Post by: Desertdog on December 28, 2007, 03:15:23 PM
New law orders 'hidden' edge motto put in prominent place
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59403
By Bob Unruh
The words "In God We Trust" have been placed in prominent display on U.S. coinage since 1864, until a new $1 coin series honoring U.S. presidents was introduced at the beginning of 2007, when the motto was concealed on the edge. But no more.
Congress has approved a consolidated spending bill, and President Bush has signed it into law, that includes a provision for the motto to be placed on either the front or back of new coins in the series.
The U.S. Mint placed the "In God We Trust" motto on the edge of the $1 presidential coins, not on the face, triggering an outcry from Americans
WND broke the story earlier when the coins were announced, showing how the acknowledgment to God was hidden on the coins' edges.
Now a report from Coin News confirms that the new provision was signed into law on Dec. 26, and the U.S. Mint has been instructed to begin placing the motto in a prominent location on the coins "as soon as is practicable."
Whether the change will affect the series of coins already on track for 2008 or not remains to be seen. The Mint has announced the James Monroe dollar coin will be issued on Feb. 14, the John Quincy Adams coin on May 15, Andrew Jackson on Aug. 14 and Martin Van Buren on Nov. 13.
"The Mint is launching the 2008 dollar coins using their news contacts and presence to push the story while silently telling everyone, apparently, that the motto relocation will not go into [effect] until at least 2009," according to the Coin News report.
Already in circulation from the 2007 release schedule are coins honoring George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison. Mint officials say they produced more than 768 million of those coins.
The Mint explained when the coins were introduced that it moved the motto from the face of the coins to the thin edge in order to allow for larger portraits of the presidents on the face and the Statue of Liberty on the reverse.
But the public outcry over the "disappearance" of "In God We Trust" raised concerns in Congress, and a plan introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and others made its way into the consolidated spending plan and was approved.
The Mint described the change as an "edge-incused inscription" on the coins that otherwise are the same size, weight and metal composition as the Sacagawea Golden Dollar.
There also arose issues with the edge inscriptions when some coins were released without them, creating "error" coins sought by collectors. Conservatives publicly expressed concern the move to the edge was just the first step in removing the motto from currency entirely.
It was just too much for Congress.
"Since the colonial beginnings of the United States, citizens of this nation have officially acknowledged their dependence on God," said Brownback in a news statement reported by Baptist Press. "It is important that our national motto, 'In God We Trust,' is prominently displayed on all of our currency. We should not relegate our heritage to the side."
The plan was proposed separately, but eventually was included as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, approved by Congress and signed into law on Dec. 26 by President Bush.
The change "shall be put into effect by the Secretary of the Treasury as soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this Act," Congress instructed.
The U.S. Treasury Department said the motto first was put on U.S. coins during the increased awareness of the nation's religious heritage during the Civil War. "Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins," the agency's website says.
One such comment was dispatched by M.R. Watkinson, a Ridleyville, Pa., minister in November 1861. "You are probably a Christian," he wrote. "What if our Republican were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?"
"No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense," Chase noted. "The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins."
Two years later, Chase approved, "In God We Trust," as the motto, which then appeared on 1864 coins of the two-cent denomination.
A self-proclaimed atheist, Michael Newdow, in 2005 challenged in court the inclusion of the motto, and appealed when a federal judge ruled against him. Those arguments recently were heard before an appeals court, but no decision has been delivered yet.
The new law specifically expresses the intent of Congress "to require the inscription 'In God We Trust' to appear on a face of the $1 coins honoring each of the Presidents of the United States."
The bill also creates six new quarters to be released during 2009, after completion of the 50-coin series honoring states of the union, and they will recognize the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The presidential coin series is scheduled to be released four per year, Each president will appear on only one coin, except for Grover Cleveland, who will be on two because he was the only president to serve non-consecutive terms.
To be depicted on a coin, a president must have been dead for at least two years, so the conclusion of the series remains uncertain.
