"rapidly becoming comparable to that of the Zimbabwean dollar."

But Amy - think of all the millionaires billionaires that would create! Prosperity for everyone!
Woo hoo!

I don't know, at least when they're doing nonsense like this they're not actively doing any harm.

I don't know. I kind of like the idea that 396 politicians publicly acknowledged that we are NOT putting our trust in THEM.
-Jut

Because if people think god is behind you they will follow. A trick used by many warlords through out history. The reason it's there (on paper at least) just like in the pledge of allegiance is the red scare. A warlord seeking power with no regard for humanity or legality.

We have plenty of issues that are more pressing but way to controversial for an election year, or this close to one. This reminds me of that vote congress took to condemn 9/11. The current time waste is far less offensive.

"...drop the God talk..."

The only permissible and socially acceptable way to discuss the country is the way I tell you to.

Personally, I'm happy with the inalienable rights endowed unto us by our creator. I mean, I prefer that affirmative statement to rights granted by, say, a king or entrenched oligarchy. At the very least, the inalienable creator-endowed rights cannot be taken away. You have them, and when someone does try to take them, there is absolutely NO justification for doing so (exceptions for rights-violators/egregious criminals). It puts God (and whatever that means to us as a society) on the side of the little guy as opposed to the Gov't.

The national motto is more of a tacit submission to this concept - not a stern reminder that 'Mercans love that Jesus-fellah.

So I'm all for any reminder that top dog isn't Prez, Congress, SCOTUS, or any gov't entity. Our G-man isn't around to hand down tax-law from on high - but if the Institution decides it now has the power to grant & revoke those inalienable rights, well, they should keep in mind the rest of us have "God" on our side (or the moral justification to bodily resist, for those in the audience who are libertarian athiests).

Also, it fits better on a dollar/building as "In God We Trust" as opposed to "Listen, the elected authority only has power insofar as the people have assented to it. When such elected authority refuses to submit to it's electors and intends real harm to private persons and/or property, the moral justifcation rests with those people whose rights are absolute, by common understanding."

"Personally, I'm happy with the inalienable rights endowed unto us by our creator." You are born naked and screaming into a world that wants to kill and eat you. The government at this point does what ever the hell it wants when god smites congress we can talk.

Brad states it well. "In God We Trust" is shorthand for "TSA does not have the authority to molest us."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Separately,
Mr. Shermer's assertion, that an extant God would explain the problem of pain, amounts to Mr. Shermer asserting his own religious belief; is not based in anything provable or factual. I can think of loving and compassionate reasons for the existence of pain.

Similarly,
Mr. Shermer's assertion: "God had nothing to do with it", also equates to Mr. Shermer asserting his own religious belief; is not based in anything provable or factual.

The same can be said of vlad's assertion, for instance, that earthly circumstances amount to an argument against the existence of God: vlad has every right to share his opinion; yet, vlad's opinion amounts to vlad's own religious belief, i.e. amounts to vlad's own faith based belief, insofar as vlad's opinion is not grounded in anything which is provable or factual. vlad, inside this comment thread, is proselytizing for his religion. He would be horrified if I did the same.

I am not arguing for the existence of God. Rather, I am pointing out that atheism amounts to its own religion; is based on faith in truths which are unprovable. It is appropriate that all of us, both atheists and religious persons, make our own choices about mysterious questions.

I prefer the original motto, "E pluribus unum" which is a much better statement of what the U.S is about.

Atheism is not it's own religion; it's simply a lack of belief in that which has no proof. Were theists able to provide affirmative proof of the existence of God, atheists would change their minds. Theists believe in God absent any proof of such; this is why such belief is termed "faith",

Damn autocorrect: "it's" should be "its". Hate that.

In reply to Christopher

When Amy says:
"The claims that there is a god are outrageous and silly",
Amy is not making a statement which is based in anything which is provable or factual. Amy, properly so, is looking at a mystery and is forming her own opinion. Kudos to her. I respect her for stating her opinion.

But, she is not acting from reason. Rather, she is sharing opinion about a mystery. To say that "atheists act from reason while Christians act from faith" ... is to assert a false construct. Both atheists and Christians are making choices in the face of mystery.

