The national motto as the ‘American trust in the Christian Deity’

April 13, 2006

We had a perfectly good motto for nearly 200 years. The founding fathers went to a lot of trouble to pick “E Pluribus Unum” (“From many, one”) as a reflection of American diversity and unity. Sure, it wasn’t in English, but it was a pretty good motto nevertheless.

In 1956, during the Cold War, politicians decided the motto wasn’t religious enough, so they picked a new one, “In God We Trust.” And to celebrate the golden anniversary of the phrase, Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.) has an idea.

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family sent this alert to its membership yesterday via email (no link available):

U.S. Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., has plans to introduce a resolution reaffirming the motto, one that would call on Americans to celebrate it on or around its July 30 anniversary with patriotic and sacred assemblies and prayer. […]

[The resolution includes a] list of 16 historical findings, including that “the fundamental trust of the American people upon the God of the Bible is irrefutable.” It also cites Psalm 33:12 (“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”) and proclaims that “This American trust in the Christian Deity dates from the earliest colonial days.”

Read that again. An elected lawmaker wants Congress to support a resolution that says all of us have an “irrefutable” trust in the “God of the Bible,” and, more specifically, we’ve also always trusted the “Christian Deity.” For good measure, Tanner even has plans to throw in a theocratic Bible verse in his resolution.

I know it frustrates a lot of conservatives when liberals talk about the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party,” but we’ll stop using the phrase just as soon as these guys stop acting like they want to a establish a theocracy.

Please, PLEASE
Find a link for that if you possibly can.

It sounds just like something James Dobson would say.

However, if Duncan is actually going to introduce a resolution then shouldn’t we be able to get the actual text of the resolution?

  • However, if Duncan is actually going to introduce a resolution then shouldn’t we be able to get the actual text of the resolution?

    The key phrase there is “going to.” The resolution has not yet been introduced, but Duncan talked to Focus about it and showed the group the language he plans to include.

    As soon as a link is available, I’ll post it. If anyone wants confirmation, I could forward the email itself.

  • This story shows the deception behind the “Why should anyone be offended by ‘In God We Trust’? It’s inclusive of all religion.” argument. The new motto was never meant to be inclusive of all religion. It was added as a way of ferreting out the commies (who everyone knows are atheist) by forcing them to acknowledge the “God of the Bible”, but it’s not just atheists who have reason to be offended. Any other spiritual view based on something other than the Christian Bible is not regarded here. This is the opposite of the religious freedom promised by the constitution.

  • Would someone please send these droolers a copy of The Federalist Papers and Jefferson’s writings on religious liberty? I don’t know what history books these bipeds-lacking-frontal-lobes-and-opposable-thumbs have been reading, but it does not accord with the history of the United States.

    Everyone thinks the Puritans came here for “religious freedom”but the freedom they were looking for was the freedom to persecute anyone who didn’t believe as they did – it’s why they got kicked out of Holland.

    In 1681, had my Quaker ancestors bumped into North America 100 miles north of where they did, the good Pilgrim Fathers would have put hot pokers through the tongues of the men to keep them from speaking “blasphemy” and would have imprisoned the women as witches. This in fact happened to other Quakers who weren’t as fortunate in their navigation as were my ancestors.

    This is the “religious liberty” these goddamned southern traitors want to celebrate???

  • It kills me that these Christian Taliban think that the founding fathers would approve of their machinations.
    Jefferson himself disputed the “divine” status of Jesus himself, even going so far as to remove any mention of the ressurection. In addition, he passed a Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia, which effectively ended the Anglican Church’s hold as official religion of that state.

    Here’s my favorite excerpt (emphasis is mine):
    SECT. II. WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

  • Good gawd, I loathe these fucking people. If they want to live in a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship they should MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE or star their own bloody country. Leave America alone.

  • Some of you are assuming that our religious militants have any respect whatever for the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. Asking them to read it is a nonstarter; they are completely opposed to their sentiments. The only way you will end the religious Taliban is to exterminate their sentiments from the face of the earth. Or, if you want an easier way, just tax religion to the point that it doesn’t really pay anymore. At that point, all the hucksters will go find something else to do.