"In God We Trust" became the national motto by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially superseded "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "Out of Many, One."
The most common place where the motto is observed in daily life is on U.S. currency and coinage. It wasn't until 1957 that the motto was permanently adopted for use on U.S. money.
Post by: Paddy on December 28, 2007, 03:44:09 PM
all others pay cash
Post by: wooderson on December 28, 2007, 04:13:47 PM
Quote
It was just too much for Congress.
Um, Congress had to pass this law, didn't they?
Post by: Scout26 on December 28, 2007, 05:12:06 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on December 29, 2007, 02:15:07 AM
I do object to this as I am an aethist and I dont believe a God exists. Why not just take it out and leave it be. I would not object if it read:
Quote
In Gold we trust.
Post by: BryanP on December 29, 2007, 02:21:54 AM
There, fixed that for ya.
Post by: RevDisk on December 29, 2007, 10:50:03 PM
Ah yes, our national motto. Prior to 1956, we just had to make due with E Pluribus Unum. Of course, I suppose it is better than "Gott mit uns!"
Personally, I'm more partial to the unofficial Finnish motto of yore. "Haakaa paalle!"
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 30, 2007, 04:15:15 AM
Post by: Dorryn on December 30, 2007, 05:28:12 AM
Quote
Personally, I'm more partial to the unofficial Finnish motto of yore. "Haakaa paalle!"
"Hack them down" probably wouldnt be passed by Congress, even if it is amusing.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 30, 2007, 06:21:43 AM
That could encourage responsible spending and less impulse buys (eh, I have coffee at home and I'm almost there...), which certainly wouldn't be a desired outcome.
Post by: Caimlas on December 30, 2007, 08:10:28 AM
I would rather they debate real issues than waste time and money on things like this.
I do object to this as I am an aethist and I dont believe a God exists. Why not just take it out and leave it be. I would not object if it read:
I do object to this as I am an aethist and I dont believe a God exists. Why not just take it out and leave it be. I would not object if it read:
Quote
In Gold we trust.
Hah!
I'm not an ashiest, but a deist (as has been described of me, at least), and I'd be at least willing to entertain that change. But it'd be kind of foolish on a non-gold coin, don't you think?
I think the uproar is ridiculous. I actually preferred the slogan on the roll of the coins - it made them unique and gave them character. US coins are, on a whole, fairly uninteresting. As someone who is fascinated with coins and would prefer all currency to be (precious metal) coinage, it's a nice flair. But now they're taking it away? Grr.
Post by: Antibubba on December 30, 2007, 08:12:00 AM
Quote
I would think people would be more hesitant to spend a handful of pretty gold things than they would a wad of crumpled $1s.
OTOH, when the greenback is worth about 4 sheets of toilet paper, people will think twice about wiping with coins.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 30, 2007, 08:57:19 AM
I would think people would be more hesitant to spend a handful of pretty gold things than they would a wad of crumpled $1s.
That could encourage responsible spending and less impulse buys (eh, I have coffee at home and I'm almost there...), which certainly wouldn't be a desired outcome.
That could encourage responsible spending and less impulse buys (eh, I have coffee at home and I'm almost there...), which certainly wouldn't be a desired outcome.
I think people would be hesitant to carry handfuls of pretty gold things around and they would get pitched into the piggy bank as most of my change does now. So, it could certainly help some people save money.
Post by: Waitone on December 30, 2007, 09:03:42 AM
Post by: Desertdog on December 30, 2007, 11:57:40 AM
Quote
I do object to this as I am an aethist and I dont believe a God exists.
If you do not believe that God exist, why get upset when something that does not exist is put on a coin? Could it be that you are afraid that God may exist and you don't want to be reminded of Him?Quote
Stupid question here! How come the federales are spending money and lots of it to create, mint, and distribute a gazillion new coins? The same federales bellyache over the cost of minting coins and printing paper as being too expensive and therefore we need to proceed post haste with electronic funds. What's the reason?
