…and this is a 
Polls are bad enough, but the editorial that went with this one is something else. A group is lobbying to slap a bunch of religious phrases on the US Capitol Visitor's Center, and their rationale is inane.
The engravings will cost less than $100,000 of the center's total $621 million price tag. Fighting this silly lawsuit will probably cost more than the engravings themselves.
One hundred thousand dollars isn't peanuts, and the argument that nobody should oppose them because it will cost even more money is ridiculous — if economy is a concern, then don't vandalize the building in the first place! No engraving costs, no legal expenses, we're all happy.
But this guy hasn't quite hit his stride yet. Let's bring on the tired old "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" argument.
Let's start by pointing out the First Amendment doesn't grant freedom "from" religion, just freedom "of" religion. It doesn't ban religion, it provides freedom for all so that one denomination doesn't dominate or become the official state religion. Whether you practice a religion or not is up to people's preferences.
No one is forced to worship because they saw the motto on a $20 bill. Or because they recited the Pledge of Allegiance. It's pretty innocuous.
All right, I say this fellow needs to put his money where his mouth is. Let's add "Praise be unto Allah", "No gods, no masters", and "Hail, Xenu!" to the center and to our money — think he'll argue that it is all innocuous then?
Now that he has convinced you of the quality of his arguments, go vote.
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. 62.5%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. 37.5%
Comments
Posted by: That German Guy | July 16, 2009 8:50 AM
I like how the (at the moment) pro-God poll says "results not scientific" at the bottom :)
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 16, 2009 8:50 AM
It was like when I was back in junior high and my school in Pennsylvania decided to have Jesus Week. When I complained, I was told, "No, it's not against the rules. We could just as easily have a Hindu week, but no one has organized that." I was very tempted to try, after that response, but junior high is an awkward time for a person to make an indignant stance and I never got around to it.
Posted by: That German Guy | July 16, 2009 8:51 AM
I like how the (at the moment) pro-God poll says "results not scientific" at the bottom :)
Posted by: Sauve | July 16, 2009 8:54 AM
And it begins..
Posted by: That German Guy | July 16, 2009 8:54 AM
I like how the (at the moment) pro-God poll says "results not scientific" at the bottom :)
Posted by: MadScientist | July 16, 2009 8:54 AM
Oh, come on - that's just being mean to the theotards.
[OT]
I've noticed the latest M&K retorts aren't signed off by one or the other - such a pity because I'd like to see what each of them has to say. Well, I lie, given the history I'm not really keen to see.
I'm astounded that M&K either fail to understand "crackergate" or foster a willful ignorance of it. It is being touted as an instance of how PZ tactics discourage religious people from science. I never imagined "crackergate" had any science to it - any decent person would see that the religious furor over the cracker and the threats of violence from the religious was just ridiculous. Well, if you've got any more crackers there may be *one* use for "Unscientific America" aside from a few minutes' heating in the winter.
Posted by: Ferre | July 16, 2009 8:54 AM
39.5% No atm.
Posted by: Scott | July 16, 2009 8:55 AM
OT but funny comic!
But yeah, isn't there already enough religion thrust in our faces every waking moment without having the Capitol dedicated to the sky fairy?
Posted by: Fake Al Gore
|
July 16, 2009 8:56 AM
We are at 39.5% right now.
@Mozglubov - Even though I was raised in a very conservative Christian part of Texas, my high school was surprisingly open to different religions. There was the usual Jesus Club, but there was also an atheist club. I hadn't experienced my deconversion yet, though, so I never knew what the atheist club was like.
Posted by: B166ER | July 16, 2009 8:56 AM
The idiocy of some people is astounding. "Well, it's 'JUST' 100,000 of the tax coffers money, so only a loonie would be against that." The idea of spending money on something like this at a time like this is absurd! And P.Z., thanks for adding "No Gods, No Masters!" As someone of the persuasion of Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman, I have to say you really made my day. I think if I saw it on a government building, and it wasn't scrawled in spray paint as per usual, I would have a heart attack. I would laugh first, then the heart attack.
Posted by: Doug Little | July 16, 2009 8:57 AM
Only 3500 odd total voters, this is gonna be great. All I have to say about the engravings is WWJD, how about they take the $100,000 and help the homeless out around the area, That would be a much more Xian use for the money.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 16, 2009 8:58 AM
TGG,
enough,please.
