Considering the motto’s placement on every piece of US currency, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with putting it on a building.
The argument very easily can be taken along with the “BCE” and “CE” so-called ‘pollitcally correct’ nonsense that has unfortunately taken hold of too many an institution.
If we’re going to use 'C’s at all, I opt for “A.C.” and, appropriately, “P. C.” : ante Christum et post Christum. Real or not, the man’s birth marks a pivotal moment in history, and the very idea of that person has shaped in every way our modern society. To deny that is the same hateful, willed ignorance that rejects the classics.
Salue Ioannes,
Your suggestion that “God” was first mentioned in government in 1865 skips over an incredible number of historical events, most notably the Declaration of Independence, whose words contain six invocations of the Lord, if memory serves.
The point of “In God We Trust” is to clarify the fact that we do not trust in a “King” or any other oligarchy or dominating religious leadership, such as in England. Moreover, the notion of “God” that we find throughout our government’s first documents refers not to a religious, but to a philosophical Lord, a Deist personification of wisdom and truth and justice. These guiding principles are nominally what all people belive in, and are meant as the same guiding principles for our nation.
And nothing more.
Salue, Rhuiden; diutissime inter nos non locuti sumus!
Your point is most essential: the apparent provision of the separation of Church and State is not Federal law. It is not in the Constitution. Maybe it should be, but until its legislation, I find it ludicrious and offensively abhistorical to invoke it. In particular the BBC’s frequent “reports” on such things in Washington are disgustingly absurd, beyond humorous, when I read something to the nature of, ‘the United States Constitution establishes the separation of Church and State.’ Obviously they never read it. Not that it would take them long.
Iterum tibi saluere iubeo, Ioannes,
The notion that there is a “political agenda whose goal is to establish one particular kind fo Christianity as the official state religion” smacks of absurdest conspiracy. If there should be such a movement, it ought to be stopped. But considering the incredible variety of religions and religious philosophies hailed by our many and diverse members of Congress alone, there is clearly nothing to worry about. Good luck getting a Catholic and an Evangelical to agree on the nature of this supposed “state religion.” Never happen.
To answer your question, Jon, the reason why people use “In God We Trust” with any frequency likely will be manifold: It could be to uphold the principle that we are not only without a King, or Platonic “philsopher kings” as in Communism, and proud of this democratic freedom, maintaing moreover that we are all mortal and fallible, and only divine Reason is where we should place our faith. It could also be to emphasize a certain pride in one’s religious freedom.
Iterum salue, Rhuiden,
Christians aren’t the only ones subjected to politcally correct discrimination. Here’s a report from the Washington Times illustrating that a black man with “white” ideals can be insulted in the worst of manners:
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. . . .
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with “pointing out the obvious.”
“There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names,” said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
“Party trumps race, especially on the national level,” she said. “If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It’s democracy, perhaps at its worse [sic], but it is democracy.”
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
“Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community,” she said. “His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people.”
I happen to be a moderate political pursuasion, and prefer independence to being placed arbitrarily in any party. Nevertheless, I certainly feel great sympathy and outrage for Mr. Steele. A certain blogger noted that this is equivalent to a racist white politian in the pre-civil-rights South calling a white liberal a “n----- lover,” and demonstrates a terrible contempt and hipocrasy.
Salue, E. Donnelly. I think your examples are well to be noted. I believe the poll means to convey “yes, it’s okay.”
I have to say, one of the more puzzling trends in contemporary American society is this mad rush to embrace victimhood. One can hardly walk a block without encountering someone who claims the whole of society is against him.
Well put, Will. Though it’s hardly an American phenomenon. It’s especially popular in Europe, and even more in the Middle East.
Words I’m sure all of you will recognize:
“Help! help! I’m being oppressed!”
Your citations from state constitutions are also noteworthy. Such is the nature of our Federalist system: States are free to establish whatever religious tests they want under the Constitution.
Iterum plurimam salutem, Rhuiden.
Though there is much truth in many of your final examples, I must actively voice my opposition to Creationism and Intelligent Design as scientifically acceptable theories. Not only is it falacious to insist upon scientific grounds that the universe is created by a being that was not created Himself, the logic which upholds them scientifically is inherently circular: God is not scientifically testable. If it cannot be scientifically tested, it is to be discarded or put on the side until it can be.
It think Creationism and Intelligent Design should be mentioned and even discussed among young minds, allow the freedom of information and discourse to allow their own opinions to form independently; but for Biology class to be uprooted and disturbed by a nonsensical mantra that does not have to do with the material of the course renders a counter-productive situation.
I happen to think most of Stephen Hawking’s “theories” are bogus too, as Creationists think Evolution is bogus. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taught.
However, you should probably start another thread on the topic before we hijack this one with such a discussion.
Near as I figure, we all being sane and reasonable people, we essentially agree on a unanimous principle: Religious Freedom for All. That being the case, it appears our differences are merely those of political interpretation in reference to modern events: are religious fanatics trying to establish a state religion? The answer, however, is a very clear “no.” Even if Christianty were ten times more popular in our country than it is right now, for instance, the different sects would never agree with each other on anything. And moreover, a very significant increasing population of religious people in the country are Muslims, mostly immigrants. They, like others, come here to worship freely. And you can bet they certainly wouldn’t agree to any Evangelical US nonsense, just as none of us.
That aside, the other debate pertains to the writing of “In God We Trust” on public buildings. Ultimately, as with other matters, I believe the best way to resolve this is through legislation. It shouldn’t be about “law” or “principle” or “what the founding fathers wrote” or “thought.” If there is a conflict in need of resolution, let it be through our elected representatives; or better still, through national or state-wide referendums.
It seems I have a lot of catching up to do with my readings of the other posts, so I’ll cut this here.