Both atheists and Christians are proselytizing each other. To argue that "In God We Trust" ought not be on a coin b/c God does not exist, and b/c God had nothing to do with the formulation and preservation of America ... is to make a faith based argument which is factually unprovable; is to proselytize just as strongly as any Christians. In other words: atheists proselytize and Christians proselytize. We all proselytize each other: there is no avoiding it. It is a false construct to say: Christians are proselytizing and atheists are acting based upon fact and reason. Wrong. Atheists are proselytizing just as fervently as Christians. It is unavoidable, and I would not wish to avoid it: the mutual proselytizing is a good thing. But, on both sides: it IS proselytizing which is based upon faith; which amounts to sharing of opinion about the circumstances of unprovable mystery.

above, when I said Amy is not acting from reason: I ought have said she is not acting based upon any provable fact. She is acting from reason, and I commend acting from reason. I wrote too fast, and did not proofread, and made an wrong statement.

so, proofreading after the fact, dang it, the construct to which I object is this: atheists base their opinions on facts, while Christians base their opinions on faith. I argue that atheists and Christians both use reason and operate on faith.

No wonder Philosophy majors can't find jobs. We've got amateurs philosophizing without licenses. Maybe Congress can fix that, and get some more people off the dole.

Regardless of your opinion of a deity, you must admit that Congress invoking one is akin to calling down napalm on your own position.

My point is: if it is calling napalm down on proselytizing Christianity, then opposing the Congressional resolution is calling napalm down on proselytizing atheism, and in equal measure.

in reply to Amy

Two separate arguments. re "In God We Trust" resolution, Brad states it the issue well in his comment. "In God We Trust" is shorthand for "TSA does not have the authority to molest us."

Separately, I disagree with a construct which appeared inside Mr. Shermer's essay, and then appeared inside the comment thread: atheists are acting on fact and Christians are acting on faith. Atheism is a faith based belief about a mystery. Both atheists and Christians proselytize each other, just as you are doing when you give your opinion that Christianity is not rational.

Religion and government cannot be kept completely separate. Lawmaking is based upon principles and values. Faith based reasoning, both by Christians and by atheists, about principles and values, inevitably becomes a part of decision making regarding laws and rights.

Atheists are not strictly acting upon provable facts. At some level, atheists formulate opinions about mystery. Those faith based opinions inform the principles and values which atheists bring to governing.

As long as nobody tries to define God or seeks to pigeonhole God into their own brand of thought, I have no problem with "In God We Trust" on a building or unit of currency. I think Brad hit the nail on the head with his blogpost.

While I almost always agree with Mr. Shermer, gcotharn spots the central inanity in his Op Ed.

I'll bet if you think about it just a little, you will realize that Shermer is being (probably unintentionally) very silly. Absent a god that would have to intervene in every jot and tittle of existence, life on earth would not exist without earthquakes, water existing in all three phases in the same place at the same time, or cancer, or human evil.

Even worse, he surreptitiously (probably unintentionally) slides from "In God We Trust" to "If you think that God is watching over the US …" Those two statements aren't even remotely the same. It is perfectly possible trust that god won't cause the sun to go supernova tomorrow, while not believing for a moment that god is watching in particular over the US.

The motto "In God We Trust" amounts to nothing more than deistic wallpaper, but Mr. Shermer and you are treating it as a theistic statement. They are no more alike than are chalk and cheese.

The claims that there is a god are outrageous and silly.

Precisely as outrageous and silly as the claims that there isn't.

Christian belief in a Christian god is in no meaningful way similar to the belief that some godlike thing exists, yet you treat them as exactly the same. Why is that?

… like the fact the worth of the money that statement's going to be printed on is rapidly becoming comparable to that of the Zimbabwean dollar.

Now you are just getting an attack of the vapors.

I could care less what is printed on our currency, but I am extremely offended that this is what the morons in congress are currently worried about

Either the evidence (such as it is) is sufficient to convince you that there is a god, or it isn't sufficient.

Both the convinced and unconvinced arrive at their conclusions honestly AND they both seem silly to the other side. There's no winner in discussing the existence or lack thereof of a creator deity. And that's the reason we don't talk about it at dinner. Both sides are entrenched and it is too easy to feel attacked just by hearing opposting arguments.

That's all beside the point, though. The national motto isn't establishment of a national religion. It doesn't push God on atheists any more than E Pluribus Unum pushes communism on capitalists. The motto isn't important for it's literal verbiage but for its symbolic meaning.
The symbolic meaning is not disqualified just by having the word "God" in it.