Posted by: B166ER | July 16, 2009 8:58 AM
The idiocy of some people is astounding. "Well, it's 'JUST' 100,000 of the tax coffers money, so only a loonie would be against that." The idea of spending money on something like this at a time like this is absurd! And P.Z., thanks for adding "No Gods, No Masters!" As someone of the persuasion of Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman, I have to say you really made my day. I think if I saw it on a government building, and it wasn't scrawled in spray paint as per usual, I would have a heart attack. I would laugh first, then the heart attack.
Posted by: That German Guy | July 16, 2009 8:58 AM
I would like to apologize for being too stupid to comment properly (IE not multiply).
That is all.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 16, 2009 8:59 AM
Oh, I'll vote for "E pluribus unum" instead or the motto of the Three Musketeers which is similar: "All for one, and one for all!"
Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2009 9:05 AM
I'm so confused. I thought the Supreme Court ruled "In God We Trust" was merely "ceremonial deism" and therefore devoid of any actual religious meaning.
It's almost as if (dare I say it?) they were completely full of shit, and just making up an excuse to set aside the law.
Posted by: Anders | July 16, 2009 9:07 AM
Big glowing letters "HAPPY MONKEY" smack in the middle...
Posted by: Kinzua Kid | July 16, 2009 9:08 AM
Looks to me like the poll was reset and disabled. I can't see anything but the old numbers and no voting options.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 16, 2009 9:10 AM
Is "in god we trust" the national motto?
If it was, couldn't we have done better? Like, "To the future, and beyond!" or "Fortune favors the bold" or even "A chicken in every pot"? Even the classic "cthulhu fhtaghn" has a more iconic sound to it. Or perhaps "We will sell no wine before its time" (Or the French version) "We will not whine before it's time"
Maybe it's time for the Obama administration to sponsor a national contest for a new national motto?
Posted by: Kinzua Kid | July 16, 2009 9:11 AM
OOPS! Didn't see that link over there... ;) Oddly enough, the poll results on the article page don't change with the actual poll.
Posted by: Travis | July 16, 2009 9:12 AM
I never really get this "freedom of, not from" religion arguments. It would be one thing if people were complaining about a sign on a church lawn saying "In good we trust", that argument would be applicable, but that is not the case. It seems pretty clear this really should not be allowed on money.
I do wish we up here in Canada could get the god talk out of the preamble to the constitution. At least overall we seem a little more reasonable about religion.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 16, 2009 9:13 AM
Ah, but "Praise Xenu!" would not be reflective of our heritage. Which is why it should have this quote:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: iarnuocon | July 16, 2009 9:14 AM
DaveL, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on shit. The 5th, 7th, and 10th circuit courts are the ones who've made the spurious "historical use has rubbed all the religious shininess off the phrase" argument.
Kinzua, you have to click on the little square that says "THU" at the top of the blurb in order to go to the page which allows you to vote.
Has anyone besides myself noticed that this poll every so often SUBTRACTS votes from the "no" option total. Just in the last few minutes, I've watched it dip from 1799 to 1796, and then again from 1806 to 1804. I can't imagine that they're tabulating results on multiple servers or something.
Who wants to make a bet that the poll is already engineered to try to arrive at an "acceptable" answer?
Posted by: No One Of Consequence | July 16, 2009 9:21 AM
I've always thought that rather than pushing for removal of "In God We Trust" from various places, we should join forces with the Hindu's and push to have an "s" added and make it "In Gods We Trust". Then the Xtians would be all over removing it entirely.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | July 16, 2009 9:25 AM
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. (2465 responses)
53.9%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. (2110 responses)
46.1%
Keep going.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 16, 2009 9:25 AM
First of all I would say that the Constitution does not "grant" anything as sovereignty is held by the people - if the government doesn't give then the government can't take it away. It enumerates, not exclusively, certain rights as inalienable.
Second of all, $100,000 for innocuous is unreasonable.
Posted by: NYCMike | July 16, 2009 9:26 AM
"To go boldly where no man has gone before!" James T. Kirk, with grammar corrected.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 16, 2009 9:27 AM
#19. Actually (and unfortunately) "In God We Trust" was officially declared the US motto by the "H.J. Resolution 396" in 1956 thanks to Dwight D. Before that E Pluribus Unum was our unofficial motto.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Okay, so it's either innocuous and harmless so we shouldn't get our panties in a wad about it; or it is so freakin' important that if someone suggests that it be removed they are militant atheists who hate America and everything it stands for!
One or the other, please, not both.
Posted by: Rik G | July 16, 2009 9:29 AM
The headline of that article really pissed me off. "Put 'In God We Trust' on visitor's center, and be quiet already". Sorry, dude, this is a democratic republic, not a theocracy, and I feel like exercising my right to speak up, not shut up! Just for that remark, I'm not only voting in the poll (the no's are up to ~44%), but I'm forwarding it to likeminded friends. I've noticed far too much vaguely intimidating language from the religious right lately; it's getting creepy!
