In ??? We Trust (Updated)

by lewwaters

Moses 10 CommandmentsI have been amusingly watching the usual slate of people going nuts over County Councilor Mielke’s proposal to post the National Motto, “In God We Trust” in the County Building.

Without getting too deep into it, my own view is more neutral in that I won’t lose any sleep one way or the other. But to see the reaction of those virulently opposed to the proposal, as if their lives will somehow cease should those words be displayed, is most amusing, considering I have yet to hear of a single one of them refusing to accept a single dollar of money, what with those same words prominently displayed on our money for over a century now.

Until they begin refusing to accept money, I see them as not having a leg to stand on!

Besides the money angle and acknowledging that they have called for a protest Tuesday outside of the Clark County Public Service Building, giving their “rally” the title “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, one) and with generous support from Portland, Oregon atheist groups. The absolute silliness, not to mention hypocrisy of these people using those words is that in their quest  for the erroneous “multiculturalism,” they have all but destroyed any sense of being one in America as they have done everything in their power to divide citizens along gender, racial, cultural, sexual and even religious lines.

Be that as it may, I wonder if they even know just what or who they are protesting.

Are the protesting mere words? Or the God of Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist or what have you?

Since God is a title and not a specific name, as is Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh or even the tetragrammaton YHWH (or YHVH, JHVH or JHWH in various scripts), just what God do they oppose?

If it is the God of Abraham mentioned in the Bible, are they not protesting the deity looked upon by the three major religions, Jewish, Muslim and Christianity? All three, even though they have different views, look to the God of Abraham.

Likewise, just how “In God We Trust” came to be our National Motto and placed on our money is academic and has no real bearing on whether or not the County should display our National Motto, in my estimation.

Of note, “In God We Trust” was reaffirmed as the National Motto in the 112th Congress. When it was formally adopted as the National Motto in 1956, it was by a House and Senate with a Democrat Party majority in both houses, the same party that today objects.

I was told years ago by a friend that went through the program that one of the main teachings of Alcoholics Anonymous was the acceptance of a power greater than yourself. A God if you will.

Would these people call on AA to abandon their work of helping people overcome alcohol addiction due to their placing trust in God?

In the end I see no establishment of a State Religion, the real meaning of the phrase written by Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

However, I do see strong hypocrisy from them, well beyond their acceptance of money in that I have not seen or heard one of them crying out for any Separation of Mosque and State as Islamic prayers and practices are slowly being accepted in some schools. This after their much ballyhooed denial of any Christian Prayers in our schools over the years.

Then again, no one has ever accused them of being consistent.

UPDATE: At the Feb 10, 2015 County Council meeting, the motion failed to gain a second after Councilor Mielke proposed it after a lengthy citizen discussion period.

Confusing to many was Councilor Madore declining to second the motion after expressing support, both at the meeting and on his facebook “newspaper.”

Could this part of some unknown strategy on the part of County Councilors?

Seattle Satanic Temple wants spot on the wall

Seattle? Shouldn’t they be on King County’s wall, some 180 miles North of us?

Or is it the left once again pushing an absurd point to prove something?

13 Comments to “In ??? We Trust (Updated)”

  1. “In God we trust”.

    Doesn’t say anything about Christianity. But of course, protesters are trotting out the old Treaty of Tripoli anyway.

    “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

    “…endowed by their Creator…”

    I’d say that the next thing you know, they’ll be protesting the American Declaration of Independence. But, of course, the Left already does, and has been doing so for a long time. It’s just a bit more covert is all.

    Like

  2. Just so. The deranged can’t help it.

    I’m with you: I don’t care. But that the whack jobs are freaking out about it makes me want to have the sign out there 12 stories high and a block long.

    Hinton

    Like

  3. Tempest in a teapot… but it does remind me of a sign I’ve seen in some small business establishments: “In God We Trust, all others pay cash.”

    From a larger perspective, I’ve heard many Christians complaining about the lack of tolerance for (their) religion or religious views, particularly from those on the left. I understand their complaints and agree that much of the “politically correct” treatment of religion/religious display is unnecessarily critical.

