"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Michael Newdow, the same activist attorney who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his case, arguing Congress' mandate to inscribe "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.I think he's right. Also E pluribus unum is a better motto in literally every way. Still, this is silly. It's a trivial issue. If insecure Christians need for our currency to affirm their wavering faith then we really ought to be the bigger people and let it go.
Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money.This is stupid. Atheism is not a religion. Rejection of the claim that gods exist is not a religious belief. I'm embarrassed. This must be what it felt like for Christians watching those Intelligent Design bozos in court pretending that they weren't sure who created life on Earth.
If the atheist view is that it's not a religious belief - really, then others having beliefs that are expressed politically - even on our money - why does this guy (Michael Newdow) care so much to remove it? I see a lot of symbols and things I don't like, but people have a right to put them wherever. For a lot of people, it's just a tradition. But they don't like to see atheist going after everything that they see as a religious symbol. Again, why do they care so much? Is it threatening to THEM?There's no such thing as "the atheist view." Newdow is speaking for himself, and in my opinion he's making a hash of it. The claim that the lack of belief in gods is a religious position is dishonest. He doesn't believe that. He's being disingenuous in order to make the argument that he's an aggrieved party and therefore has standing to file suit. That's why I compared him to the ID crowd. They went to court, all wide eyed innocence, and pretended not to be garden variety creationists. The courts saw through the ruse in both instances. I imagine that rational, modern Christians were cringing back then, just like I am now.
I think he's right. Also E pluribus unum is a better motto in literally every way. Still, this is silly. It's a trivial issue. If insecure Christians need for our currency to affirm their wavering faith then we really ought to be the bigger people and let it go.Who is this "one" you refer to?
Back in the beginning the many was the thirteen colonies and the one was the United States. Over time the motto came to also refer to the immigrants from many lands and cultures becoming one people. That's still what it means.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:52 amI think he's right. Also E pluribus unum is a better motto in literally every way. Still, this is silly. It's a trivial issue. If insecure Christians need for our currency to affirm their wavering faith then we really ought to be the bigger people and let it go.Who is this "one" you refer to?
And is this your opinion?edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:01 amBack in the beginning the many was the thirteen colonies and the one was the United States. Over time the motto came to also refer to the immigrants from many lands and cultures becoming one people. That's still what it means.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:52 amI think he's right. Also E pluribus unum is a better motto in literally every way. Still, this is silly. It's a trivial issue. If insecure Christians need for our currency to affirm their wavering faith then we really ought to be the bigger people and let it go.Who is this "one" you refer to?
There are some today who claim that "e pluribus unum" no longer applies because recent immigrants have failed to assimilate. Those people are ignoring the facts.
Historically the pattern has always been the same. The first generation huddles together in Little Italy, Little Warsaw, Chinatown, and so forth. The second generation is caught between two worlds. They speak their parents' language at home and English in public. The third generation is fully assimilated into American culture. The kids speak a smattering of their grandparents' tongue, but they speak English at home and in public. They generally retain some of their grandparents' old country cultural traditions - lutefisk and lefse are still big holiday foods in Minnesota, Italian-Americans still tend to be Catholic, Greek-Americans still celebrate Greek Easter, Chinese-Americans still celebrate the Chinese New Year, etc - but they're all unquestionably American.
Today you can watch that pattern playing out in real time with Hmong, Somali, and Mexican immigrants, and with Muslim immigrants from all over the world. It's not always an easy transition, in part because some people assimilate more smoothly that others and in part because Americans can be much more accepting of some people than others, but it's happening and it will continue to happen. E pluribus unum.
So, shared currency is no place for religious propaganda BUT it is a place for social propaganda?edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:29 am Huh? The words you're writing make no sense.
I said that what I wrote was mostly facts, plus some opinion. I'm not offering up my post as a potential national motto. I'm saying that the old motto - the one adopted by the founding fathers in 1776 to promote national unity - is the better of the two. Our shared currency is no place for religious propaganda. Secular propaganda is a much better choice for that spot, especially if it's positive, aspirational propaganda.