Posted by: Victor
|
July 16, 2009 9:33 AM
No sure when this is from, but check this out:
Now, that is a slap in the face to both atheism and theism. How often do you have to repeat something until it loses all significance. The Lord's Prayer has been repeated for the last 2,000 years.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | July 16, 2009 9:34 AM
Give it a rest, Split Infinitives are fine.
Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, "there has never been a rational basis for objecting to the split infinitive." (wikipedia)
You grammer folks miss the point sometimes...
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | July 16, 2009 9:40 AM
I knew that would happen, thanks to the internet grammar rules, the internet monsters will always cause one misspelling/grammar problem when discussing grammar after hitting "post".
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 16, 2009 9:40 AM
I'm going to be in DC about a month from now. I assume this place won't be built yet, so it won't matter to this northern heathen what happens with this silliness?
Posted by: neil | July 16, 2009 9:41 AM
We've been here before. No.15 is right the motto is E Pluribus Unum! It's not on something trivial like money. It's on the Great Seal!
In God We Trust was added to money during the Civil War, and later Cold War, to 'combat' the South and Communism.
If we are to be inclusive, we should be saying 'Out of Many, One'! This allows everyone to do what they want to, as is actually suggested by the writer of the editorial, without having to think that their purchase has a divine blessing. What? You think that the editorial is actually written by someone with a bias do you? The irony.
Surely freedom of religion, actually does mean freedom from, when you think about it. If the government is seen to endorse a certain standpoint, how can you freely practice (or not) religion 'B' when all you see is religion 'A'.
Of course if you use a lower case 'g' for god, then they are leaving the case open for you to pick and choose the deity of your choice. That is (relatively speaking) better, but maybe the best course of action is not to do it at all. Or stick to the sentiment of the Founding Fathers-
E Pluribus Unum
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 16, 2009 9:44 AM
@Fake Al Gore #9
I'm actually pretty impressed to hear that. There was no such club at my school... the fact that I didn't go to church confused a lot of people, although I decided to call myself an agnostic at the time because saying I was an atheist seemed to upset some people. Living there was a weird time in my life...
Posted by: Jud
|
July 16, 2009 9:45 AM
DaveL, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on shit. The 5th, 7th, and 10th circuit courts are the ones who've made the spurious "historical use has rubbed all the religious shininess off the phrase" argument.
The Supremes may not have ruled on that specific phrase, but they certainly have ruled in favor of "ceremonial deism" or whatever you like to call it. They've held, for example, that using public funds to put up town creches in public spaces at Xmas was not state support of religion violative of the First Amendment.
Second, that "freedom of, not from" trope - though there's no such phrase as either "freedom of" or "freedom from" religion in the First Amendment, there are clauses in the Amendment approximating both ideas: (1) The "free exercise" clause, which says government can't prohibit the free exercise of religion; and (2) the "establishment" clause, which says government can't make laws that establish (i.e., promote) religion.
Engraving "In God We Trust" on a public building falls squarely within the second prohibition, unless the Supremes wave the "ceremonial deism" magic wand at it.
Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 9:48 AM
"No" is now at 51.9 percent.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 16, 2009 9:49 AM
It's time to take "In God We Trust"
And let it rot, decay, and rust.
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2009 9:50 AM
You can't have freedom "of" religion without freedom "from" religion: you can't be free to practice your religion unless you are also free from practicing mine.
TGG, #1
I like how it only says "results not scientific" rather than, say, "results not meaningful in any way, shape or form."
From #31:
This loses any credibility from the Senate's resolution to re-codify the Pledge of Allegiance, complete with "under god", 99-0 with one abstention (Jesse Helms, who was ill. I doubt he would have been the lone dissenting vote) when Newdow challenged it in the Supreme Court. Oh, no. It has meaning alright, and that meaning is a religious one.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 16, 2009 9:53 AM
The rationale that 'you shouldn't try to stop me because it will cost more than just letting me do what I want' is essentially low-level bullying.
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2009 9:58 AM
The software was written by Diebold.
Posted by: Felix | July 16, 2009 9:59 AM
I can think of something that actually costs less the more you you do of it:
It's called taxing religious organisations.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2009 10:00 AM
Sure. Let's just engrave it on everyone's heads while we're at it. I mean, once you got a good thing going, like planting religious slogans and such everywhere, then why stop? I mean, like, why EVER stop?
Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2009 10:06 AM
As long as the gubmint is endorsing superstition, I think we should ritualistically slaughter a chicken daily on the steps of the building to ward off evil spirits.