The average dollar bill has a life of about 18 months or so. A dollar coin has a life of over a hundred years. Just look at the lowered printing cost of a coin over a bill when comparinf their lifetimes.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 30, 2007, 12:17:16 PM
I would rather they debate real issues than waste time and money on things like this.
I do object to this as I am an aethist and I dont believe a God exists. Why not just take it out and leave it be. I would not object if it read:
I do object to this as I am an aethist and I dont believe a God exists. Why not just take it out and leave it be. I would not object if it read:
Quote
In Gold we trust.
Why not just call it a tradition from the earliest days of the country, and leave it be? Traditions are good. Things like flying the flag, honor guards, fireworks, and putting that on coins. It reminds us of our history.
Post by: Caimlas on December 30, 2007, 03:20:22 PM
An all-digital currency means there is less incentive for us to use credit cards (we've got all our money on a card anyway) for small purchases (and subsequently get in debt), and they are unable to depreciate our funds directly as they have been doing (by printing more money and charging us to make money). They'd have to find some other mechanism to exploit us.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 30, 2007, 03:26:22 PM
I imagine the reason they spend so much money on stuff like making new coins, is because the creation of coinage is, essentially, burning "money" in effigy to The Fed. That $1 coin costs however much, which goes straight to the Fed. Being as the Fed controls the country's financial system, and they make money in general from the creation of our currency, they've got a lot of reason to prevent us from going to an all-digital currency.
An all-digital currency means there is less incentive for us to use credit cards (we've got all our money on a card anyway) for small purchases (and subsequently get in debt), and they are unable to depreciate our funds directly as they have been doing (by printing more money and charging us to make money). They'd have to find some other mechanism to exploit us.
You, uh, might want to do some learnin' on how the Federal Reserve and the nation's money systems work...
An all-digital currency means there is less incentive for us to use credit cards (we've got all our money on a card anyway) for small purchases (and subsequently get in debt), and they are unable to depreciate our funds directly as they have been doing (by printing more money and charging us to make money). They'd have to find some other mechanism to exploit us.
Post by: Bogie on December 30, 2007, 11:36:13 PM
Heads, tails, it's always on the outside.
Post by: Firethorn on December 31, 2007, 03:48:12 AM
Why not just call it a tradition from the earliest days of the country, and leave it be? Traditions are good. Things like flying the flag, honor guards, fireworks, and putting that on coins. It reminds us of our history.
I'm mostly an agnostic with atheistic leanings, and I agree. I don't mind the Christian(or other) themed monuments, facades, artwork, etc...
At least it doesn't waste my time unless I choose to go take a look at it. I still shut up and stand quietly when they have a chaplain hold a prayer during ceremonies.
We might eventually remove it, but considering that those that this country is still over 50% Christian, much less monotheistic* or even polytheistic.
Post by: wooderson on December 31, 2007, 05:13:00 AM
Quote
Why not just call it a tradition from the earliest days of the country, and leave it be?
Because it's not a 'tradition from the earliest days of the country'?
Post by: RevDisk on December 31, 2007, 09:40:45 AM
Why not just call it a tradition from the earliest days of the country, and leave it be? Traditions are good. Things like flying the flag, honor guards, fireworks, and putting that on coins. It reminds us of our history.
Slavery and women not voting were traditions from the earliest days of our country. We did not keep those traditions. Thankfully.
The phrase was legalized for minting purposes with the Fourth Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. The national motto was officially adopted in 1956. By neither definition are they the 'earliest days'.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 31, 2007, 09:51:51 AM
I'm more of an agnostic myself, but honestly, I don't understand the atheists who get their panties in a wad about everything, want to erase coins and knock over nativity scenes. What's the big deal? Especially if it doesn't affect you? Dont need to throw bombs at everything, just let it be.
There's a lot more threatening things that could be on a coin. That seems absolutely harmless. It's not like it said "Obedience to the Will of Allah in All Things" or "Obey and Serve" or something else sinister.
Post by: 230RN on December 31, 2007, 03:55:09 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 31, 2007, 04:35:07 PM
Would anyone object if they changed it to "In Goddess We Trust?"
