The Atheist Theist Tension

[rogue06]

Andrew Jackson obviously needs to be replaced with Hillary Clinton, stat!

00000000000000ars4a.gif

[mossrose]

I actually do not "die" on this hill. I'm not filing law suits. I'm not picketing. I'm simply not using the currency.

You didn't answer my other questions.

[Catholicity]

I would not describe my feelings as "strong." If they were, I would never use the currency under any circumstances. I think it is one of many examples of places where "religion" has crept into our government despite the will of the founders. I resist it in my small way...and live with it otherwise. Until atheists truly dominate the landscape, it is not going to change. When we do, the phrase will disappear and silence will take it's place - so that theists can worship as they wish, and atheists are not required to.

You have a chip on your shoulder.

[Rushing Jaws]

I am in a discussion in another thread in which my observation that I try not to use American currency because it says "In God we Trust" on it has become something of an issue. Apparently, that view is seen with some degree of hostility. That discussion has prompted a question on my part.

Does anyone here think that a mistaken belief is a good thing? If someone thinks "X is true," would they see value in the belief "X is untrue?" Likewise, if someone believes "X is untrue," would they see value in the belief "X is true?"

I ask because I find that atheists are often cast as "unbelievers," but the truth is that we are all believers in something. We just don't all agree on what is true. So the theist is an unbeliever in atheism, and the atheist is an unbeliever in theism. The theist is a believer in theism, and the atheist is a believer in atheism.

We all have our beliefs about what is "real." None of us wants to be told what we have to believe, and none of us wants to have to be forced to profess a belief we do not share.

This is why I believe government should be mum about gods. It should not profess that gods exist, and it should not profess that they do not exist. It should not force a particular religion, and it should not discriminate against those who have no religion. Religion belongs in churches. The government should take no position on religion in any respects. The founders were so clear on this, that although they included references to god in the DOE (which has no legal weight), they omitted any such references in the Constitution, which is THE legal source for our country. The one place where religion is mentioned is A1 - where the government is barred from taking a religious position.

Thoughts?

[Jedidiah]

I do not think you will find that in anything I wrote....

ETA: actually - I now realize that "religions belong in churches" could be read that way. I was actually trying to say "religion does not belong in government" and I over-spoke. In fact, each person should have the right to practice their religion but does not have the right to impose that religion on our government or other people. That means atheists cannot impose atheism on theists, and theists cannot impose theism on atheists.

That is exactly how I took your remark about "religions belong in churches." The fact is that my faith in Jesus Christ is a major influence in my voting, and I have every right to use whatever I see fit to inform my vote. That can well be seen as an imposition of my faith atheists.

[Tassman]

Aren't you sort of being nitpicky? Currency is just paper with words printed on it. Or metal. It doesn't mean anything. Aren't there bigger hills to die on?

If these words don't mean anything the obvious thing to do is remove them. They assume a belief not held by a segment of the population.

Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter? Do you get time off work on Christmas Day? Get Easter Monday off? Or do you volunteer to work those "holy-days" so Christians can have the day off?

Public holidays reflect cultural traditions, but they can readily be applied to events and people other than religious beliefs. It would be preferable if they did.

I just think you're being silly.

It's easy to accuse others of being silly when you're still getting your own way re the currency and public holidays.

[Starlight]

Actually...they exist (not me). And I think Andrew is about to be ditched for that very reason...

I can't help but notice that the people depicted on US currency are all old white men. I get that the founders were all old white men, but still. Currency is one of those places where a bit of symbolic demographic diversity is an easy win. MLK Jr and Harriet Tubman would seem decent choices for some replacements.

Putting Obama on one is probably too controversial a choice. Although the best-selling coins at the moment seem to be the Donald Trump's North Korean Peace Summit Commemorative Coins which liberals can't buy enough of for the irony value...



Making Currency Great Again!

[mossrose]

If these words don't mean anything the obvious thing to do is remove them. They assume a belief not held by a segment of the population.

The words on the coins and bills mean nothing, especially within a pagan culture such as NA currently exhibits. I could care less if the words stay or go.

Public holidays reflect cultural traditions, but they can readily be applied to events and people other than religious beliefs. It would be preferable if they did.

Christmas and Easter were originally Christian holy days. Just because the culture has absconded with and changed the meaning behind the holy days doesn't mean that the truth behind them has changed.

My question stands. Does carpe take a day off and celebrates these days? I don't think you can answer for him.

It's easy to accuse others of being silly when you're still getting your own way re the currency and public holidays.

As I said, I could care less about the words on the money. They are meaningless in the current culture.

And I'm certainly not getting my own way in regards to holy days. I couldn't care less if you celebrate them or not. But let me celebrate them for their true meaning, and you don't get to have your way by telling me I can't!

[mossrose]

Another question, for carpe alone, please.

If you saw a bill of any denomination lying on the ground, would you pick it up? Or would you leave it there for someone with fewer scruples than you to take?

At what denomination would you deign to stoop down at pick it up?

I'd also like you to answer my other questions.

[Sparko]

One of the bigger outstanding issues of the Government - religion interactions seems to me to be that churches have tax exemptions. It seems likely that in my country that will be removed in the next decade or so, but I can't see it happening in the US anytime soon.

I do find it amusing that "in God we trust" is written on US currency. The US has such ugly old currency too. It really needs a design and color update to be more pretty and modern and plastic like the Euro / Canadian dollar / Australian dollar / New Zealand dollar etc. Here's my country's banknotes for example:

I bet you like web sites with every font and color in the world on them too.

[Zymologist]

I can't think of any reason I'd have a problem with MLK Jr or Harriet Tubman being put on a bill.

[seer]

This is why I believe government should be mum about gods. It should not profess that gods exist, and it should not profess that they do not exist....

Thoughts?

Except we live in a Country that grounds human rights in God, our founding declaration. You just can not separate religion (especially the Christian religion) from the nature and character of this nation.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

[One Bad Pig]

I've never heard of anybody being that nitpicky about money. Andrew Jackson is hated by many Americans because of his role in the Trail of Tears, but I've never heard of anybody refusing to spend a $20 bill.

I find it ironic that a guy who hated the idea of a National Bank is on our national currency.

[rogue06]

I can't think of any reason I'd have a problem with MLK Jr or Harriet Tubman being put on a bill.

00000000000000ars5g.jpg

Of course the always, *ahem* reliable fact checkers at Snopes have uncategorically declared it false that she was a "Gun-Toting Republican" in spite of the fact that she did indeed carry a pistol

00000000000000ars5g1.jpg

which she used, according to her biographer, Kate Clifford Larson, "mostly for protection from slave catchers, but also to encourage weak-hearted runaways from turning back and risking the safety of the rest of the group."

And even liberals admit that she was a Republican:

From Mother Jones: Harriet Tubman Was a Republican!Black Republicans: 10 Famous African Americans With Ties To The GOP which notes matter-of-factly, "While major figures like Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were known members of the party"

From Frankly Curious: Harriet Tubman and Republican Ignorance which flat out admits "The truth is that Harriet Tubman was a gun loving Republican" and "Of course Tubman was a Republican! The Republican Party was the anti-slavery party."

[Jedidiah]

Of course the always, *ahem* reliable fact checkers at Snopes have uncategorically declared it false that she was a "Gun-Toting Republican" in spite of the fact that she did indeed carry a pistol

Well, Snopes . . .