Posted by: Spelling Pedant | July 16, 2009 10:10 AM
Why does the word Hindu require an apostrophe in its plural, but the word god does not?
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2009 10:11 AM
@45
s/chicken/congressman/
Posted by: ckerst | July 16, 2009 10:15 AM
I had a wingnut use the "freedom from" line on me, I had to point out to him that it actually does say "freedom from the establishment...."
Posted by: a different phil | July 16, 2009 10:16 AM
As of 10:16 EDT:
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. (2614 responses)
42.0%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. (3609 responses)
58.0%
6223 total responses
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2009 10:18 AM
@ckerst, #48
Actually, it doesn't:
Of course, if you want to be a stickler, it doesn't say "freedom of religion" either.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
July 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Voted as Jefferson & Madison would have (i.e., "No").
Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2009 10:31 AM
tsg@42
I would laugh, but that one cuts too deep.
Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 10:42 AM
Jason A. @41: I knew a landlord that routinely refused to return the security/cleaning deposits of *all* his tenants when they moved out. The condition of the premises was not at issue, he just knew that most of them couldn't afford the time and money for even small-claims court. So he "won" by bullying.
He was a Christian (Catholic).
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
July 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Its cool how Imacros just keeps chugging away in the background.....
Posted by: KristinMH | July 16, 2009 10:52 AM
62.9 percent for "No" - well on the way to Pharyngulation.
Posted by: stillwaggon | July 16, 2009 10:54 AM
I was very disappointed to receive the following message from my congressman yesterday:
"Thank you for contacting me regarding H. Con. Res. 131, which directs the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of "In God We Trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center. ...You may be interested to know that this resolution was recently overwhelmingly approved by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate."
I'm afraid that few politicians dared vote against it.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 16, 2009 11:04 AM
Scott #8 wow, thanks for the heads-up on the new OOTS. I've been watching for that for a while now.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 16, 2009 11:06 AM
Someone should just start sacrificing lambs on the steps of the Capitol. When the complaints start rolling in, the sacrificer can say, "It says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | July 16, 2009 11:06 AM
I got an email about this from the American Family Association earlier today. Fantastic message calling for action but not presenting a single argument why they (the organisation pressing charges) are wrong. The closest they got to an argument was the fact that "In God We Trust" have been on the currency since 1957. Argument from tradition. Strong case.
Posted by: Fernando
|
July 16, 2009 11:10 AM
"Thank you for contacting me regarding H. Con. Res. 131, which directs the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of "In God We Trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center. ...You may be interested to know that this resolution was recently overwhelmingly approved by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate."
Very bad news indeed...
Your representatives don´t respect their Constituiton, worst: they don´t show any respect by the spirit of the Constituiton, and acept all type of religious madness...
Your country, with so high ideals, inspired by the Ancients and the Enlightnement, are under a foul attack of religious fundamentalism, that pretend to turn USA in a despicable fascist-christian state.
My american friends: don´t give up, and try to restore, to his past magnificence, the ideals of the American Revolution and of your Founding Fathers!
My sugestion is to try put again, visible above all other slogans the "e pluribus unum", and erase from any religious slogan, because they are against the laws ans spirit of the american republic.
By the way, sorry by any mistake: english isn´t my language... :P
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | July 16, 2009 11:15 AM
I got an email about this from the American Family Association earlier today. Fantastic message calling for action but not presenting a single argument why they (the organisation pressing charges) are wrong. The closest they got to an argument was the fact that "In God We Trust" have been on the currency since 1957. Argument from tradition. Strong case.
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | July 16, 2009 11:34 AM
Yes: 33.2%
No: 66.8%
Looks like we are winning. I find it interesting that the poll results shown on the front page have it sitting at 51% Yes and 49% No.
Posted by: lightning
|
July 16, 2009 11:45 AM
I always read the Motto as the Jean Shepherd version:
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
July 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Fernando @ #60:
That's a very constructive suggestion. Instead of merely complaining -- which isn't getting us anywhere, anyway -- we should start pushing for the original national motto to be given pride of place instead of the usurper. That way, we're arguing FOR tradition and the founding fathers, instead of AGAINST their precious religious beliefs.
And don't worry about your English...sad to say, it's better than a lot of native speakers!!
Posted by: Woozle | July 16, 2009 11:55 AM
Obviously we need to get that back off the currency (added in 1956), as well, or we'll keep hearing this argument.And out of the Pledge, too (added 1954).