It's strange little discussions like this that I think I exist.

Reply to Brad and this -

So I'm all for any reminder that top dog isn't Prez, Congress, SCOTUS, or any gov't entity. Our G-man isn't around to hand down tax-law from on high - but if the Institution decides it now has the power to grant & revoke those inalienable rights, well, they should keep in mind the rest of us have "God" on our side (or the moral justification to bodily resist, for those in the audience who are libertarian athiests).

Also, it fits better on a dollar/building as "In God We Trust" as opposed to "Listen, the elected authority only has power insofar as the people have assented to it. When such elected authority refuses to submit to it's electors and intends real harm to private persons and/or property, the moral justifcation rests with those people whose rights are absolute, by common understanding."

You do realize that for many many years before we had "In God we Trust" printed on our coins we had the simpler motto of "Liberty". Last I checked, it was still there. And it makes more sense as money is a form of liberty. "In God we Trust" started in 1863 on a coin, at the height of the Civil War. Why can't we go back to straight up Liberty on our coins? I'm not saying the times back then were libertopia (they certainly weren't for black people).

The top dog ought to be individual liberty so long as it harms no one else. God has nothing to do with it.

Brad says-

Both the convinced and unconvinced arrive at their conclusions honestly AND they both seem silly to the other side. There's no winner in discussing the existence or lack thereof of a creator deity. And that's the reason we don't talk about it at dinner. Both sides are entrenched and it is too easy to feel attacked just by hearing opposting arguments.

That's all beside the point, though. The national motto isn't establishment of a national religion. It doesn't push God on atheists any more than E Pluribus Unum pushes communism on capitalists. The motto isn't important for it's literal verbiage but for its symbolic meaning.
The symbolic meaning is not disqualified just by having the word "God" in it.

Sorry about the second posting above. I accidently posted waaaay too early.

I wanted to argue about that if something isn't a big deal, why is it insisted upon? If one wanted to be considered magnanimous, wouldn't you be the first to insist not to push a symbolic series of words onto everyone- when some found the idea ridiculous?

If it isn't important, why defend it? If the symbolic meaning is important to you, and wouldn't work without having "God" in it, then you have to argue straight up for the literal verbiage. To do anything else smacks of slimey dishonesty. Either you support the verbiage or you don't.

The national motto is important. It is a symbol - what it means is more important than what it says on its face. It certainly can work without the word God in it. But that's not what we voted on.

I can support the right to choose our motto without being slimy or dishonest. I can support the outcome of the decision or I can disagree if I want to.

But I can't banish anything that offends me from society or public view. Magnanimity is a canard, here. The idea that God is ridiculous to some people is not more important than the converse.

Just because the USA is full of believers doesn't mean it's time for a national church. Just because atheists exist doesn't mean the word God gets edited out.

But apparently, just because believers exist, God gets edited into the coins. Fuck you Brad. You don't have any principles to stand on.

I guess I was a year off on the motto money. 1864, not 1863. Still, it was planted in there not by any vote. Who in fucks name voted it to happen other than who did it? Fuck you again Brad.

A little more history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

Congress. 1956. Our elected representatives wrote it up as a law, voted on it, passed it, & sent it to POTUS for signature & seal.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_84-851

You might also read the article you posted.

Brad said nothing obnoxious, so Fuck you abersouth, you obnoxious prick.

I did read it. Above when I was talking about voting about putting the religous sentiment on coins, it should be noted that no vote was taken. It was slipped in. Then, after years, nay a generation, it was voted on. Then a generation or two later it was voted to be a national motto. Not by plebes.

Quit being an idiot. This totally destroys your argument. If you argue it should be there because it's been there for a long time, you have to take note that for a longer time it wasn't there. So there is no self evident reason for it being there.

Again, because Brad likes it- Because believers exist, it gets put on the coins. That is what your damn argument boils down to.

I keep saying fuck you because thats what your argument boils down to to me. The words are there and they ought to stay because they've been there a while and if you don't like it, well fuck you.

Abersouth:

Above when I was talking about voting about putting the religous sentiment on coins ...

Whatever it may have been at one time, "In God We Trust" is not a religious sentiment. Instead, it is deism so completely anodyne that spelling is its only distinguishing characteristic from atheism.