Yes, because it would be really dumb.
Post by: 230RN on December 31, 2007, 11:35:54 PM
Or "In Zuggoth We Trust?"
Post by: K Frame on January 01, 2008, 03:11:01 AM
I think the edge thing is cool! Do you know how hard that is, technology-wise? We're telling the rest of the world "Hey, we can do this!"
Heads, tails, it's always on the outside.
Heads, tails, it's always on the outside.
The Swiss have been doing edge lettering for YEARS on their 5 franc pieces. Or at least they were. Not sure if they switched to the Euro or not...
Post by: K Frame on January 01, 2008, 03:12:57 AM
But that doesn't matter!
Everyone should know by now that if one person objects enough to file a lawsuit, their viewpoint is FAR more important than the collective view point of everyone else and their single view point MUST be accommodated.
Post by: Iain on January 01, 2008, 04:17:45 AM
The Swiss have been doing edge lettering for YEARS on their 5 franc pieces. Or at least they were. Not sure if they switched to the Euro or not...
Pound coins have had lettering on the side since introduction in 1983 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_one_pound_coin
According to that link DECUS ET TUTAMEN found on the side of several designs means
Quote
"An ornament and a safeguard" – originally on 17th century coins, this refers to the inscribed edge as a protection against the clipping of precious metal
http://24carat.co.uk/decusettutamenframe.html says that decus et tutamen first appeared on the edges of British coins in 1662.
Post by: HankB on January 01, 2008, 05:27:28 AM
. . . The presidential coin series is scheduled to be released four per year, Each president will appear on only one coin, except for Grover Cleveland, who will be on two because he was the only president to serve non-consecutive terms.
To be depicted on a coin, a president must have been dead for at least two years, so the conclusion of the series remains uncertain.
As one who is interested in all things numismatic, I'm looking forward to adding the Carter and Clinton coins to my collection. To be depicted on a coin, a president must have been dead for at least two years, so the conclusion of the series remains uncertain.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 06:01:55 AM
How about "In Thor We Trust?"
Or "In Zuggoth We Trust?"
Or "In Zuggoth We Trust?"
Your point?
Post by: 230RN on January 01, 2008, 06:42:38 AM
Since that seems pretty non-denominational, Congress couldn't be accused of making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.
Right?
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Right?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 01, 2008, 06:55:12 AM
Why don't we just settle on "In The Great Spirit We Trust?"
Since that seems pretty non-denominational, Congress couldn't be accused of making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.
Right?
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Right?
Since that seems pretty non-denominational, Congress couldn't be accused of making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.
Right?
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Right?
Anyone can be accused of anything but, how does putting IGWT on a coin be construed as a law establishing religion? I don't think anyone has ever been forced to become religious by words embossed on a coin. Although, the way some people act, you'd think they were in fear of being infected by the G-d virus just by reading it.
Post by: Desertdog on January 01, 2008, 08:18:14 AM
Quote
Although, the way some people act, you'd think they were in fear of being infected by the G-d virus just by reading it.
I have come to the conclusion that those who are so opposed to anything mentioning God or reminding them of God, such as a cross, deep down knows that He may/does exist, but they don't want to be reminded of the fact.Post by: MechAg94 on January 01, 2008, 09:02:50 AM
..not that they are the only ones who get defensive.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 09:31:09 AM
Why don't we just settle on "In The Great Spirit We Trust?"
Since that seems pretty non-denominational, Congress couldn't be accused of making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.
Right?
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Right?
Since that seems pretty non-denominational, Congress couldn't be accused of making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.
Right?
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Right?
"G-d" is non-denominational. It's a title. It's not the name of the Christian god, the Hebrew god, or the Muslim god. "Great Spirit" is also a title.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 09:33:49 AM
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 09:34:41 AM
Quote
"G-d" is non-denominational. It's a title.