<merchandising type=shameless>I Am Not Under God</merchandising>
Posted by: Calypte | July 16, 2009 11:58 AM
I just voted at 8:55 AM PDT, and the results show 28.5% yes, 71.5% no.
Posted by: Fernando
|
July 16, 2009 12:01 PM
Thank you by the kind words on #64 chgo_liz.
And thats right, you all, americans not subjugated by religious dogma, should counter-atack and demand the only true motto of your republic - "e pluribus unum" - should be put in his rightful place, and all deluded declarations, from a religious mind, should be let only to churchs and other temples.
Posted by: Arnold Facepalmer | July 16, 2009 12:13 PM
I'd be curious to know how much it cost the U.S. Mint to retool and start putting "In god we trust" on the bills in 1957.
It's amazing how many fundies I've spoken with think it has been there since the inception of our nation and who also think it has been our national motto "forever"
Posted by: Rebelest | July 16, 2009 12:18 PM
Should we be surprised when a godsodded ahole like Antonio Fins can't recognized the glaring contradictions even within his own statements?
According to his first sentence "the First Amendment doesn't grant freedom 'from' religion" ("from" and "of" are sometime synonymous; Fins from Foolville=Fins of Foolville)but then admits, in his second sentence, that a person can choose whether or not to practice a religion...his second sentence contradicts the conclusion he comes to in his first sentence. That is what religion does to the brain!
Posted by: not a gator | July 16, 2009 12:18 PM
There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion, because without the option of 'no faith' one will quickly see a host of interested parties descending upon the public sphere with a noisy opinion as to what does and does not constitute a religion. Only with the freedom to practice no religion comes the freedom to practice any religion. Otherwise the dominant cult declares their rivals atheist.
Want an example? Just do some Googling on "Israel" and "who is a Jew". Guess what, if you're a convert to Reform Judaism, the Ultra-Orthodox rabbis have decided you aren't a real Jew. Even though you can be a convinced Jew and yet strongly disagree on moral and even religious grounds with Orthodoxy (especially its treatment of women).
Posted by: DLC | July 16, 2009 12:23 PM
621 million for a visitor's center.
Six Hundred and Twenty-One Million Dollars, and No Sense.
It better be one hell of a building.
Posted by: Sam C | July 16, 2009 12:29 PM
Start pedantry:
What, only one visitor? If that visitor is worthy of a $621M center, it must be Gawd Awlmightee! In which case, the motto might be A Good Idea?
Still, I voted Nay, Nay and Thrice Nay!
Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2009 12:32 PM
Arnold@68
I tried to tell my Mom that "under God" was a late addition to the pledge stemming from McCarthyism and she told me that it had always been there. Then she recited the pledge she learned in school, and by Thor, it turns out "under God" wasn't always in there. She was born in 1931.
It seems really difficult to change the "always been there" attitude. Even though it is a fallacious argument, it is a powerful one for the masses. And it has always been there for anyone under 50.
I, too, applaud Fernando's positive suggestion at #60. I will write my representatives.
And, finally:
Priceless line. ;-) Honestly though, Liz is right, you are more articulate that half the people I know.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2009 12:37 PM
me@73
you are more articulate than half the people I know.
Posted by: Greg B | July 16, 2009 12:40 PM
YES: 21%
NO: 78%
Posted by: charley
|
July 16, 2009 12:45 PM
How about eliminating "In God we trust" (or, less pompously, "We trust in God") simply because it isn't true? Some US citizens trust in God, while others don't. Using it on coins or public buildings misleadingly implies a universal national trait, like saying "We are white" or "We love NASCAR."
What is it about uniting in support of lies that Christians find so appealing?
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2009 12:52 PM
What they really mean is "In God we Trust, and to hell with anyone who doesn't."
Posted by: Walter Silveira | July 16, 2009 1:00 PM
agreed at #73 giggled like a little girl at #74
Also, Poll=Slain. though 20% is still far too high.
Posted by: icusmiling | July 16, 2009 1:06 PM
WTF????
Poll is closed, and showing 51% Yes and 49% No...
Shenanigans!!!
Posted by: Don | July 16, 2009 1:10 PM
Just checked my wallet. One Elizabeth Fry, three Charles Darwins and an Adam Smith. I'm ok with that.
Oh, and we were a shade below 80% a few moments go.
