about what the oppressors might think. Well I disagree. It depends on the seriousness of the oppression. Having money in my pocket with the word "God" on it just doesn't compare with separate drinking fountains based on race, the right to vote, get a loan, live where you want to or get a job and be paid a fair wage.

Still, if you feel oppressed then who the hell am I to belittle your feelings. I respect your right to speak out against what is wrong. I mean that with all sincerity. Please understand I don't find it serious and I wish it wasn't a focus because I do think the politics of the issue more important and I do think that it hurts more than it helps. But I will grant you that perhaps the struggle now against the oppression (is it really oppression?) will result in benefits for later generations.

[TragicMonkey]

Well I disagree. It depends on the seriousness of the oppression. Having money in my pocket with the word "God" on it just doesn't compare with separate drinking fountains based on race, the right to vote, get a loan, live where you want to or get a job and be paid a fair wage.

Still, if you feel oppressed then who the hell am I to belittle your feelings. I respect your right to speak out against what is wrong. I mean that with all sincerity. Please understand I don't find it serious and I wish it wasn't a focus because I do think the politics of the issue more important and I do think that it hurts more than it helps. But I will grant you that perhaps the struggle now against the oppression (is it really oppression?) will result in benefits for later generations.

I was referring to the influence of religion in government in general, not just the coinage.

[RandFan]

I was referring to the influence of religion in government in general, not just the coinage. The posts directly preceding my response were concerning mottos and coinage. I'm sorry I misunderstood. I'm not sure where I took a wrong turn.

[Euromutt]

No matter what the motto is, I'm sure some people will manage to become offended by it."E pluribus unum"? The actual motto of the United States? If you can think of a way how anyone is supposed to be offended by "E pluribus unum" (except tossers who can't be arsed to find out what it means) I would love to hear it.

[clk]

"E pluribus unum"? The actual motto of the United States? If you can think of a way how anyone is supposed to be offended by "E pluribus unum" (except tossers who can't be arsed to find out what it means) I would love to hear it.

Since the motto is in Latin, maybe the Greek people living in the US would feel that the motto was excluding them and making them feel unwelcome (you laugh, but the same thing happened with "in god we trust").

[TragicMonkey]

Since the motto is in Latin, maybe the Greek people living in the US would feel that the motto was excluding them and making them feel unwelcome (you laugh, but the same thing happened with "in god we trust").

It's pointless to continue, as you simply refuse to understand that a secular government supposedly dedicated to the separation of church and state has no place putting a religious invocation on the currency. You're not offended, therefore you can't accept that anyone else might be, and therefore all opposing viewpoints are invalid.

[delphi_ote]

I suppose if 98% of the country admitted enjoying oral sex, we should make mention of the fact on the coinage? Currency is no place for demographic factoids.

There is no relationship between currency and religion. The statement was added there specifically to make the country look more religious, specifically Christian.

Let's go one better. Only 12-13 percent of the country is black. Let's strike some coins that say "One nation, indivisible, in white brotherhood" or "In white men we trust" and see how that goes over. So what if a few people get offended? They're in the minority, and we're just acknowledging our country's heritage and history!