    Freedom, to them, is a tool. As long as they benefit from it, they profess loyalty to it. But they see no contradiction in denying freedom to others.

    And, Gridlock, it wouldn’t be right unless Jesus was on the same bills that the Christian Taliban elite receive from the government in the form of faith-based “grants” (read: bribery).

  • Rep. Duncan is just pandering to the more ignorant members of the “Christian Right”.It’s another way of saying ” I’m a better Cristian than you”,and by saying such its means” I’m a better person than you”.Aren’t followers of Christ adomished to be humble and not to be puffed up.I think its the arrogance, of these “so-called Christians”,that turn a great many people off,not just their positions on many of the political/moral issues of the day.Jesus said,”Blessed are the Peacemakers”,but many of “AMERICAN FIRSTER CHRISTIANS”,lead the cheering for any idiotic war the U.S. is involved in.OH!-I forgot ONLY if A Republican President starts the war,Democratic wars BAD.GOP=”CHRISTS’ POLITICAL BODY ON EARTH”.

  • “we’ll stop using the phrase just as soon as these guys stop acting like they want to a establish a theocracy.” – CB

    In other words, exactly 24 hours after Hell freezes over. 😉

  • Frak and Gridlock,

    Jesus needs to be on the $100. First of all Franklin wasn’t even a president so he can be dropped easily. We could replace the phrase “All about the Benjamins” with it is all about the Jesui (it could be Jesus’) bit that would be too confusing and I like saying Jesui, like I like saying Elvi).

    We could meld America’s two religions – Christanity and capitalism in one bold move. Plus Iran could never try to one-up us because they cannot put an image of Mohammed on their money. It is a win-win-win!

  • Zoe,

    “Good gawd, I loathe these fucking people”
    That’s ok, I suspect that many of them loathe people who feel the way you do.

    “If they want to live in a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship”
    For them it’s not a matter of wanting to… They believe that they already do live in a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship.

    “they should MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE or start their own bloody country”
    They see no need to start a country or move, this one suits their purposes just fine. However I’m sure they’d love for anyone who feels the way you do to move somewhere else or start their own country (preferably far far away)

    “Leave America alone”
    They’re trying to, but the gosh darned non-believers keep trying to change it to allow “other” religions (and non-religious). If everyone would simply accept the “Truth” of their beliefs, they wouldn’t have to keep on trying to fix what everyone else keeps trying to break.

    See it’s simple. They aren’t the problem, everyone else is.

  • Which Christian God are they talking about? The Christian God of the Catholic church which advocates male dominance and refuses to ordain women as priests? Or the Christian God of the Falwells, Robertsons, etc. who thrive on attacking certain citizens of our society – gays and women. Or the Christian God of the United Church of Christ which says that “God calls the church to speak truth to power, liberate the oppressed, care for the poor and comfort the afflicted.” Or the Christian God of the Episcopal Church which ordained Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire.

    Gee – such a plethora of Christian Gods to choose from! How does one choose?

    I would hazard a guess that when people search for which Christian God to worship, they choose one which conforms to their preconceived prejudices, biases and beliefs. Then they can justify their biases by hiding behind the teachings of their chosen God.

  • God of the Bible.

    For me, that’s Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
    One God, indivisible. And the Son is Jesus.

    Is everyone really on board with that?

    Islam, Judaism, LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.

    Perhaps it’s more accurate to say “In OUR God we trust, but that’s not necessarily your god”

  • Oh just let Duncan try, please. In fact we should try and get this to the floor just so we can have a “wedge” issue. Isn’t it time we got to have a wedge, (whines and cries)

  • ‘Everyone thinks the Puritans came here for “religious freedom”but the freedom they were looking for was the freedom to persecute anyone who didn’t believe as they did – it’s why they got kicked out of Holland.’

    Thank you, Tom Cleaver.

    I’ve believed that for a long time, even though I have never researched it. Now I know what happened to the Puritans. They morphed into the religious right.