Posted by: a | July 16, 2009 1:14 PM
As of 1:13pm EDT:
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. (2998 responses)
19.2%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. (12616 responses)
80.8%
15614 total responses
Posted by: Beadknitter | July 16, 2009 1:19 PM
Rats! I was hoping one of the choices would be "Are you out of your mind?"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 16, 2009 1:20 PM
*sigh*
whatever happened to the good, old-fashioned E Pluribus Unum?!
it was a far better motto; but can't have one of 'em furrin languages as a motto, eh?
bloody hell
Posted by: Mike Daniels | July 16, 2009 1:22 PM
Not only is the AFA pushing their subscribers (I'm one, so I can see what they're up to) to sign their little petition (um, and donate), but they also have a "special project" to amend state laws to permit and/or require the posting of the National Motto (IGWT) in schools.
http://www.afa.net/igwt/statelaws.asp
Posted by: Tigerwolf | July 16, 2009 1:33 PM
How about the Catlick version: In God We Lust
^..^
Posted by: Mike Daniels | July 16, 2009 1:35 PM
@ICU #79:
Click the THU box at the top of the poll area to be taken to the actual poll.
Though I will say that even if they stick it at 51% to 49%, it shows a deep division to all the folks reading the Sun-Sentinel.
PZ, visits from Pharyngula show the referring page -- the Big Bad Atheist's Blog -- and the site admin knows that the poll has been targeted. (It's a back-end thing admins can track, where visitors come from.)
You can ensure that they copy and paste the link by not making it an active link. Then, everyone's forced to copy and paste it, and their referring page is Google, or whatever their home page is.
Posted by: Joe
|
July 16, 2009 1:36 PM
Grr, the poll is closed. Although I must thank the author for reminding me to black out the "in god we trust" on all my money in my wallet. Sometimes I forget.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 16, 2009 1:38 PM
As of 12:30 p.m. Central, the poll was at 81.5 percent for patriotism, less than 19 percent for America-hating theocracy. It's another Fourth of July!
Posted by: CaptainKendrick
|
July 16, 2009 1:42 PM
Hmmmm...he says that it's not that big a deal, so what is he saying actually? That people who slap "In God We Trust" around in and on public institutions don't really mean it? Or that it has no real effect? If that's the case, then why bother?
Or is he saying that it shouldn't be a big deal for those who don't believe it, but it is a big deal for those who do believe it, so leave the alone.
But then that means that the "We" in "In God We Trust" only applies to those who do believe, and the other visitors who don't believe are not part of the "We" and really don't belong there.
Posted by: Don | July 16, 2009 1:45 PM
Still open just now. We hit 82%.
Posted by: bdh | July 16, 2009 1:51 PM
@56
According to GovTrack the Nay's can be counted on two hands:
Aye 410
No 8
Present 2
Not voting 12
California
Fortney Stark [d]
Michael Honda [d]
Hawaii
Mazie Hirono [d]
Maryland
Donna Edwards [d]
Michigan
John Conyers [d]
Texas
Ronald Paul [r]
Virginia
Robert Scott [d]
Washington
James McDermott [d]
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 16, 2009 2:10 PM
*sigh*
Congress critters voted 95% in the house in favor of this idiotic measure. 7 Democrats and 1 Republican voted no, two voted present but didn't vote, another dozen weren't present.
The entire congressional delegation from both my state and my home state voted "yes" ... *sigh* very disappointing.
All in favor of two phrases, "In God We Trust," and "Under God" which were added during the 50s under purely religious grounds, direct violations of the 1st amendment.
Posted by: noodles | July 16, 2009 2:14 PM
Interestingly, there are people currently trained in animal sacrifice per the ancient Jewish fairytales. When the "third temple" is rebuilt in Jerusalem the requirement to perform animal sacrifice resumes. To be prepared for that contingency, there is ongoing selection and training... slaughter a lamb and burn the entrails on an alter... that sort of thing.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 16, 2009 2:16 PM
I try not to use cash. I prefer to use my debit card, AKA the Mark of the Beast.
Posted by: Greg | July 16, 2009 2:38 PM
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. (3135 responses)
15.4%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. (17180 responses)
84.6%
20315 total responses
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 16, 2009 2:38 PM
I've done my part, as have many others!
Posted by: yoje | July 16, 2009 2:55 PM
Results seem to be stuck at 51 percent for, and 49 against. Total votes: 4910
Not scientific indeed.
Posted by: NoFear | July 16, 2009 3:01 PM
I wrote a note to the author of that editorial. Here's his email: afins@sun-sentinel.com
Here's what I wrote:
Are you serious? "Be quiet already"? That's your suggestion to those who oppose references to god in our publicly funded buildings? Are you against the free exchange of ideas and free expression in general? You and your ilk make me sick, though I would never deign to even suggest that you be silent. In fact keep it up, keep making an utter fool of yourself. It only helps our cause. We don't need to rebut arguments, if what you wrote can even be called an argument, that are patently ludicrous on the surface. Keep 'em coming. You are a fine representation of all that is wrong with religious america, those who claim patriotism but seek to undermine the constitution at every turn by trying to silence opinions, and even quell facts, that they don't like.