Clearly, virtually all Congressman believe that a majority of their constituents want it to stay, so it stays. That is the way this republic works. Pace Shermer, Amy, and you there is absolutely no downside to continuing such an empty statement; it is for this sort of thing the acronym WHOGAS exists.

Brad is right.

As is ronc.

(Full disclosure: I think all religions are founded upon error, and that whether there is some deity like thing out there is a completely unanswerable question)

I saw somewhere that there was a backstory to this, which isn't mentioned in the article that Amy quoted. Apparently our President Obama made a statement in some foreign location recently that the official U.S. motto is "E pluribus unum", which of course is Latin for "out of many, one". While a perfectly good motto for currency, when applied to a nation of people, there are obvious and unfortunate philosophical implications. So what happened here is, in part, a rebuke.

My vote: In Cosmic Tinkerbell we trust!

You made me laugh Jeff. Twice.

First at the nonsense on the face of it statement that "In God we trust" is in no way a religous statement. That is absurd. Period. After that how can I take anything else you say seriously? You are saying black is white and wrong is right. So does that mean Brad isn't right and neither is ronc?

I share a similar opinion to the one posted above.

Whether or not I believe in God has little to do with this motto. It's a reaffirmation that the government did not give me my rights, something far greater and better than they could ever hope to be granted them to me. That thing that's greater and better might only be nature, but it's a force much more powerful than Congress can ever hope to achieve.

"In God we trust" is in no way a religous statement. That is absurd. Period. After that how can I take anything else you say seriously?

Which religion?

Would you imply that it was inserted on coins by disinteresed parties that thought it had no religous sentiment whatsoever? If you would, I think you are an idiot. It was put on there by people with an ax to grind. It became anodyne later and is now fait accompli

I almost want to apologize for starting to drop f-bombs, but I won't and here is why. There is a sort of tryanny of the status quo going on and I find it pernicious. I realize no one in their right mind should care about minutia like this, but I do.

Historically, the coin of our realm had only the year it was made, Liberty, The United States of America and possibly a letter denoting which mint it was made at printed on the coin along with its stated value. During the Civil War, a person hijacked this and inserted another statement that he thought proper onto some coins. Not all. That didn't happen until 1938. This statement was not at that time in any way the National motto. It didn't become the national motto until the 1950's. That whole time there was no good, justifiable reason to have that statement on those coins. But it was there.

Then the phrase was apparently adopted as the national motto in one sense to hold in relief our godless opponents in the cold war. So, it gained new life as propaganda. Now the cold war is over. The phrase remains and will never be expelled from the money. Putting the phrase on the coin was a political act. Keeping the phrase on the coin is a political act.

In response to ronc, I agree that Brad said nothing explicitly obnoxious. I just find his whole sense of reasoning implicitly obnoxious. His reasoning doesn't make sense. He said "Just because the USA is full of believers doesn't mean it's time for a national church. Just because atheists exist doesn't mean the word God gets edited out." I never said anything about a national church and wouldn't support one. The thing that really really really tans my hide is the next part. "Just because atheists exist doesn't mean the word God gets edited out." It pisses me off to no end because the phrase was put in with no regard whatsoever to whom it may offend. And his phrase doesn't grapple with that. It treats is as fait accompli from the beginning of time, as if that is the way things have always been. But it wasn't always like that. Someone with an ax to grind inserted it. That someone did a fuck you. Brad continued a sort of tyranny of the majority fuck you. I said fuck you back. That is all. That is why I responded with "Just because believers exist, God gets edited into the coin." This is a tyranny. There is no two ways about it. I'll grant anyone that it's making a tempest in a tea pot, but such is how I see it. I drop F-bombs when I see tyranny.

Don't change the subject.

For "In God We Trust" to be a religious statement, it must promote some religion, and exclude others.

Which religion?

It promotes religion in general, no sect exclusively. That is a statement in support of religion. Your decision to try and make it necessarily exclude other faiths is a false choice. One needn't make it. You don't have a gotcha.

In God we trust -- all others pay cash.

I quite frankly don't care. I object when the laws cannot be based on anything but the bible -- or other "holy" book.

Many places still have laws on the books that treat Sunday differently than other day of the week -- so called "blue" laws. Such as you need special permission to sell beer, wine, or liquor on Sundays. That you have to pay the state additional licensing fees for a Sunday permit just irks me.

