In God We Trust

August 3, 2004 3:56 PM

In God We Trust.
posted by hama7 (37 comments total)

Acknowledgement of God in every State Constitution:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Lousiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Also: Canada and Australia.
posted by hama7 at 3:57 PM on August 3, 2004

hama7, I believe in God and I fancy myself a patriot, and you know what? I sincerely doubt the motives of this post.
posted by jonmc at 3:59 PM on August 3, 2004

I sincerely doubt the motives of this post.

You read it in less than two minutes?
posted by hama7 at 4:03 PM on August 3, 2004

Interesting that my current state of residence, (Washington), doesn't actually contain the word "god" anywhere in it., Woohoo!

And just because EVERYONE thinks the world is flat, doesn't make it so. Nor does it make it any less ridiculous a concept.

But hey, PREACH ON BROTHER!
posted by Windopaene at 4:04 PM on August 3, 2004

See also: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

I was going to point out the separation of church and state in the Constitution, but it doesn't actually appear, here's an explanation of that.
posted by mathowie at 4:05 PM on August 3, 2004

American Family Association has launched a national campaign to place before our children a copy of the official motto of the United States. It is our hope that this poster will be a reminder of the historical centrality of God in the life of our republic.

I think every classroom in America should have a slaughtered Indian in it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:08 PM on August 3, 2004

Considering Utah's says "There shall be no union of church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions", I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:08 PM on August 3, 2004

you may come to school hungry but in god we trust ... there may be rats in your house but in god we trust ... we may pull our kids outside of the city limits or into a private academy but in god we trust ... you may get shot on your way home but in god we trust ... we may treat you like you're hopeless and uneducatable but in god we trust ... you may graduate not knowing how to read or write but in god we trust

but tell me ... does god trust us?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:09 PM on August 3, 2004

crash: does Utah have anything about the union of church and state and state and state's sister, though?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:10 PM on August 3, 2004

Um, okay, what's the point?

That there is no real seperation of Church and State? That we're all one happy homogenous religious blob?

I recognize that a fair amount of work went into making all those links but to what purpose?
posted by fenriq at 4:10 PM on August 3, 2004

Matt,
Separation doesn't appear because it was an argument that was lost by Thomas Jefferson.

One needs to look no further in this discussion then the First Congress. Those same people who drafted, debated and ratified our Constitution opened work every day with a prayer. One would suspect that if the Constitution was intended to be a complete sanitization of religion from government, then those same people would not have began governmental business with a prayer.

That said, this post somewhat saddens me because the only thing that will result from this thread is some blatant anti-theism.
posted by Seth at 4:11 PM on August 3, 2004

in mr. sparkle we trust.
posted by quonsar at 4:11 PM on August 3, 2004

All others pay cash.
posted by xowie at 4:16 PM on August 3, 2004

Oh yes, Seth, if someone thinks the AFA is full of shit, we're "antitheist", because being anti things is bad.

Tell me Seth, where do we atheists fit into this equation? I don't trust in God. I don't think it exists. Further, I think that even if it did, the anthropomorphization of this hypothetical entity is ridiculous. So where do I stand in a country that trusts in god, that takes as a central tenet of its existence that it is favored by god?

"antitheist," whatever. Cry me a river.
posted by kavasa at 4:18 PM on August 3, 2004

That said, this post somewhat saddens me because the only thing that will result from this thread is some blatant anti-theism.

Seth, I predict the same thing but that's only because of hama7's consistent misrepresentation of both religious belief and patriotism.

Perhaps he a commie double agent.

Seriously, hama, quit trying to widen chasms that shouldn't exist in the first place.
posted by jonmc at 4:21 PM on August 3, 2004

Antitheist.
posted by homunculus at 4:23 PM on August 3, 2004

Another irrelevant religious guideline from long ago that's failed to keep up with the times...

"10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

I covet Hama7's ass.
posted by Jaybo at 4:24 PM on August 3, 2004

Now seth's going to have to go antiantitheist on you, kavasa. When will the madness end?

I liked hama7 a lot better when he kept his politics to other people's threads, and posted nifty little best of the web's on the front page.

This campaign here is just as much a pointless polarizing effort as that guy who tried to get the "under god" removed from the pledge. Maybe we can devote our efforts to things that actually make a difference in people's lives?
posted by malphigian at 4:24 PM on August 3, 2004

kavasa,
I am not commenting on atheism. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. But you would have to ignore reality to say that religious discussion here do not ultimately break down into anti-theism with people tripping over themselves to point out how theistic people (usually, Christians) are nothing but mouth-breathers and dopes. That is why it such a crummy topic. Hama made a creative use of internet resources, but the topic was intended to grind an axe. People will respond in a combative way, and in the end game, people will insult the beliefs of others. That is what always happens here.

jonmc,
I agree that this topic shouldn't be forced into discussion. It will do no good, and only serve to divide the community. That is why I mentioned it saddened me. Whatever happened to the old adage that politics and religion are not good topic to be discussed? All they do is cause angry fights with one part insulting the other part.
posted by Seth at 4:27 PM on August 3, 2004

The original national motto was, of course, "E pluribus unum."

US national mottos: Their history and constitutionality

E pluribus unum
In God We Trust
posted by Silune at 4:27 PM on August 3, 2004

American Family Association has launched a national campaign to place before our children a copy of the official motto of the United States. It is our hope that this poster will be a reminder of the historical centrality of God in the life of our republic.

I'm all for it. Last time I checked, the official motto was E Pluribus Unum. I can get behind that.

For it's use in the appropriate context, see Obama's "Audacity of Hope" speech.
posted by donovan at 4:29 PM on August 3, 2004

Homunculus,
How interesting that you would cite Hitchens here. After his contrarian view on Iraq, I thought he was persona non grata? Or do you choose to use him when he supports only what you say?
posted by Seth at 4:29 PM on August 3, 2004

"10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

I covet Hama7's ass.

Anybody got a picture of his manservant? I think I might covet that.
posted by stonerose at 4:30 PM on August 3, 2004

In God We Trust, Inc.
posted by Ufez Jones at 4:32 PM on August 3, 2004

Whatever happened to the old adage that politics and religion are not good topic to be discussed?

I stand by what I wrote here.

How interesting that you would cite Hitchens here. After his contrarian view on Iraq, I thought he was persona non grata? Or do you choose to use him when he supports only what you say?

Not to speak for Homunculus, but you know, sometimes people are right about some things and wrong about others. It's possible.
posted by nath at 4:33 PM on August 3, 2004

Whatever happened to the old adage that politics and religion are not good topic to be discussed? All they do is cause angry fights with one part insulting the other part.

Well, politics is at least partially based in concrete, materialistic, worldly concerns, meaning that rational people can discuss (and disagree) about it sanely. Religion is not rational or fact based, which to some is it's strength and to others it's downfall.

But I sincerely doubt that hama's hope for this post was to rally anyone's faith in either God or country, which leaves me with only one motivation which is antithetical to both.
posted by jonmc at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2004

How interesting that you would cite Hitchens here. After his contrarian view on Iraq, I thought he was persona non grata? Or do you choose to use him when he supports only what you say?

It's almost as if you can actually agree with some of the things people say even when you disagree with others. Grown-ups are strange people!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:40 PM on August 3, 2004

"The Mississippi legislature recently passed a law requiring each public school classroom, auditorium and cafeteria to display a copy of our national motto."

Once again, the cutting edge state of Mississippi* takes a bold stand in the culture wars that the other states will be obliged to follow.

*I have family there; i'm not being a hater
posted by 2sheets at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2004

Gott Mit Uns

____

Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary
Theist

The theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being as good as He is powerful, who has formed all beings with extension, vegetating, sentient and reflecting; who perpetuates their species, who punishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with kindness.
The theist does not know how God punishes, how he protects, how he pardons, for he is not reckless enough to flatter himself that he knows how God acts, but he knows that God acts and that He is just. Difficulties against Providence do not shake him in his faith, because they are merely great difficulties, and not proofs. He submits to this Providence, although he perceives but a few effects and a few signs of this Providence: and, judging of the things he does not see by the things he sees, he considers that this Providence reaches all places and all centuries.
Reconciled in this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not embrace any of the sects, all of which contradict each other; his religion is the most ancient and the most widespread; for the simple worship of a God has preceded all the systems of the world. He speaks a language that all peoples understand, while they do not understand one another. He has brothers from Pekin to Cayenne, and he counts all wise men as his brethren. He believes that religion does not consist either in the opinions of an unintelligible metaphysic, or in vain display, but in worship and justice. The doing of good, there is his service; being submissive to God, there is his doctrine. The Mahometan cries to him--" Have a care if you do not make the pilgrimage to Mecca !" " Woe unto you," says a Recollet, " if you do not make a journey to Notre-Dame de Lorette! "He laughs at Lorette and at Mecca; but he succours the needy and defends the oppressed.

____

Gore Vidal on monotheism:

In the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Founders made it clear that this was not to be a sky-god nation with a national religion like that of England, from whom we had just separated. ... This separation was absolute in our original Republic. But the sky-godders do not give up easily. In the 1950s they actually got the phrase "In God We Trust" onto the currency, in direct violation of the First Amendment.[2]
...
The original gentlemen's agreement between Church and State was that We the People (the State) will in no way help or hinder any religion while, absently, observing that as religion is a good thing, the little church on Elm Street won't have to pay a property tax. No one envisaged that the most valuable real estate at the heart of most of our old cities would be tax exempt, as churches and temples and orgone boxes increased their holdings and portfolios. The quo for this huge quid was that religion would stay out of politics and not impose its superstitions on Us the People. The agreement broke down years ago. The scandalous career of the Reverend Presidential Candidate Pat Robertson is a paradigm.[3]

____
how theistic people (usually, Christians) are nothing but mouth-breathers and dopes


another tiresome straw men, as usual. "mouth-breathers"?
bah.
anyway, I'm impressed by the great admiration that wingnuts have for religious people. Say, for Muslims, these days -- right? I can feel the tolerance...
posted by matteo at 4:42 PM on August 3, 2004

Seth, I still like Hitchens and enjoy his columns, even though I disagree with him on Iraq. I also disagree with his stance on religion, which I find too severe. But I always think of him when someone brings up "antitheism."
posted by homunculus at 4:43 PM on August 3, 2004

***   **  **   **** *** **
 *   *  **  *  *    * * * *
 *    *    *   * ** * * *  *
 *     *  *    *  * * * * *
***     **     **** *** **

posted by gwint at 4:44 PM on August 3, 2004

Deism.
posted by keswick at 4:45 PM on August 3, 2004

anyway, I'm impressed by the great admiration that wingnuts have for religious people. Say, for Muslims, these days -- right? I can feel the tolerance...

hey, matteo, as a card carrying wingnut I object to being lumped in with the muslim-haters, yo.
posted by jonmc at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2004

homunculus,
Fair enough. I appreciate your explanation. I just found it a bit curious. Personally, I always thought he was alright and looked forward to his articles in the Nation. But when we quit, everyone when scorched earth on him and mentioned how he was a drunk off his rocker. But I think I agree with you on both fronts regarding him.
posted by Seth at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2004

matteo,
I read Vidal before on the topic, but I ask you how to reconcile Vidal's view of constitutional theory when, in fact, the Framers (considered the authority on textual interpretation questions) behaved differently. History is replete with evidence that the original framer's did not view a wall between church and state. In fact, if I recall correctly, either in the Federalist Papers or in Madison's Notes from the Convention, a proposal was rejected to add in language of separation. Couple that with the behavior of the First Congress, I never understood how a scholar like Vidal could come to the conclusion he did. It seems he let his personal views overcome his scholarly duty.
posted by Seth at 4:52 PM on August 3, 2004

Wow, hama7, you really are a troll.
posted by swift at 4:59 PM on August 3, 2004

i cant take any religion seriously that damns 67% of the world to an eternity of suffering, right off the bat. Its too bad about Ghandi -- the missionaries just couldnt get to him in time... his face is burning off in HELL right now.

you arent given your 'soul'... you gotta tend that garden.

ie, GROW A FUCKING SOUL.
posted by Satapher at 5:07 PM on August 3, 2004