It has been said that sometimes it is better to remain silent and appear the fool than to speak and remove all doubt .... so speak up and continue to show yourself for the fool that you are.
Posted by: Weaponsofmassdeception | July 16, 2009 3:15 PM
85% 'NO'
15% 'Yes'
Nice!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 16, 2009 3:22 PM
If it's innocuous, what's the point in doing it? If it's not innocuous, it's unconstitutional.
Either way: "signs point to no"
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 16, 2009 3:47 PM
The poll code may not be very competently written, but I'm enjoying the live comments:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/thursday/
I just hope they're still going at it by the time I get there tonight.
Choice: "Empathy is what got us in this mess."
LOL, and I don't lol that much.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 16, 2009 3:47 PM
Looks like they stopped the poll just about when the yeas were going to take the lead.
Posted by: Jack
|
July 16, 2009 4:01 PM
Heh - over 80% for the forces of righteousness, now.
That poll has been well and truly Pharyngulated.
Posted by: littlejohn | July 16, 2009 4:28 PM
Very weird. Some posters report the poll is closed, others report we're winning. My recent visit suggests the poll is still open and we're kicking its butt.
I'm not tech savvy, but many of you are. It appears to be accepting multiple votes from me. Any way to check that out?
If it's taking multiple votes, our duty is obvious. Let's stomp this thing. That would greatly simplify vote-botting, I assume. I'm just voting a lot.
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | July 16, 2009 4:28 PM
Hummm, do you think it was wrong of me to write a script to repeatedly cast a no vote on the website?
Posted by: TuxedoCartman
|
July 16, 2009 4:31 PM
They've apparently thrown out all votes that were rigged, or possibly from this site, because it's now back to 51% yes, 49% no, and the poll is now closed.
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2009 4:59 PM
It's still working for me: 86.5% no. And I tried it with referrers on and off and both worked.
Posted by: JosherK | July 16, 2009 5:01 PM
In my humble opinion, visitor centers need more engravings of pixies. What could lighten the mood of visitors more than pixies? Just tell the religious nut-jobs that they're images of angels, and everybody wins.
Especially if they are attractive pixies.
Posted by: arrakis
|
July 16, 2009 5:04 PM
As of 4:01 pm CDT, 86.5% no.
I like the idea posted several times above that there should be a poll for a new national motto.
We could have one for the blindly religious: "For God we're nuts."
Posted by: Jason | July 16, 2009 5:12 PM
From the link that PZ supplied, it appears to be closed with a 51% to 49% victory to the bad guys. However, clicking on the text, 'Should tax payers pay for 'God' (sic) in government buildings?' just above the poll question will take you to the poll and show that we are handing out a massive arse kicking.
Posted by: littlejohn | July 16, 2009 5:17 PM
Stranger and stranger. Some people reporting a close race; others saying we're winning easily. The several times I've voted, we're way ahead.
C'mon, there are some serious computer geeks out there. Someone can explain this, even to an idiot like me. Please help a technically impaired brother atheist!
Posted by: arrakis
|
July 16, 2009 5:24 PM
@littlejohn #111
The poll is listed on the main page as being close (51/49). When you click the link above it and vote in the poll, you see the actual results in which we are heartily winning by a 70-something-point margin.
Posted by: Augustus Mulliner | July 16, 2009 5:51 PM
Then again, results not religious, either. (You can take that on faith, or check it out.)
Posted by: littlejohn | July 16, 2009 5:55 PM
Thank you, arrakis (are you a pirate?).
I'm not sure I follow you, but it sounds like we should take heart and keep voting. And drinking rum, I guess.
Arrgh, me hearties, keep your vote-bots in operation. And mizzen the whatchamacallit. Where's my parrot?
Posted by: Mikko | July 16, 2009 5:55 PM
poll is set to yes winning with 1%
Posted by: Opus | July 16, 2009 7:32 PM
The tide has turned - 86.8% NO, 13.2% YES.
Posted by: Circe of the Godless | July 16, 2009 7:37 PM
Honestly to the rest of the world Americans look like total fundie religious freaks. I can't believe how rampant the sky fairy worshippers are over there.
I have to admit though we did have a scuffle here once when some beer company had "in dog we trust' as their logo, with a picture of a farmdog. The fundies went "wah" at that even though it had nothing at all to do with their sky fairy.
Posted by: MikeM | July 16, 2009 8:36 PM
Well, wouldn't you know it, the tides have turned.