Abersouth:

Stop dodging the obvious. Religions exist because they each consist of mutually exclusive sets of divinely revealed statements and practices.

If something as anodyne as "In God We Trust" excludes no religion, then, by definition, it is not religious.

It is, instead, completely deistic.

There is a huge difference, and you aren't twigging it.

Personally, I'm happy with the inalienable rights endowed unto us by our creator.

Quick Question thne, if these rights are inalienable and endowed by the all pwerful creator of the universe then why do more than half the population of the planet no have them, and why are they so easily perverted by a few hunndered ploiticians and their bureacratic cronies?

When Amy says:
"The claims that there is a god are outrageous and silly",
Amy is not making a statement which is based in anything which is provable or factual. . . . she is not acting from reason.

So, if Amy were to say 'The claims that there is a invisible purple gorillia being the ture source of orgasams are outrageous and silly' Would that also be in your opinion unreasonable, unfrovable, and not factual?

What is obvious to you is not to me.

I wonder if deistic means what you think it means. Would you say it's a secular word? I think God is a religious word. Especially when capitalized. I think "In God we trust" is a religious statement. You are doing a piss-poor job of convincing me to the contrary, I suspect because it isn't a secular statement, however much you seem to want to assert that it is.

And in what rule book are you pulling this alleged statement of fact that by definition a religious statement has to refute other religions to be a statement? "In God we Trust" is it's own self contained religious statement made by a people affirming the existence of a deity and stating that said people put their trust in said deity. It doesn't say which version of God it affirms, and I don't understand why you seem to think it needs to to amount to an offensive statement.

Jeff-

I guess the best way I can show what I mean is by example. Any person at all makes the broad statement, "I believe in God and put my trust in him." This is a religious statement. Period. If the person simply stopped at saying they believe in God, it is a religious statement. It is a statement about that persons belief in a supernatural power. Why beg the person to deny another religion to prop up their own. Perhaps they will if pressed, but the self contained statement "I believe in God" really ought to be statement enough to satisfy that it is of religious sentiment.

Here's the problem with "God" as I see it.

1. Starts out creating the universe.

2. Goes on to create life.

3. At this point depending of what you know of bible mythology one of two things happened.

A) God created Eve out of a rib because the first woman he created refused to be smacked around by Adam

B) Or God was an idiot who managed to create all sorts of animals with both sexes, but couldn’t be bothered to do the same for man until after he took a vacation

Either way doesn’t look so good for the 'all knowing' part of his resume.

4. Somehow an interloper gets into the heart of gods guarded garden and manages to convince everyone to do the ONLY thing that god said not to do

5. God, who allowed his pet mental midgets to be bamboozled punishes them for his failure to keep them safe - and condemns all of humanity to a life of pain and suffering for a mistake he allowed, if not orchestrated

Doesn’t look good for either his all powerful or all knowing attributes there

6. God decides to kill everyone because his pet angels are raping humans and giving birth to monsters and the humans whom he condemned to suffering took it upon themselves to make a better life for themselves and weren’t suffering enough - though to justify it he decides to call it 'corruption'

7. Rather he use his unlimited powers selectively by killing his bastard mutant angels grandkids and the 'corrupted' humans he decides rather to flood the whole planet and kill everything, insects, animals, plants, babies, and innocent uncorrupted humans who lived to far away to even hear of the quack spending a century building a big ass boat in his backyard

8.Sometime after that humanity once again got to uppity for gods liking so he cursed the entire lot of them so they couldn’t understand each other leading humanity away from one unified people and language to thousands - resulting in nearly every war in history. Some claim that the tower being built was an affront to god as it would have allowed men to enter heaven and be on par with god, but given what we know of the structure of the physical worked that would have been impossible

9.Along comes Moses, rather then have Moses become pharaoh he has him get exiled and become a hermit, only to come back and aid in killing who knows how many people with all the plagues. Even if Moses couldn’t have been pharaoh himself it seem to me killing on guy on a throne with a well placed lightning bolt would have been far simpler than the Rube Goldbergian machinations of the 12 plagues, the pillar of fire and wind and drowning the whole of the Egyptian Army.

And now these days all he can manage to appear on the occasional piece of toast or tortilla?

Gods getting more and more impotent the more time rolls on

Paranoia, megalomania, bipolar mood swings, punishing others for his own mistakes. Why for fucks sake does anyone worship this guy?