    I’m guessing on this one, but two thousand years ago, they were probably called Pharisees.

  • Jim B,
    I don’t know if they morphed into the religious right, though the fundies seem to be borrowing their old clothes.

    The Puritan sect seems to have died because history left it behind. It was at first part of an international movement, but that movement died elsewhere and left the Puritans isolated and without spiritual support. Heresies racked the community, splintering it. And the community grew from a small colony into something quite large and secure–and so the ideals of the Puritans “struggling against wild animals and wilder men” and finding the devil in every corner no longer made any sense.

    Kind of like how an ostentatious sermon on the evils of wealth would fail to impress a starving family in the Third World. The old message just was not relevant.

    So perhaps the good news is that eventually time will make Falwell and his ideals irrelevant, just as it did the Puritans. For instance, when our economy has crashed and people are starving to death, abortion and gay marriage won’t have much resonance anymore.

  • Pardon my pedantry, but strict adherence to word order is absolutely unnecessary in Latin translation (and would make most translations unintelligible if applied to longer texts). It’s perfectly acceptable to translate the national motto more naturally in English as “One from many.”

    You may now return to the discussion of more important matters.

  • Our kids “adopted” a stray cat the other day. It’s a very nice cat, and it had taken up residence on our side porch. We’ve built it a small shelter-box, lined the box with old towels, and fitted it out with bowls for food and water. It goes over to the far end of the property, where an old barn used to stand, to “do it’s business.” Like I said—it’s a very nice cat. All that’s left is to give it a name.

    Now, you might be thinking: “What the hell does this have to do with John Duncan, James Dobson, and Focus on the Family?”

    I think we’ll name the cat “God.” Then, I can tell my children that untold numbers of people go to church—just so they can all pray to a cat. “OUR” cat. I can sit back and enjoy the idea that Dobson, Falwell, Phelps, Robertson, and all the rest of the Reich are paying homage to our cat. I could even establish a trademark in which the name “God” is linked with the image of our cat (a just reward for that Norquist freak who wants to trademark “K Street Project). Then—when the day comes that the cat dies, I can say with absolute certainty that “God is dead.”

    Anyway, back to the serious side of the issue. Duncan is, without a doubt, trying to reinvent the motto beyond what its original intention was—and certainly beyond what its historical interpretations were. He’s spinning his wheels, trying to reinforce support from the fanatical zealots who would rather die in a thermonuclear rapture of their own making, as opposed to turning their backs on Kid George. It’s a way to force “the ‘G’ issue” into public buildings, town squares, elementary schools, and the like. It’s a wedge issue to push the Democrats into the limelight of “being less than American.” But then, all these gangsters still believe that they can save their precious Reich, as bombshell after bombshell lands on their collective skulls, by producing more bovine-excrement legislation. And Duncan’s doesn’t look to be anything more than a wimpish little non-binding resolution….

  • Steve-
    We sometimes sarcastically call our cat “Lord”, in an olde English sense as he is such a spoiled, noble, and finicky beast.

    But it also takes on a strange unintended religious blasphamy when the Lord coughs up a hairball.
    The Lord is always in our hearts and he often speaks to us, but we don’t always have the wisdom to discern his true meaning. But if you don’t choose to believe in my Lord, I have no urge to persecute you or convert you. And that’s the way it should be for all Americans.
    Religion is a personal freedom. Ours just happens to catch mice.

  • Look very carefully at the bible quote they chose. Read it again.

    FEAR.

    It’s all fear.

    “SAY YOU LOVE JESUS!! SAY IT!!! IT’S THE ONLY THING KEEPING US FROM GETTING NUKED!! PRAY HARDER OR WE ALL WILL DIE!”

    In an a fearsome and uncertain world, even the most liberal-minded people desperately reach for… some god or another to save them.

    That’s what this is about. That’s *all* this is about.

    These wingnuts really do believe that being an atheist is unpatriotic: they think that anyone who’s not praying for the country is at very least not doing their part, and at worst is “aiding and abetting” the enemy.

    That’s what we’ve got here.

    Scary.