Wrong. Capitalized God is a proper noun, referring to the Abrahamic deity. Lowercase 'god' is a title.I'm not particularly opposed to 'In God We Trust' or anything (forcing a kid to say the Pledge, much less the Pledge including "under God" are the types of indoctrination that bother me) - but why is it so important that it be featured? Do Jews/Christians/Muslims need constant reminders that God is watching them and they shouldn't start raping, killing and pillaging?
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 09:38:59 AM
Quote
"G-d" is non-denominational. It's a title.
Wrong. Capitalized God is a proper noun, referring to the Abrahamic deity. Lowercase 'god' is a title...Wrong. Both are titles. Lowercase may or may not refer to a non-almighty deity. Uppercase refers to an almighty deity. It's being in English only means it's usually used to refer to the Abrahamic deity.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 09:40:37 AM
I wonder if you can provide some sources for that view. I have often seen "God" used for other supreme beings or even an abstract concept of the divine. For example, in English translations of ancient Greek philosophy.
I wouldn't call either one a title. More of a classification, like human, demi-god, god.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 09:48:34 AM
Capitalized nouns refer to a specific being/object (or in this case, concept of a being). 'God' is a name, as Odin or Thor or Vishnu would be a name.
Titular, aspecific, forms are lower-case. "President of the United States" vs. "president of a company."
The OED:
Quote
God
" noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe. 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes. 3 (god) a greatly admired or influential person. 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theatre.
In definition 1, the Abrahamic deity is capitalized, being a proper noun. In other definitions, particularly the second (the titular form, as noted earlier), capitalization is incorrect." noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe. 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes. 3 (god) a greatly admired or influential person. 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theatre.
also, wikipedia does it short and sweet:
Quote
The names of gods are capitalized, including Allah, Vishnu, and God. The word god is generally not capitalized if it is used to refer to the generic idea of a deity, nor is it capitalized when it refers to multiple gods, e.g., Roman gods. There may be some confusion because the Judeo-Christian god is rarely referred to by a specific name, but simply as God (see G-d#Laws of writing divine names). Other names for the Judeo-Christian god, such as Elohim, Yahweh and Lord, are also capitalized.
Again: specific gods (being names), capitalized; non-specific gods, not-capitalized.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 09:52:30 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 09:54:06 AM
Sure, check your dictionary. ..
Sure. NOUN: 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2.(deleted because wooderson claimed it was dishonest...note above there is STILL no mention of the Abrahamic deity)...
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 10:01:19 AM
That first definition, of course, is the Abrahamic deity, which is capitalized (being a name). As I've said.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 10:02:08 AM
woody,
I wonder if you can provide some sources for that view. I have often seen "God" used for other supreme beings or even an abstract concept of the divine. For example, in English translations of ancient Greek philosophy.
I wouldn't call either one a title. More of a classification, like human, demi-god, god.
I wonder if you can provide some sources for that view. I have often seen "God" used for other supreme beings or even an abstract concept of the divine. For example, in English translations of ancient Greek philosophy.
I wouldn't call either one a title. More of a classification, like human, demi-god, god.
Woody likes wiki. I'm skeptical myself.
Avataras (incarnations of God)
Main article: Avatar
Many denominations of Hinduism, such as Vaishnavism and Saivism, teach that occasionally, God comes to Earth as a human being to help humans in their struggle toward enlightenment and salvation (moksha). Such an incarnation of God is called an avatāra.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 10:05:53 AM
That's a little bit intellectually dishonest, stand_watie. What the American Heritage Dictionary (which is where your definition is from) actually does is divide the first definition (capitalized) from the subsequent definitions (lowercase). Hence the main listing being 'god' and the sub-listing (1.) being 'God.'
That first definition, of course, is the Abrahamic deity, which is capitalized (being a name). As I've said.
That first definition, of course, is the Abrahamic deity, which is capitalized (being a name). As I've said.
Bullshit. I'm removing the second definition from my post. And look. It still doesn't say "The Abrahamic deity". Imagine that
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 10:08:24 AM
So, um, yeah, the Hindu 'God' is a proper name and referred to in that context should be capitalized.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 10:12:54 AM
I don't know what that's supposed to illustrate...
