$ The Atheist Dollar Bill $

[Gjallarhorn]

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?

If you pay attention to it, it has meaning to you. This discussion has been going for years, decades possibly. Obviously someone thinks this has meaning.

And honestly, if you don't think the word God warrants attention and has meaning to it, then I would question your designation as "Christian".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

But the term "trust" has no meaning unless it refers to something trustworthy. This has implications for the meaning of the word "God", the thing being trusted.

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.

I think we're talking about two different things: you're talking about removal, and I'm talking about its inception in the first place.

The law requiring the phrase on money was only passed in the 50s. At that point, the phrase was meaningful enough to be made the national motto. I don't think that sufficient time or cultural change has happened since then that what was meaningful then has lost its meaning now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you pay attention to it, it has meaning to you. This discussion has been going for years, decades possibly. Obviously someone thinks this has meaning.

And honestly, if you don't think the word God warrants attention and has meaning to it, then I would question your designation as "Christian".

And I would question your ability to think.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And I would question your ability to think.

As you should.

Not that your response was any sort of a rebuttal. All words have meaning, whether we devote a substantial amount of time to thinking about it or not. It's subconscious at best, but it does have an effect. You replace that single word with "Earth" or "Fairies" or "Time" or anything really, you will see an opinion form about it. If people don't care what's written on their money, then there would be no conflict. People care.

As for your statement that the keyword is "Trust", trust in what? God. It all comes back to that word.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The law requiring the phrase on money was only passed in the 50s. At that point, the phrase was meaningful enough to be made the national motto. I don't think that sufficient time or cultural change has happened since then that what was meaningful then has lost its meaning now.

Seriously?

It seems to me the motto was dead on arrival, at least theologically. It was just after WWII and at the beginning of the Cold War when people were still trying to reclaim the white Christian *male* American dream.

Since then, we've had civil rights, Vietnam, the hippie movement, femininism, GLBT rights, culture wars, and so on... and the white male centered Christianity has lost EVERY battle and will continue to lose until it is isolated in a few Southern towns. Everything that remains of it are empty, meaningless monuments to a now despised (if not forgotten) past.

Yet, the white "Chrisitan" male still dominates, but few and fewer people believe in him.

 

[Reverend Rick]

****MOD POST****

Thread moved to General Religious Debates​

 

[The Sum of Awe]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seriously?

Yes! People are still alive who were involved in the decision to legislate the motto in the first place. You could talk to them yourself. Your argument basically implies that their viewpoint has become irrelevant even before they've died.

It seems to me the motto was dead on arrival, at least theologically. It was just after WWII and at the beginning of the Cold War when people were still trying to reclaim the white Christian *male* American dream.

Since then, we've had civil rights, Vietnam, the hippie movement, femininism, GLBT rights, culture wars, and so on... and the white male centered Christianity has lost EVERY battle and will continue to lose until it is isolated in a few Southern towns. Everything that remains of it are empty, meaningless monuments to a now despised (if not forgotten) past.

Yet, the white "Chrisitan" male still dominates, but few and fewer people believe in him.

So... the motto was part of a campaign to perpetuate the idea that the United States should be Christian, and this campaign failed. That doesn't change the fact that this meaning is still inherent in the motto that was instituted as part of this campaign.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes! People are still alive who were involved in the decision to legislate the motto in the first place. You could talk to them yourself. Your argument basically implies that their viewpoint has become irrelevant even before they've died.


So... the motto was part of a campaign to perpetuate the idea that the United States should be Christian, and this campaign failed. That doesn't change the fact that this meaning is still inherent in the motto that was instituted as part of this campaign.

Sure it does. Our viewpoints are in constant shift. There are plenty of people who are still alive whose viewpoints have become irrelevant, and plenty more in history.

Opinions are not static.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So... the motto was part of a campaign to perpetuate the idea that the United States should be Christian, and this campaign failed. That doesn't change the fact that this meaning is still inherent in the motto that was instituted as part of this campaign.