    However, I would suggest that Christians make some analysis of how their demands for tolerance are applied to those who have other points of view. If a Christian demands that laws or statutes reflect their personal beliefs based on their religious philosophy, they should realize that their position is just as intolerant as the demands of others that Christianity be obliterated from the public square. Toleration was “easier” in historical times, as the U.S. was primarily a “Christian Nation” with an intentionally and specifically secular government. (That is, the population was almost completely made up of people that claimed to be Christians.) Since WWII (and even before) there has a been a flow of immigrants (both legal and illegal) who are followers of other religions. And there is now a large percentage of people who claim “I believe in God but not in ‘organized’ religion.” (We could argue about what, exactly, this means.) So we now have a society and culture that involves many different religions — and various shadings of the non-religious from the wishy-washy “I believe, but I don’t believe” crowd to those who have come to realize they are atheists. Thus, the form of public tolerance for our religious differences is required.

    It is notable that the religious symbology that appears in government (particularly the Federal government) were usually legislatively added following the aftermath of a war — at times when religious fervor seems to have swept the nation (which gives some credence to the saying, “There are no atheists in fox holes”). The “In God We Trust” phrase on our coins appeared in the aftermath of the Civil War. (The appearance on paper money came later, as I recall.) And, the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance was added just after WWII.

    As our society continues to become more pluralistic, we are likely to see more and more dissension over the use of Religious symbols in our public square. It is important for all of us to keep things in perspective and be tolerant of the religious views of our fellow citizens.

    Like

  4. An interesting society we live in here. I often wonder to myself just how scary it must be to deny God so contemptuously when one’s soul knows they are wrong. Recently Joe, a vet, told me the only thing to truly fear was God. I responded with I cannot fear God… he loves me, it is the evil that does not love God I fear.

    Like

  5. Why give the Democrats an issue in the upcoming county election?

    Like

  6. Since this isn’t and wouldn’t be an issue, why mention “giving it to the democrats?”

    Hinton

    Like

  7. So, the question I have is simple. Does Mr Mielke wish to observe the motto of the US or just celebrate its currency?

    Like

  8. Carollyn: I’m puzzled by your remark, “… how scary it must be to deny God so contemptuously when one’s soul knows they are wrong.”

    Judaism, Islam, and Christians all believe in “the God of Abraham.” Yet there is considerable acrimony between members of these faiths. Indeed, it has taken well into the 20th Century for the various Christian sects to have some level of ecumenical tolerance (which doesn’t seem to run very deep). Christians spent much of their history “despising” Jews from the mistaken belief that “the Jews killed Christ.” (But if Christ didn’t die, how could He have redeemed the sinners? It makes no sense to denigrate Jews for that purpose and Christ’s crucifixion was directly ordered by a Roman governor — yet no similar denigration assailed the Romans. — As a point of History, the Roman hegemony at the time was largely responsible for allowing Christianity to become widespread and much more than simply a variation of Jewish beliefs.)

    Then we have the multitude of eastern religions that are widely practiced throughout Asia — with many active participants in the U.S. (I used to live a short distance from a Sikh temple, and for several years had an office across the street from a Buddhist temple.) The eastern religions tend to view God very differently or even conceptualize multiple gods or even do not conceptualize god or gods as a separate entity. (“God is within all of us… and in all creation.”) Are you tolerant of these belief systems? While a small percentage of the U.S. population, believers in eastern religions are close to 1/3 of the global population.

    While the number of “true” atheists polls out to a rather small number (<2% of the US population), it is hard to imagine that these individuals would acknowledge that "in their soul they know they are wrong." Indeed, most of that group would not even consider that they have a "soul" to have a separate opinion from themselves. (A "true" atheist is one who has studied and adopted a philosophical understanding that excludes the possibility that there are beings outside of objective reality.)

    The "religious but not religious" folks are, frankly, being intellectually dishonest with themselves. They have been unable or unwilling to take the necessary time to study philosophy to the point of accepting or rejecting a belief in a religious practice. Not wanting to offend (or have to expend the energy to defend their position) they fall back on the wishy-washy "believe but not believe" statement. It is notable that this portion of the U.S. population is estimated (depending on the poll) at around 20% — a fair number of not exactly believers. I can assure you that should any of these folks stumble across John 3:16 that they are not likely to "see the light."