Hmmm. Maybe that "God" doesn't mean "Abrahamic deity" as you claim.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 10:13:29 AM
Quote
Bullshit. I'm removing the second definition from my post. And look. It still doesn't say "The Abrahamic deity". Imagine that
Okay, if you remove the second definition, nothing changes. Everyone can go look up the American Heritage definition for themselves (dictionary.com - though I don't know why anyone would choose AH or M-W over the good old OED) and see what I'm referring to.The primary listing you've quoted is 'god' - lowercase. The definition is then capitalized when referring to a specific being (the Abrahamic deity). The rest of them are (correctly) lowercase.
Quote
god (gŏd) Pronunciation Key
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.
The italicization is mine - as you can see, the capitalization is altered specifically for the definition referring to the Abrahamic deity.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 10:18:46 AM
Quote
Hmmm. Maybe that "God" doesn't mean "Abrahamic deity" as you claim.
No, what I said was that 'God' refers to a specific being or concept of same - on American coins, obviously the Judeo-Christian God. In other contexts (ie cultures, situations), it may refer to something else - but god may only be capitalized when it is a proper noun. If you're using it as a title or other non-specific form, the word is not capitalized.What I also said, and what you seem to be confused by, is that the definition you're citing capitalizes 'god' when referring to the Abrahamic deity.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 10:24:29 AM
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 10:26:30 AM
There, does that head off some of the semantic dissembling I see coming 'round the corner?
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 10:37:33 AM
Quote
Hmmm. Maybe that "God" doesn't mean "Abrahamic deity" as you claim.
No, what I said was that 'God' refers to a specific being or concept of same - on American coins, obviously the Judeo-Christian God. In other contexts (ie cultures, situations), it may refer to something else - but god may only be capitalized when it is a proper noun. If you're using it as a title or other non-specific form, the word is not capitalized.What I also said, and what you seem to be confused by, is that the definition you're citing capitalizes 'god' when referring to the Abrahamic deity.
No. What you said was this.. (I'm going to quote you, so you can't go back and delete or change your post...)
Quote from: wooderson
.. God is a proper noun, referring to the Abrahamic deity.
English speaking American Hindus refer to their deity as the abrahamic "God"? Not likely. Backpeddle some more...
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 10:41:37 AM
***
"Shinto is an all-pervading indefinable way which is quite universal. Shinto or Kaminomichi or the way of the Kami or the Gods is the name of the religion observed by the Japanese from time immemorial. Kami means God or deity, or sometimes soul. Shinto implies spontaneous following of the Way of the Gods. Shinto is not really an ism. It is only a teaching. It is not a set of verbal theories or concepts. It is the all-pervading way.
It is very difficult to translate Shinto into English. Shinto means The way of the Gods or the God-like way or The way from the Gods. There is no proper equivalent for the term Shinto in English. Shinto is an all-pervading, indefinable way which is quite universal."
***
Or maybe Sequoya was referring to the Abrahamic deity? O.K. whatever.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 11:08:41 AM
Quote
English speaking American Hindus refer to their deity as the abrahamic "God"? Not likely. Backpeddle some more...
Um, no, they refer to the supreme being as Ishvara. Kinda like the Japanese word isn't actually 'God.' This language stuff is tricky, innit?Quote
The word "God" refers to just the Abrahamic deity...pull my leg some more.
So, no, it didn't head off the semantic dissembling. Good to know.Look - even your own dictionary definition makes it patently clear that you're wrong about the proper capitalization and use of god. God should only be capitalized when used as a proper noun. When used, as you claimed, as a title or encompassing concept, it should not be capitalized.
Thus, when the word is capitalized, it is being used to refer to something specific. On American coins this being the Abrahamic god, of course.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 11:09:18 AM
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 11:19:14 AM
For outsiders, whatever petty differences you lot claim to have are patently irrelevant.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 11:26:04 AM
Quote
English speaking American Hindus refer to their deity as the abrahamic "God"? Not likely. Backpeddle some more...