I believe this is known as a "Pharyngulation."
Bye, everyone. I'm off for a week to NYC. I'm not sure I can handle all the culture there!
Unless Hell freezes over, we are going to the American Museum of Natural History. Wish me luck!
Posted by: ambulocetus | July 16, 2009 9:30 PM
Just a reminder to copy and paste the URL so they won't know we're all from the same place.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 16, 2009 10:58 PM
They stopped the poll and rolled back the numbers to where "in God we trust" got 51%. I guess even a poll that is "non-scientific" isn't good enough unless it gets the answer they want.
The poll still seems to be active at the Chicago tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sfl-atheist-religion-capitol-buzz-m071609.poll,0,7163233,post.poll
Should the national motto, "In God We Trust," be engraved on the Capitol Visitor Center or other government buildings?
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. (6111 responses)
20.8%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. (23286 responses)
79.2%
29397 total responses (Results not scientific)
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
July 16, 2009 11:07 PM
What do you think?
Should the national motto, "In God We Trust," be engraved on the Capitol Visitor Center or other government buildings?
Yes: Our motto reflects America's religious heritage and should be displayed. (6258 responses) for 21.2%
No: The slogan is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and should not be used for state purposes. (23308 responses) for 78.8%
29566 total responses
(Results not scientific 0-;)
Posted by: Guardian or the Poll | July 16, 2009 11:23 PM
OOOH. Another poll fornication I see. Well, good luck to all you poll fornicators. As luck would have it, you may eventually remove "In God we Trust" from our money. That's okay. We conservatives will just write it on there with an ink pen. Simple enough solution eh? It's not like we will have that much of it left after Obama is done taxing us anyway.
Happy poll fornication!
Posted by: Gallstones
|
July 17, 2009 3:00 AM
There's no "Fuck the hell NO" option on that poll.
Posted by: Fernando | July 17, 2009 5:43 AM
"Bill of Rights
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Its good to remember that "in God we trust" or "one Nation, under God", even swear in court over the "Bible", are shameless and pernicious violations of your Constituiton, because endorse some particular, imagined deity as protector and lord of USA.
I always imagined that USA were founded by the love of Liberty and in combat against all kind of repressive governements, i never imagined that USA will protect and give more respect to their christian citizen, and let aside their hinduists citizen, or budists, or confucionists, or pagans, or animists, or xinthoists, etc.
Thats why all kind of religious speech let be erased from all that represents the power and dignity of the american people: be the Capitol or some one dollar bill.
The importance of, some of you, fight for the inclusion of "e pluribus unun" has the oficial "motto" of your country, is because this simple "motto" tells everything about what should be the USA; the other slogan is more suitable to some kind of church or religious theocracy.
Posted by: Faithless | July 17, 2009 6:45 AM
I love voting (from England) in polls about the US constitution.
Maybe the rest of the world can help you sane Americans do what you are outnumbered from doing by your countrymen...
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | July 17, 2009 7:10 AM
I love that phrase, I'm a poll fornicator. Obviously, not as much fun as real fornication, but nevertheless, adding about 5000 no votes has it's devilish pleasures.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | July 17, 2009 9:12 AM
They should change 'Results not scientific' to 'Results not representative of how people actually voted' or, perhaps, 'Results approved by the Supreme Leader'.
Posted by: sailor1031 | July 17, 2009 9:12 AM
currently running at 71.4% = NO; 28.6% = yes! I suspect some tampering with the numbers
Posted by: Paul Nerves | July 17, 2009 9:44 AM
It seems to be closed... and reset. See, if they had allowed the engravings, then EVERYONE would be honest... It's our fault.
Yes- 51%; No- 49%
Posted by: Paul Nerves | July 17, 2009 9:47 AM
It seems to be closed... and reset. See, if they had allowed the engravings, then EVERYONE would be honest... It's our fault.
Yes- 51%; No- 49%
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | July 17, 2009 10:19 AM
Currently about >70% no and still open.
Posted by: Anri | July 17, 2009 10:58 AM
If the US actually trusts in god, why all the bother with elections?
Posted by: Rai J | July 17, 2009 2:26 PM
Here's another biased poll
Posted by: Rai J | July 17, 2009 2:29 PM
Here's another biased poll
Posted by: Matrim | July 17, 2009 8:50 PM
C'mon! We're only winning by a 2/3 margin, we can totally do better than that!
Posted by: jacinta | July 18, 2009 8:00 AM
By the logic of that first argument, graffiti should be permitted as long as the cost of removing it is greater than the cost of perpetrating it.