    By the way, my personal pet peeve: how many fucking co-sponsors will this bill have? I’m viciously bitter about NO Democrats having the balls to co-sponsor Russ Feingold’s “controversial” censure resolution when he introduced it (I think a sum total of 3 or 4 eventually ended up signing on to it). I wonder how many Repugs will co-sponsor Brownback’s latest peice of theocratic bullshit; note that 34 of themi– more than half of all the Repugs in the Senate!– signed on to the “fetal pain” bill.

    Fuckers.

  • Ah, Duncan, not Brownback. Whatever. My point remains the same: I wonder how many Repugs are going to slink away, refusing to sign on to this peice of shit?

    My point being: these things get introduced because Repugs have balls. They get away with it because Democrats do not. That shit’s gotta change, pronto.

  • http://www.house.gov/duncan/

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109FbzHUo::

    Whereas the national motto of the United States is `In God we trust’; (Introduced in House)

    HCON 302 IH

    109th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. CON. RES. 302
    Supporting the national motto of the United States.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    November 16, 2005
    Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    ——————————————————————————–

    CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
    Supporting the national motto of the United States.

    Whereas the national motto of the United States is `In God we trust’ ;

    Whereas the national motto was adopted in 1956 and is codified in the laws of the United States at section 302 of title 36, United States Code;

    Whereas the national motto reflects the traditional sentiment that we are a people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being;

    Whereas the sentiment `In God we trust’ is deeply interwoven into the fabric of our civil polity;

    Whereas the content of the motto is as old as the Republic itself and has always been as integral a part of the first amendment to the Constitution as the very words of that charter of religious liberty;

    Whereas the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him, a belief clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself;

    Whereas our national life reflects a religious people who earnestly pray that the Supreme Lawgiver guide them in every measure which may be worthy of His blessing;

    Whereas the national motto serves the secular purpose of expressing confidence in the future and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society;

    Whereas the national motto appears on all coins and currency issued by the United States Government; and

    Whereas the words `In God We Trust’ appear over the entrance to the Chamber of the Senate and are prominently engraved in the wall above the Speaker’s dais in the Chamber of the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the House of Representatives–

    (1) finds repugnant all misinterpretations and misapplications of the Constitution that disregard those references to God that are well within the American tradition and outside constitutional proscription;

    (2) finds that acknowledgment of our need for the superintending care of the Supreme Being does not intrude upon the freedom of conscience;

    (3) rejects the notion that the laws and Constitution of this Nation require the exclusion of God from matters of Government and public life;

    (4) supports the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other Government institutions established or maintained at taxpayer expense;

    (5) supports the inscription of the national motto on United States currency; and

    (6) affirms its support for the national motto.
    H.CON.RES.302
    Title: Supporting the national motto of the United States.
    Sponsor: Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] (introduced 11/16/2005) Cosponsors (37)
    Latest Major Action: 11/16/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
    ——————————————————————————–
    COSPONSORS(37), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
    Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 12/6/2005 Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 2/14/2006
    Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 12/6/2005 Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] – 12/6/2005
    Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] – 12/14/2005 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 11/17/2005
    Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] – 2/14/2006 Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 11/17/2005
    Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 12/13/2005 Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 12/13/2005
    Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] – 11/17/2005 Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] – 11/18/2005
    Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 11/17/2005 Rep English, Phil [PA-3] – 12/13/2005
    Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. [TN-9] – 12/6/2005 Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] – 12/16/2005
    Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 12/13/2005 Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] – 3/29/2006
    Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] – 12/14/2005 Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 12/6/2005
    Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] – 11/17/2005 Rep Kuhl, John R. “Randy”, Jr. [NY-29] – 12/6/2005
    Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] – 12/14/2005 Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 2/14/2006
    Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 11/18/2005 Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] – 12/12/2005
    Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] – 12/6/2005 Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 12/6/2005
    Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 12/13/2005 Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 12/14/2005
    Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 4/4/2006 Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 12/12/2005
    Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] – 12/8/2005 Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] – 12/8/2005
    Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] – 11/18/2005 Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] – 12/6/2005
    Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 12/6/2005

    • Comments are closed.