The Energon Pub

Just wondering about people's thoughts on things like statements of "God" in the various sections of the United States' pledges and mottoes, including "In God We Trust" (which replaced a damned good motto at that). Is it right? Will they ever die? Controversies, etc.

What motto did "In God we trust" replace?

Decepticon Spike wrote:What motto did "In God we trust" replace?

"E Pluribus Unum" in 1955, after it had been in use for over 150 years since the country's founding in 1789. It was mostly due to the Communist scare of the Macarthy era and the move to separate the US from those "Godless Atheists" of the USSR.

Official religious references in secular democracies are kind of silly. Mostly they're just fluff, though. But still.

Secularism means different things in different places. For example, in Germany you pay your tithe to the church through your taxes! You mark your faith on the form and send the appropriate amount of money along, and if you're areligious, you mark yourself as such and don't send money. There's no state enforcement of religion going on, but there's an entanglement which we would find alarming. Yet we Americans are the ones with large Christian lobbies having a significant say in government policy and significant sway in the hearts of voters.

In no instance anywhere has secularism meant a complete disentanglement of state from religion. Due to the pervasiveness of religiously derived reasoning and symbols in people's lives, I'm not even convinced it can or should be done. The question is which kind of entanglements enable the greatest equality and freedom of worship. "In God We Trust" ties our currency specifically to a monotheistic tradition. I'd gladly get rid of it, but the political effort to do so would anger and mobilize the Christian Right enough to make the endeavor not worthwhile.

Actually, I think I may technically still be a member of the Swedish Church... You know the whole naming ceremony where you dunk the kid in water? I forget what it's called... Either way, when they do that they also sign you into the church. I think I was put through it because it was customary or because it was a fancy ceremony or something. I've been told that I was screaming my willy wee nadgers off while the other kids were perfectly quiet. I should probably sign out one of these days. I'm paying taxes for my funeral anyway so it makes no difference in that regard.

Now I don't actually remember where I was going... Heh.



I guess it's just one of those things that live on because the majority of people don't care about it or because it just looks nifty.

Menbailee wrote:Secularism means different things in different places. For example, in Germany you pay your tithe to the church through your taxes! You mark your faith on the form and send the appropriate amount of money along, and if you're areligious, you mark yourself as such and don't send money. There's no state enforcement of religion going on, but there's an entanglement which we would find alarming. Yet we Americans are the ones with large Christian lobbies having a significant say in government policy and significant sway in the hearts of voters.

In no instance anywhere has secularism meant a complete disentanglement of state from religion. Due to the pervasiveness of religiously derived reasoning and symbols in people's lives, I'm not even convinced it can or should be done. The question is which kind of entanglements enable the greatest equality and freedom of worship. "In God We Trust" ties our currency specifically to a monotheistic tradition. I'd gladly get rid of it, but the political effort to do so would anger and mobilize the Christian Right enough to make the endeavor not worthwhile.

How can any effort that angers the christian right, not be worthwhile?

How can any effort that angers the christian right, not be worthwhile?

Ha ha ha! I sympathize. But an angry Christian Right is a Christian Right that bites. It's just a matter of choosing battles wisely.

Doesnt make sense but i guess it keeps the religious types happy and well they vote to.

It's just like how 'One nation under God' Replaced 'One Nation, Indivisable' during the McCarthy era.

Because McCarthy was a prick.

Menbailee wrote:

How can any effort that angers the christian right, not be worthwhile?

Ha ha ha! I sympathize. But an angry Christian Right is a Christian Right that bites. It's just a matter of choosing battles wisely.

May I suggest a muzzle of some sort?

AfterImage wrote:It's just like how 'One nation under God' Replaced 'One Nation, Indivisable' during the McCarthy era.

Because McCarthy was a prick.

Personaly I don't care enough to fight for or against such things, but some of the people who do worry me.