For fucks sake the story of god is jut so god awful it almost makes me wish there was a god just so I could have the opportunity at some point to tell him to go fuck himself

Well, I certainly don't trust any of you idiots!

I think God is a religious word. Especially when capitalized. I think "In God we trust" is a religious statement.

From the dictionary:

1 [without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 ( god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.
• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
• used as a conventional personification of fate : he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.
3 ( god) an adored, admired, or influential person : he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.
• a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god : don't make money your god.
4 ( the gods) informal the gallery in a theater.
• the people sitting in this area.

Which God?

Okay, get beyond God. Trust God to do what?

Well, per the Phelpsians, destroy gays and the US. Per Islam, make the ummah rulers of the Earth. Per the Catholics, make Church the sole mediator of salvation. Per the Seventh Day Adventists, make Saturday the Sabbath. Per the Jehovah's Witnesses, oh god, who knows.

I hope that makes my point clear. The statement says we put our trust in some being completely undefined, except that it doesn't exists outside this material world.

That is deism. It is not Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism. It might be taken as Unitarian, but only to prove Unitarianism is a waste of time.

If, instead, Congress were to approve "In Jesus we trust for eternal salvation" that would be a statement invoking a specific religion.

This is nothing even remotely like that.

7. Rather he use his unlimited powers selectively by killing his bastard mutant angels grandkids and the 'corrupted' humans he decides rather to flood the whole planet and kill everything, insects, animals, plants, babies, and innocent uncorrupted humans who lived to far away to even hear of the quack spending a century building a big ass boat in his backyard -- lujlp at November 4, 2011 9:11 PM

You forgot the subtext -- explain the panda and the koala. Granted the pandas (who prefer bamboo) could strap a couple of trees to their backs and walk. The koala would have to grab a few live eucalyptus trees, float across the ocean, drag the trees across the desert, and then get on the boat. Then after everything dries up, drag the trees back across the desert, float them back across the ocean and plant them.

Obama's response

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/obama-mocks-congress-in-god-we-trust-jobs-bill_n_1072497.html?ref=daily-brief%3Futm_source%3DDailyBrief&utm_campaign=110311&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

Jeff, you and I are not going to agree concerning your question.

My question to you is simple. Is there a good reason for that phrase to be on our coins? No sidestepping saying its a harmless phrase or any other nonsense. Give a reason why it belongs there. Good luck defending the indefensible.

I think we should put "Nicole is awesome" on our coins. Its harmless,and even if you don't agree, its not like you're being forced to acknowledge my awesomeness. I think congress should vote me onto the coin.

We've covered this.

Some of us never made it to that party.

My question to you is simple. Is there a good reason for that phrase to be on our coins? No sidestepping saying its a harmless phrase or any other nonsense.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of Shermer's ill-thought out editorial is that the phrase "In God We Trust" is religious.

It simply is not a religious statement, which was yours, and Amy's and Shermer's stated objection. All of you have confused empty deism with theism.

Asking whether there is some good reason for it to be on the coin is one of aesthetics, not religion.

But that isn't the subject of this thread.

Jeff- WTF?

Can you make your own opinion known? Does that phrase belong there or not, then justify. Why do you dance around it with bs about it being a question of aesthetics, for some other entity to wisely decide. Do you think it belongs there?

Side note- I get what you are trying to say bifurcating deism and theism, I'm just not buying it. Deism and theism are both religious.

Now, please answer a simple yes/no question in an affirmative way. It isn't so hard.

I have made my point about a half dozen times now. Despite the certainty of repeating myself, I'll make it an even seven.

Deism and theism are not both religious. Words are not your personal playthings. Just to review:

religious |riˈlijəs| adjective relating to or believing in a religion: both men were deeply religious, intelligent, and moralistic | religious music. • (of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's thought about or worship of a divine being: he has strong religious convictions. • belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion: religious houses were built on ancient pagan sites.

Your objection was based upon "In God We Trust" being a religious statement. It isn't. There is absolutely nothing in those words that can be identified with any religious belief, custom, commandments, prejudices. There are no deistic wars. No deistic commandments. No funny deistic underwear, hats, or sects.

Therefore, your objection is a complete non-sequitor.

You will find no support anywhere in the Constitution or law or custom regarding deistic statements. You will certainly find no democratic backing, since at least 80% of Americans believe that a god exists, and their democratically elected representatives reflected that fact.

