This morning I heard that Michael Newdow is at it again. This time around he wants to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency. That got me thinking.
(show)
Why not remove e pluribus unum from the penny? After all, "out of many, one" might be interpreted by some as slighting diversity. Now many liberals are big on diversity, and seem to be unaware that diversity is a value only when balanced by the competing value of unity. That is, many liberals seem unaware that diversity valued as such, and without limit, contributes to divisiveness, a point I expand on in Diversity and Divisiveness.
So suppose a bunch of diversity liberals insists on the removal of e pluribus unum from the penny. Should we give them a hearing? Suppose they are joined by a group of inclusivity liberals who object to the Latin phrase precisly because it is Latin and 'excludes' those who do not understand Latin. Would that strengthen the case?
Or perhaps it is not diversity liberals who want to remove e pluribus unum, but a contingent of states rights conservatives: they read the Latin phrase as a covert endorsement of a strong centralized government that rides roughshod over the Tenth Amendment.
Some will argue that there is a difference in the God sentence and the unity phrase, a difference that justifies a difference in treatment. It would be interesting to hear what that difference is.
Some will say that "In God We Trust" violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But it does no such thing as a careful reading of it shows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." The gist of it is that the federal government shall not set up any religion as the state religion membership in which would be necessary for holding public office, etc.
Clearly, the exceedingly vague phrase "In God We Trust" does not have the power to establish any religion as the state religion. To establish a religion is to establish some specific religion such as Christianity or Islam. The vague theism/deism suggested by 'God' in the sentence in question, however, is not a specific religion. And note that the vagueness is very significant. 'God' can and does mean different things to different people. For the pantheistically inclined, God is nature. For some deists, God is nothing but a cosmic starter-upper. Or 'God' might be a way of referring to ethical ideals. For the flabby Paul Tillich,
Atheism can only mean the attempt to remove any ultimate concern – to remain unconcerned about the meaning of one’s existence. Indifference toward the ultimate question is the only imaginable form of atheism. Whether it is possible is a problem which must remain unsolved at this point. In any case, he who denies God as a matter of ultimate concern affirms God, because he affirms ultimacy in his concern. (Dynamics of Faith; quoted from White, Eternal Quest, p. 94, emphasis added.)
On Tillichian latitudinarianism, then, even Newdow has a god: his ultimate concrern is removing every vestige of theism/deism from public life. So what's his beef?
Newdow thinks that "In God We Trust" renders him and other atheists "second-call citiziens" (his phrase). He supports this with the observation that "no atheist can get elected." (From a TV interview a moment ago). He has a point: self-identified atheists will have a hard time getting elected. Part of the reason for this is that a lot of people wrongly think that a atheist cannot be a morally decent person. That is a mistake, of course, but that is just the way many people think in these United States. In a democratic republic, the vox populi counts for a lot. So if an atheist cannot get elected, that is because the people (for whatever good or bad reasons) do not want to elect an atheist.
I would say that Newdow has misidentified the cause of the unpopularity of atheists. "In God We Trust" on our currency is not a cause of the unpopularity; it is an effect of this unpopularity. Most people are theists of one sort or another, or at least are disposed to say they are if polled. Given this fact, self-proclaimed atheists will have a hard time of it in public life.
But that is just too bad. Since most of us are theists, Newdow has no basis for complaint against "In God We Trust." That is one of our values, and we are entitled to it. What gives a member of a minority the right to try to impose his values on the majority? Bear in mind what I said above: no case can be made from the "separation of church and state." "In God We Trust" is not a church, nor need one be a member of a church to endorse it, nor does its appearance on the currency in any way establish a religion. It simply reflects a very vague theism that is part of our tradition.
Let's be clear: minorities have rights and these rights must be protected. That is why we have a constitutionally-based republic and not a pure democracy. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for example, is a right guranteed by the constituion; it is not up for democratic grabs. The rights of minorities must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. But in no way are Newdow's rights being violated by "In God We Trust" on paper money.
If you disagree, tell me which rights of his are being violated. But note that to have one's beliefs 'violated' is not to have one's rights violated. My beliefs are violated daily by liberals and leftists. But I support their right to hold and express their beliefs. Indeed, I encourage them to do so. For this allows me to test my beliefs against theirs and to appreciate just how superior mine are.
(hide)
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.