$ The Atheist Dollar Bill $

[Revoltingest]

"In God we trust" is a religiously neutral oath.

It has as much religious significance as saying "God bless you" after someone sneezes, which most people can easily tolerate. Any aditional significance added to the phrase - by Chrisitan or atheist - is imported.

It's religiously neutral for people who believe in God.
For the rest of us though, it makes a statement which excludes us.
Rather than "neutral", you should argue that it's "de minimis".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's religiously neutral for people who believe in God.
For the rest of us though, it makes a statement which excludes us.
Rather than "neutral", you should argue that it's "de minimis".

I would if it meant anything to me.

I just think that atheists and religious people are making too much of an inherently meaningless word, at least in the horribly mangled context that both groups typically take it. It's the "trust" that counts, not "God."

 

[Revoltingest]

I would if it meant anything to me.

I just think that atheists and religious people are making too much of an inherently meaningless word, at least in the horribly mangled context that both groups typically take it. It's the "trust" that counts, not "God."

The fighting is most vicious when the stakes are so low.
So I plan to stay all worked up about a silly religious oath on money.
(It keeps my mind of the upcoming elections.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"In God we trust" is a religiously neutral oath.

No, it's not. At the very minimum it implies monotheism, as well as the idea that it's right to address this monotheistic god as "God", which is something that not all monotheistic religions agree upon.

It has as much religious significance as saying "God bless you" after someone sneezes, which most people can easily tolerate. Any aditional significance added to the phrase - by Chrisitan or atheist - is imported.

When someone says "God bless you" when you sneeze, this isn't a statement made in an official capacity as a representative of the government.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When someone says "God bless you" when you sneeze, this isn't a statement made in an official capacity as a representative of the government.

Well, maybe it should be. Then sneezes could be taxed and regulated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, maybe it should be. Then sneezes could be taxed and regulated.

If I say anything when someone sneezes, it's "Gesundheit"... although I say it less often since I found out what it actually means.

Trivia time: I knew the word meant "health" in German, and I always assumed it was a wish of health on the sneezer. However, it actually started as a wish on onesself to ward off the disease... IOW, the sentiment isn't so much "I hope you get better", it's "I hope I don't get what you've got."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, it's not. At the very minimum it implies monotheism, as well as the idea that it's right to address this monotheistic god as "God", which is something that not all monotheistic religions agree upon.

When someone says "God bless you" when you sneeze, this isn't a statement made in an official capacity as a representative of the government.

"In God we trust" in no way requires monotheism, or even theism in general in the sense of a personal God. "God" is a word that in itself embodies no theological creed or significance whatsoever. It's simply a logical mistake to assign meaning to "God" that simply is not in the phrase.

Note:

In God We Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the motto. The minority opinion acknowledged that it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". So-called acts of "ceremonial deism" have supposedly lost their "history, character, and context".[10]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If I say anything when someone sneezes, it's "Gesundheit"... although I say it less often since I found out what it actually means.

Trivia time: I knew the word meant "health" in German, and I always assumed it was a wish of health on the sneezer. However, it actually started as a wish on onesself to ward off the disease... IOW, the sentiment isn't so much "I hope you get better", it's "I hope I don't get what you've got."

I say "Go **** yourself"

 

[Revoltingest]

I say "Go **** yourself"

Now there's a truly religiously neutral statement.
I'd be OK with that on my Benjamins.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now there's a truly religiously neutral statement.
I'd be OK with that on my Benjamins.

haha - I care more about having money than the "religious" statement that it carries.

 

[Revoltingest]

You betcha!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You betcha!

haha - I don't have to look at the money to appreciate it's value. Having "God" on it doesn't effect the price of beer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"In God we trust" in no way requires monotheism, or even theism in general in the sense of a personal God. "God" is a word that in itself embodies no theological creed or significance whatsoever. It's simply a logical mistake to assign meaning to "God" that simply is not in the phrase.

Note:

In God We Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the motto. The minority opinion acknowledged that it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". So-called acts of "ceremonial deism" have supposedly lost their "history, character, and context".[10]

So your position is that "ceremonial deism" does not conflict with anyone's religious beliefs?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So your position is that "ceremonial deism" does not conflict with anyone's religious beliefs?

I think you've misunderstood the usage of the term in the sentence.

The point is that ceremonial deism has no context now. What *may* have once been religious is now not. IF "ceremonial deism" conflicts with one's religious views, they are taking an inherently non-religious term and giving it new religious meaning in light of their own views (which is what you have done above).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you've misunderstood the usage of the term in the sentence.

The point is that ceremonial deism has no context now. What *may* have once been religious is now not. IF "ceremonial deism" conflicts with one's religious views, they are taking an inherently non-religious term and giving it new religious meaning in light of their own views (which is what you have done above).

Oh... so... the phrase has been stripped of meaning and context, and therefore is no longer religious?

Why have it on the money at all, then? What would be the motivation of Congress to make a meaningless phrase the national motto?

It seems like your explanation conflicts with the facts. On the one hand, you seem to be claiming that the motto is meaningless and unimportant. On the other hand, the fact that it's prominently featured on the country's currency and has been proclaimed the national motto implies that it has special meaning and importance.

 

[Quagmire]

People are going to worship money no matter what's written on it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

People are going to worship money no matter what's written on it.

True that

Furballs for you!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh... so... the phrase has been stripped of meaning and context, and therefore is no longer religious?

Why have it on the money at all, then? What would be the motivation of Congress to make a meaningless phrase the national motto?

It seems like your explanation conflicts with the facts. On the one hand, you seem to be claiming that the motto is meaningless and unimportant. On the other hand, the fact that it's prominently featured on the country's currency and has been proclaimed the national motto implies that it has special meaning and importance.

Actually, my explanation is in perfect, flawless harmony with the facts.

Most of the stuff on the back of a dollar bill is completely meaningless to most people. The pyramid had religious significance when it was built, but who contemplates that? It definately has no religious siginificance now, and did not have any when it was put on the dollar.

Same thing with the phrase "In God we Trust" - as I said before, "God" is not the significant part of the phrase, it is "Trust." It could be "Peanut Butter" and the phrase would have more meaning for people.

Why is it not removed? I suggest a few reasons: legislative laziness (the phrase is meaningless, so why go through the effort to remove it?), the political threat of Christian evangelical nutcases (who, as we know, can be mobilized over stupid things), and tradition.

So the primary reason it's still on the dollar is that it's removal is not a significant enough issue for legislators --- and the Supreme Court has yet to find a legal reason to do so, again because it's an insignificant issue.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Actually, my explanation is in perfect, flawless harmony with the facts.

Most of the stuff on the back of a dollar bill is completely meaningless to most people. The pyramid had religious significance when it was built, but who contemplates that? It definately has no religious siginificance now, and did not have any when it was put on the dollar.

Same thing with the phrase "In God we Trust" - as I said before, "God" is not the significant part of the phrase, it is "Trust." It could be "Peanut Butter" and the phrase would have more meaning for people.

Why is it not removed? I suggest a few reasons: legislative laziness (the phrase is meaningless, so why go through the effort to remove it?), the political threat of Christian evangelical nutcases (who, as we know, can be mobilized over stupid things), and tradition.

So the primary reason it's still on the dollar is that it's removal is not a significant enough issue for legislators --- and the Supreme Court has yet to find a legal reason to do so, again because it's an insignificant issue.

If it were completely meaningless, this discussion would not be happening, nor would Christian groups use it as proof of the US being a Christian nation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If it were completely meaningless, this discussion would not be happening, nor would Christian groups use it as proof of the US being a Christian nation.

That's illogical.

Do you think that we never discuss meaningless things -- or assign meaning to things that is artifical and irrational?

Isn't there a thread now about spiders as big as cats? And another about LOL cats?