In the national spotlight Thursday night introducing Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee for president, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) showed all of America why the country’s national motto ”“ In God We Trust ”“ must be abandoned. Exhibiting stunning insensitivity to the millions of Americans who do not profess a belief in any deities, Rubio declared: “Our national motto is In God we Trust, reminding us that faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all.”
Thus, Rubio was brazenly shouting out what many proponents of the religious motto have pubicly denied: the religious wording of the motto validates the idea that only believers are first-class citizens. Nonbelievers, while tolerated by the true believers (sometimes begrudgingly), clearly hold a second-class status.
I want to be very clear on this thread–the comments should focus on the issue of the motto and its use, history and meaning. Getting off on a particular politician or political party will be seen as off topic for our purposes here.
By the way, do you get the feeling as I do that the phrase “anti-secular” will be seeing more and more usage?
I think what Niose insensitively omits from his piece dealing with 1956 is that the Soviet Union was unabashedly anti-God. The people were as one greater than God. It was the secular that was raised fervently over the religious. Sad that this great mind, Niose, is just making noise of the most liberal, or should I say, communist slant.
Niose’s credo would impose a state religion in the United States, the religion of secularism or atheism. That would be a violation of all God-believers’ religious rights, as well as a dismissal of the Founding Fathers’ (even the Deists, like Franklin and Jefferson) belief that the support of God was essential for the colonists to throw off British rule, and for the new United States to survive.
To be honest, I do think there needs to be a better understanding of what we as a nation take that motto to mean and how it is applied in American life. That phrase and similar, historic phrases and euphemisms have been used and distorted by politicos and activists to rile both believers and non-believers.
I don’t understand it, frankly. How can we see a motto as an impetus for conflict and mistrust while a much more secular nation like Britain can sing “God Save the Queen” and “Jerusalem” with one voice?
I understand this article’s concern, however, it smacks of a totalitarian approach to inclusiveness. Our nation’ is in danger of loosing its soul. History shows that when a people abandon God, the void is filled by tyrants. I am not advocating a theocracy, as we know what happens there. I am advocating the freedom to believe in God without having to hide it or feel ashamed to express our faith.
I have to agree with number 4 and 5. All I hear is a replacement of one religious belief with another, religion of the state. I suppose we need to ditch the Star Spangled Banner as our anthem, or would he suggest we rewrite Key’s observations to suit his opinion? I am also reminded of CS Lewis’ argument: if either position, towards or against a belief in a god, is wrong, what is the harm in occasionally considering the Almighty? It at least covers the alternative to the atheist position.
Turning from the emotive to the “scientific,” at the least, this paper is good fodder for someone taking a class in logic; the fallicies presented are legion.
Whoops, meant 3 and 5.
Re: Teatime2’s comment, what hasn’t been twisted by politicians for their gain? Anything can be touted as American as mom, apple pie, and (your pet subject here). I just don’t see what would be accomplished raising this discussion in the midst of our political silly season unless it is to raise the noise floor. I would wait for more sober times.
I personally could go with Old School –
“E Pluribus Unum”.
We’ve gotten away from that (IMHO).
I thought “E Pluribus Unum” is the national motto. Not that I think about there being a national motto on any sort of a regular basis.
RE: “Thus, Rubio was brazenly shouting out what many proponents of the religious motto have pubicly denied: the religious wording of the motto validates the idea that only believers are first-class citizens. Nonbelievers, while tolerated by the true believers (sometimes begrudgingly), clearly hold a second-class status.”
I’m not certain how Rubio’s asserting that faith in God is the most important American value somehow means that only God-believers are “first-class citizens.” Just because God-believes believe that atheists are wrong doesn’t mean we believe they’re second-class — it just means they’re wrong.
#7 Blue Ontario, yes, it should be done outside of an election cycle. I didn’t mean to imply that we should add anything else to the political din.
I’m just so tired of outrage, feigned or genuine. It seems that a loud someone or some group in America is constantly feeling slighted, put upon, or “oppressed” and I wish we as a nation would grow up already. It’s been a long time since I subscribed to Psychology Today — it used to be a well-written, well-researched, interesting magazine. I can see that the scholarship and quality have slipped if this is the kind of writer who has an enduring feature in the mag. When did we begin the descent into “Ed Anger” types of rants being the typical American fare in mainstream media and discussions?
Simple question: Is ‘In God We Trust’ factual?
Answer: No. Neither the nation as a corporate body, nor each individual citizen, trusts in God.
Response? I’m not sure, but surely an aspirational motto would be better than a non-factual statement of fact.
I wonder how many people realize that “In God We Trust” comes from our National Anthem–the verse we conveniently omit to sing 99% of the time.