Absolutely not. The motto says nothing of the sort, and it's illogical to assume anything more. Remember it first appeared on money long before it was codified - the motto was not created with Christianity in mind, but Christians can and have abused it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely not. The motto says nothing of the sort, and it's illogical to assume anything more. Remember it first appeared on money long before it was codified - the motto was not created with Christianity in mind, but Christians can and have abused it.

Xians might not have intended it to advance Xianity, but since they were the only faith in power, it would certainly be their god who was named as "God".

We should note that the motto was adopted by an act of Congress. If one sees this as "respecting establishment of religion", then it would run counter
to the First Amendment. It would appear to establish an undefined belief in a particular supreme being named "God", which could include many faiths,
eg, Jews, Xians, & perhaps even Muslims (if "God" is a translation of "Allah"). But diffuse as this worship of God is, it is entirely incompatible with beliefs
in no god, a plurality of gods, & non-Abrahamic religions. For the fed to support a group of faiths, strikes me as establishment, however de minimis its effect.

 

[KovertKitty]

Honestly, I look at a dollar bill so frequently that I really couldn't tell you where the "god" part is. All I really see, as probably do most people, the corner that says how much it's worth. And I've got more important things to worry about than what our money says. But considering that money is the true god of this nation the phrase really isn't that inaccurate.
But if you want to be one of the cool kids, scribble out God and replace it with Satan.

I w ish they had an emote for 'high five' so this will have to suffice
*highfives Shadow Wolf*

 

[KovertKitty]

I do believe the incoporation of the "In God We Trust" motto into currency was done in a time where America was (and still is as far as I can tell) predominantly Christian, but radically different in approach to worship/ritual... So what became an action rooted in strong belief, is now a continuance out of habit... Seemingly "Christian Supportive" currency is only taken as such by those who pay attention to such a minute detail.. One that holds no present value other than historical, and is only upheld because of the prior mentioned habit... And that's primarily what we have to use as currency... So "When in Rome" i think is the approriate saying for this situation... Stop complaining about what is on the currency and just use it, because that's pretty much you only way to get anything done around here...

 

[Revoltingest]

So "When in Rome" i think is the approriate saying for this situation... Stop complaining about what is on the currency and just use it...

Stop complaining? What fun would that be?

 

[KovertKitty]

Stop complaining? What fun would that be?

For the sake of argument, it would lessen the amount of noise... But for all intensive purposes, keeping it going makes the pesky religious radicals throw a fit, which is rather enjoyable...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Xians might not have intended it to advance Xianity, but since they were the only faith in power, it would certainly be their god who was named as "God".

We should note that the motto was adopted by an act of Congress. If one sees this as "respecting establishment of religion", then it would run counter
to the First Amendment. It would appear to establish an undefined belief in a particular supreme being named "God", which could include many faiths,
eg, Jews, Xians, & perhaps even Muslims (if "God" is a translation of "Allah"). But diffuse as this worship of God is, it is entirely incompatible with beliefs
in no god, a plurality of gods, & non-Abrahamic religions. For the fed to support a group of faiths, strikes me as establishment, however de minimis its effect.

... after it was used on coins since the late 19th century...

 

[Father Heathen]

But for all intensive purposes,

It's "For all intents and purposes."

 

[Revoltingest]

... after it was used on coins since the late 19th century...

The major constitutional offense is, of course, the legislation.
Now, the burden of fixing the motto on currency falls upon us heathens.
"In no god we trust"
At least a paper bill only takes a pen.

 

[KovertKitty]

It's "For all intents and purposes."

Thanks for the correction... :O

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The major constitutional offense is, of course, the legislation.
Now, the burden of fixing the motto on currency falls upon us heathens.
"In no god we trust"
At least a paper bill only takes a pen.

I partially agree. God has no place in a national motto or our currency, but then again, God isn't there.

I do think that the slogan should be removed, but not because it is imbibed with some shallow theological meaning(s). It's probably not possible, however, given that Congress is perpetually distracted by other things.