There is every bit as much reason for it to be on our coinage as Lincoln's bust, or his monument, or the word "Liberty", etc.

So here is your affirmative answer, again: It belongs on our coinage because democratically accountable people decided it is part of the design, just like every other element of our coinage.

(NB: I philosophically agree with Shermer, and like almost everything he writes. He blew it here, so did Amy and you. Also, I happen to think "In God We Trust" has exactly the same meaning as "In Purple We Trust", which is only a tiny bit less than "E Pluribus Unum".)

Jeff, on this subject you really are an idiot. I will provide you the definition of deism that I just looked up, so the word is no longer your personal plaything.

Deism- noun
the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation

Deism is a type of theism. It still asserts that there is a god. That is why you are wrong. It assumes that you can see god by the execution of reason. It presupposes that there is a god, thus it is religious, based in faith, not reason.

Your objection was based upon "In God We Trust" being a religious statement. It isn't. There is absolutely nothing in those words that can be identified with any religious belief, . .

So trusting in an unknowable, unquantifiable being is not religious to you?

Jeff, on this subject you really are an idiot. I will provide you the definition of deism that I just looked up, so the word is no longer your personal plaything.

You are right, I don't get to use words, or dictionaries, as my playthings. So from a real dictionary (as opposed to google define):

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Compare with theism.

That sounds like a good idea.

belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Deism is not a form of theism. Note the similarity with "theology". The broad term for any adherent to a religion is "theist", because there is no such thing as a religion without a theology.

In contrast, deism completely excludes the possibility of theology. And contrary to what you, Amy, and Michael Shermer think, deism is no more unreasonable than is adeism: both make a single, incredible, blanket assertion without any possibility of proof or contradiction. It is also worth noting that, absent spelling, there is absolutely no functional difference between a deist and an adeist (typically referred to, in a widespread abuse of language, as an atheist.)

With respect to "In God We Trust", unless you can provide an answer to the question "Which religion?" -- and you can't -- then it is not religious statement.

So, no, this empty, banal statement is absolutely not religious.

Compare and contrast "In God We Trust" with "In Jesus We Trust".

One of those is religious.

Hah! Diesm dot com contradicts you.

And so does history. It is incontrovertible that persons with an agenda (namely a religious one) inserted the much debated phrase on a coin. They did it for a reason. And it wasn't because they were deists.

If the phrase is so empty and banal, why did those people feel impelled to insist it be put on coins?

All I can grant you is that deism isn't a structured religion with a church. It is still a theology. It still makes a leap of faith.

... theology.

noun ( pl. theologies )
the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
• religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed: Augustine assimilated Roman ideals into Christian theology | a willingness to tolerate new theologies.

Asserting there is existence without some first cause is itself a leap of faith.

Who is asserting there was no first cause?

Were just saying there is no eveidence of an immortal, eternal, all powerful sky fairy responible for it all.

But if you have any data which contradicts me then please, by all means, please feel free to share with the group

Were just saying there is no evidence of an immortal, eternal, all powerful sky fairy responsible for it all.

Which is the flip side of saying there is no evidence there wasn't some agent outside of our material world responsible for it all.

(... immortal, eternal, all powerful sky fairy ... is just projection. Deism has nothing to say about any of that.)

Jesus you are thick.

So now your claiming that deism supports the theory of a mortal, finite, not all powerful skie fairy who created everything?

Hah! Diesm dot com contradicts you.

Huh?

Quoting directly from their own definition:

Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

That agrees with what I have said more than a half dozen times.

If the phrase is so empty and banal, why did those people feel impelled to insist it be put on coins?

Because people are very good at not realizing what words actually say (a la religion and deism). Give the phrase "In God We Trust" a few seconds thought, and I think you will see that it actually guts religion: it clearly states that religion is completely irrelevant to our ability to trust in god (whatever it might be).

lujlp:

So now your claiming that deism supports the theory of a mortal, finite, not all powerful sky fairy who created everything?

How about reading what I write a little more carefully. Deism posits a first cause that does not intervene in its creation. From the sight that abersouth so thoughtfully provided:

God: The universal creative force which is the source of the laws and designs found throughout Nature.

"Immortal, eternal [sic], all powerful sky fairy ..." are your impositions, to which you are entitled, but I am under no obligation to explain.