This is not about the falling value of our currency with respect to the rest of the world, but rather a reprise on my 2007 post, In God We Trust wherein I complained about the propagation of the cold war addition of God to our money in the latest series of presidential dollar coins. The had stamped “In God We Trust” around the edge, along with the date.
But the latest dollars have God on the face, and hide the date and the uniquely and importantly American “E Pluribus Unum” on the edge. Do they think that Sacajawea trusted in in the Old World God?
I really think that we should get rid of the old cold war legacies, and take God back off of our money and back out of the pledge to the flag (as I discussed in
The Changing Recipe of Pleasure Lesion Stew). One could argue that this would show the world that we are confident of our faith, instead of protesting it too much.
Who is the "we" of "In God we trust"? It's not referring to Sacajawea because then it would have said "In God I trust" or "In God she trusts." It obviously refers to "We" as in "We the People." It refers to me, yet I don't believe in any supernatural being, and I don't trust such a Being, because I'm convinced it doesn't exist.
Further, why should citizens be asked to "trust" any person or entity. Hell, I'm from Missouri, so "Show me!" This coin slogan is a backdoor path to obeisance. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/11/i-am-… The old-fashioned syntax is designed to help the slogan slip under the radar. The plain meaning of the phrase is "God exists and we trust God." That's plain and simple religious. Not that conservative courts can't spin their way around this problem. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/03/11/talki…
Yes, this dollar is annoying. It's not annoying to believers, but how would they react if the dollar had an image of Thomas Paine accompanied by the words "We don't trust God"? They'd go ballistic.
Tyranny of the majority is what we have. The slogan on this coin should be expanded to include one more sentence:
"This coin is unconstitutional because it is a government effort to promote a particular religious belief."
Dan: Since you brought up the new dollar, I have yet another complaint. Sacagawea was an important member of one of the most important explorations in United States history. So what do they have her doing? Picking corn. She is now being promoted as the Matron of corn fructose syrup, I suppose. A plug for Archer Daniels Midland? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_s…
This is crazy. It would be like creating a coin featuring George Washington, where the scene on the coin shows him feeding his horse.
I don't want to get into an argument over whether or not this should be on our currency.
I just find this an interesting position to take when a very large percentage of the advertising I've seen on this blog is from the "Christian Prayer Center" inviting me to "Post a Prayer Request" saying "Thousands will pray for me". (For the record I am not an atheist, but I find these ads absurd).
My point is this: You can't be against having God mentioned on money, yet at the same time be making money from this sort of advertising. It completely kills your credibility. It would be like having a blog against offshore drilling with BP ads running alongside it.
You should check to see who is buying ad space on your site, and reject those you disagree with. Unless of course you're just in it for a buck — which you must not find that annoying after all.
Bruce: I'm not interested in shutting up people who disagree with me. Having said that, you do strike a nerve regarding the advertising; I'm exploring ways to change it or get rid of it.
The ads are selected by a robot to show on pages that contain phrases selected by the advertisers. Therefore, an article featuring psychiatry is likely to get an ad by Scientolgists, anything having to do with evolution has good odds of drawing an ad by Creationists, and anything to do with religion seems to lure ads by churches.