Tuesday, January 6, 2009

What if we used other words in the motto?

I've got a question for everyone who insists that the words "In God We Trust" and "Under God" are not an establishment of religion when they are prominently displayed on our money and in our Pledge of Allegience (and on just about every government building). If, as has been claimed, these are inocuous, ceremonial words that simply celebrate the heritage and history of our nation, then what happens if at some time in the future (and it may be sooner than you think) Muslims become a large enough group to gain a majority?

Will you have a problem if they suggest, mildly and with respect, that the word "God" should be replaced with "Allah"? After all, it would only be a recognition of the Muslim traditional and linguistic history, and not at all about a "founding of religion". It's not like they're pushing their full religious beliefs on you -- they just want to recognize in their traditional language the exact sentiments already present.

Think about it --

"In Allah We Trust" on the money.

"Under Allah" in the Pledge.

Would you be offended or upset by that? Why? The term "allah" simply means "god" in Arabic, so there really shouldn't be any reason to be angry, worried or threatened by it -- it means exactly the same thing! If it's OK and not an imposition of any specific religious belief or faith, then using a word from another language that has exactly the same meaning shouldn't bother you at all.

On the other hand, perhaps if you consider the situation in these terms, you can begin to understand why the prevelance and ubiquity of religious-words (like "God") on our national symbols, seals, oaths and money do seem somewhat oppressive and offensive to those of us who don't have a belief in your gods.

4 comments:

Andrew said...

What I tell atheists is that if "under God" is removed from the pledge, I will not be taking the pledge at all.

A nation that is not under God is claiming that the state is all powerful.

If atheists ever do take control, I will undoubtedly be on the run or going to prison because I will never submit to rule by an atheistic state.

But in the meantime, be sure you do not try to equal "secular" with "atheistic".

By the way, your little scumbag buddy Iggy has been really active. Why don't some of you and your fellow atheists put a leash on that dog? Bahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chuck Lunney said...

What I tell atheists is that if "under God" is removed from the pledge, I will not be taking the pledge at all.

No one is forcing you to "take the pledge", either with or without those two words.

And would it surprise you to know that the original pledge (written by a Baptist pastor) did not include any reference to God -- because the Baptist pastor didn't want to exclude or alienate any citizens of the nation?

A nation that is not under God is claiming that the state is all powerful.

No, it's recognizing that not all citizens of the country are theists. And if you read the Constitution and the writings of the deistic founders, they felt that the state derived it's power from the will and determination of the PEOPLE - not some mythical deity that might or might not exist.

If atheists ever do take control, I will undoubtedly be on the run or going to prison because I will never submit to rule by an atheistic state.

Paranoia and persecution complex aside, what evidence do you have that such a thing would happen?

But in the meantime, be sure you do not try to equal "secular" with "atheistic".

I never have. The government, as I've stated numerous times, is and should remain SECULAR. That means NO religious preference or sanction. Removing "Under God" doesn't make the pledge atheistic, it returns it to the secular basis that was the original intent.

By the way, your little scumbag buddy Iggy has been really active. Why don't some of you and your fellow atheists put a leash on that dog?

Oh, so we should make him go "on the run" or put him "in prison"? Why are you advocating what you protest about above? Do you not see the contradiction in your statements -- you worry that unnamed "atheists" would take away your rights and freedom, but then insist that others should have their freedom and rights taken away just because you don't like what they say.

Sure sounds like you're advocating for persecution, abuse and detention -- against atheists.

Double standard? Hmmmm....

Bahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

Childish, insecure, whiny.

Somehow, I expected better of you, Andrew. You're falling to the level of AdamH -- a troll and a fool.

Andrew said...

You want evidence of persecution by an atheistic state?

Read the Gulag Archipelago series by Solzhenitsyn.

I hope you aren't trying to deny that such things happened.

Arrogant, overbearing, bitchy.

You are falling to the level of IGGY--a troll and a fool.

Chuck Lunney said...

You want evidence of persecution by an atheistic state?

Read the Gulag Archipelago series by Solzhenitsyn.


I read them in high school (over 20 years ago). Yes, a totalitarian dictatorship tends to brutally punish any dissent or competing ideology.

Of course, what that has to do with promoting a SECULAR government in the USA is beyond me.

It seems you'd rather use logical fallacies, irrelevancies and slander instead of factual content, reason and coherent thought.

I hope you aren't trying to deny that such things happened.

I've never denied that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship that ruthlessly brutalized just about every ideology and belief that didn't succumb to the state.

As I said above, I don't get how that relates to a discussion of the secular nature of the US government -- unless you're simply trying to poison the well of discussion?

Arrogant, overbearing, bitchy. You are falling to the level of a troll and a fool.

Yes, that describes you quite well, these days. And to think that a few weeks ago, you seemed reasonable, articulate and calm. Now you've degenerated into a desperate troll.

Sorry, but after today, I'll refuse to respond to your whiny, bitchy rants. If you happen to actually post a comment that is sane, rational and topical, I might consider responding.

Otherwise -- PLONK.