    So, when it comes to religious tolerance, Christians (as well as Jews, Islamists, and adherents of various eastern religions) there is some room for complaint. Atheists, while not having a religion, are often associated with a philosophy that simply rules out the existence of God — but under the concept of being tolerant, they are certainly due some fairness in dealing (from a governmental aspect) with their philosophical/belief system.

    I merely ask those who are upset with the more secular emphasis that goes with the increased pluralism of our society understand that with greater diversity in beliefs, it does require those of one or another religious or philosophical belief system to be tolerant of those with other beliefs. Note that tolerance does not require either approval or acceptance, but merely the avoidance of being purposely offensive to the other groups in the operation of the governmental apparatus.

    Like

  9. I want to propose an alternative: “In Spaghetti Monster We Trust”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

    The following is speciflally addressed to anyone who professes to be a Republican: You idiots were supposed to be the party that supports minimal government, but here we are addressing some government overreach stupidity.

    If you really wanted to show some support for this country, you would look to the Founding Fathers, and not to the idiots in charge during the Cold War (like McCarthy). When this country was founded the motto was E Pluribus Unem. Madison & Jefferson wrote on this. I assume (as self-professed “Patriots” you have read their writings, right?)

    Madore ran on the CRC, and his message was that the voters should have a say.

    But when it came to this motto idiocicy (which was equally divisive) he was silent. My take is if an issue is this divisive it should go to a vote. Does anyone disagree???

    PS – if any morons have gotten this far without realizing why this is a Bad Idea, let me say that Islamists worship the same God as you

    Like

  10. I am not a highly religious person, but have spent many years studying various religions. For what it is worth, I tend to keep my spiritual beliefs to myself.

    That being said, In God We Trust was selected by Congress as the official National Motto.

    Reasons why are irrelevant.

    By the same token, every President has a significant number of detractors and opponents, yet their photo is displayed in public buildings and schools (or at least once were)

    While I don’t accept Obama as My President, he was duly elected and it is proper for his photo to be displayed.

    Same with the National Motto in my opinion.

    Until such time as Congress rescinds it, it is proper to display if chosen to be.

    E Pluribus Unum was never selected as an official motto and given how we are being divided along cultural, racial, gender and other selective lines today due to “multiculturalism,” would be inappropriate and in fact, a lie!

    That is turned into such a three ring circus was pathetic, but was bound to happen with such an attention whore running things.

    Like

  11. Hi Lew,

    It appears we have to get technical on this (in which case IMO, this should go to the voters).

    E Pluribus Unum was the motto as determined by Congress until the 20th century. Comparing the usage of “E Pluribus Unum” vs. “In God We Trust” should put this to rest pretty fast.

    I think we all agree that making it an issue by displaying it in the building was idiocy. Madore’s campaign was “CRC deserves a popular vote” and in the same vein, anything that is controversial deserves a popular vote. I supported him when he supported a CRC vote, but now I oppose him when he opposed an “In God We Trust” vote.

    I support democracy.

    Like

  12. I stand on my word of as long as it is the congressionally mandated official motto, it is proper.

    That being said and as I wrote in the post, I don’t care whether or not is is actually displayed. But if they choose to, I also see it as proper.

    E Pluribus Unum was nice in its day, but it is dead today. With hyphenated American every where we look, there is no effort to become one. The only effort today is to continue dividing the people.

    As for a vote, I imagine the C3G2’rs will try to run an initiative to have it taken down.

    But with them, it is difficult to determine if what drives it more is hatred of God or Madore.

    Like

  13. “… I imagine the C3G2’rs will try to run an initiative…”

    I love this thought. The C3G2’rs were supporters of the county charter, that increases the number of signatures for an initiative to the point where it takes a massive and expensive program to secure a sufficient number of signatures. Let ’em waste there money on that!

    Like

%d bloggers like this: