I don't think it matters one way or another whether In God We Trust stays on money. If you turn the bill over you will see a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the top. This is a New Age sybol. The God America trusts is the dollar, and not who many think it is.
The question is, do you think that it would be OK to have "We Trust in No God" on the money.
I don't think it matters one way or another whether In God We Trust stays on money. If you turn the bill over you will see a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the top. This is a New Age sybol. The God America trusts is the dollar, and not who many think it is.
Good grief, the All-Seeing Eye is not a new age symbol. It is, in fact, a deistic symbol indicating that all of man's action are watched and judged by deity (a.k.a. "God").
From the notes of the designer, Charles Thomson:
The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it & Motto [Novus Ordo Seclorum] allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independce and the words under it signify the beginnings of the New American Era, which commences from that date.
This is the argument that it is ceremonial deism. But of course the fact that some people want it to stay so badly and that some want it gone so badly, demonstrates that it is not seen as ceremonial deism.
The same argument will likely be used with "Under God" in the pedge. They will say that it's OK because it's just ceremonial deism. But the fact that the country was up in arms over the 9th ruling only serves to prove that it is not just ceremonial deism.
One could also argue that both the coins and the pledge pass the Lemon test because they never had a religious purpose at all. Both issues came about in the 1950s as a reaction to McCarthy's Red Scare. Lobbyists wanted something tangible to separate America from "Godless" Communism.
So the original intent of these things was always political, not religious. That being said, I personally still think they should be removed, not on religious grounds, but becasue they are an embarassing testimony to paranoia that is simply no longer needed.
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
One could also argue that both the coins and the pledge pass the Lemon test because they never had a religious purpose at all. Both issues came about in the 1950s as a reaction to McCarthy's Red Scare. Lobbyists wanted something tangible to separate America from "Godless" Communism.
If it wasn't for two facts: 1: the additon of "Under God" was added on the urging of the knights of Colombus as a religion purpose and 2: that Eisenhower said that now kids would proclaim their loyalty to the "Almighty" across this nation. If you haven't read the original 9th curcuit pledge decision it's worth a read.
So the original intent of these things was always political, not religious. That being said, I personally still think they should be removed, not on religious grounds, but becasue they are an embarassing testimony to paranoia that is simply no longer needed.
Not necessarily. I urge you to read the decision linked above.
That said, SCOTUS's reasoning on this issue seems OK to me: the phrase 'In God We Trust' really has lost any religious resonance. It's just an empty cipher that tells us that that which is adorned with the phrase is somehow Important (sacred in a secular sense).
I find this a remarkable argument. A shame, really, that the Court hasn't deigned to explain just how we know when something has lost its previous religious significance. Granted, most people don't genuflect to their wallets, but the Court's holding amounts to the notion that it's possible to look at a ten-spot and think something like, "Well, since I worship football, it must mean 'In football we trust.'" I'm sure we've all seen or heard about the government or the court refusing to take a controversial stand on something or other, but 'ceremonial deism' reasoning reeks of prototypic copping-out.
Linear Mode