Um, no, they refer to the supreme being as Ishvara. Kinda like the Japanese word isn't actually 'God.' This language stuff is tricky, innit?Quote
The word "God" refers to just the Abrahamic deity...pull my leg some more.
So, no, it didn't head off the semantic dissembling. Good to know.Look - even your own dictionary definition makes it patently clear that you're wrong about the proper capitalization and use of god. God should only be capitalized when used as a proper noun. When used, as you claimed, as a title or encompassing concept, it should not be capitalized.
Thus, when the word is capitalized, it is being used to refer to something specific. On American coins this being the Abrahamic god, of course.
"of course", unless you're one of those many Americans who don't have an Abrahmic God, who call their God, "God".
I didn't say anything about " the proper capitalization and use of god". I'll let you have it from here though. I've wasted enough time on you. When Norman Greenbaum tells me he's "going up to the Spirit in the sky" (notice I capitalized it) or that "He's got a friend in Jesus" (notice I capitalized it), I'll assume he's a genuine, New Testament believing, follower of Christ. Or not
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 11:28:46 AM
I dunno, what does everyone mean by Judeo-Christian god or Abrahamic faiths or all those terms? All the faiths you refer to share the same conceptual genesis of this deity, so they all get lumped together.
For outsiders, whatever petty differences you lot claim to have are patently irrelevant.
For outsiders, whatever petty differences you lot claim to have are patently irrelevant.
Conceptual genesis? Of this deity? There's more than one version of "God" though. That's the point.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 11:32:26 AM
Quote
"of course", unless you're one of those many Americans who don't have an Abrahmic God, who call their God, "God".
Who these people might be, one wonders...Quote
I didn't say anything about " the proper capitalization and use of god".
In fact, you did. That whole "God" is a title thing, remember that?
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 11:37:30 AM
Quote
Conceptual genesis? Of this deity?
Yes. All three share a common history centered on the theology of the same anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent deity - there is an accepted unity ('god of Abraham') between Allah and Yahweh in the Christian and Judaic senses.Quote
There's more than one version of "God" though. That's the point.
But there's not - 'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 11:38:56 AM
Quote
"of course", unless you're one of those many Americans who don't have an Abrahmic God, who call their God, "God".
Who these people might be, one wonders...Any of those people who refer to "God" who aren't referring to the Abrahamic "God". Those people I quoted.
Quote
I didn't say anything about " the proper capitalization and use of god".
In fact, you did. That whole "God" is a title thing, remember that?[/quote]
No, I didn't. Now diagram that last sentence.
Post by: Ben on January 01, 2008, 11:40:49 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on January 01, 2008, 11:47:22 AM
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 12:04:53 PM
Quote
Any of those people who refer to "God" who aren't referring to the Abrahamic "God". Those people I quoted.
Which people were those?The Hindus who call their supreme deity by his given name, Ishvara?
Quote
No, I didn't.
""G-d" is non-denominational. It's a title."Sure you did.
Post by: 230RN on January 01, 2008, 06:01:57 PM
OK, how about "In Neptune We Trust?"
Or, "In Satan We Trust?"
Or, "In Jesus We Trust?"
"In Caesar We Trust?"
"In Ra We Trust?"
Regardless of what diefic creature one inserts in that phrase, whether dignified with a capital letter or not, it must inevitably offend someone out there who is not a worshiper or follower of that particular deific creature.
If this offense is committed under color of Congressional Authority, i.e., as a matter of Law, it is in fact the establishment of a religion.
And even if it is stated in terms of merely a "Creator" or "creator," it offends those who do not believe in any deific creature at all. To this extent also, it is the establishment of a religion, even if that religion is unnamed.
Arguments that the US is 50.001% Judeo-Christian are specious and smack of the "tyranny of the majority" which the Founders so feared and is the reason they instituted our system of checks and balances. Which, by the way, has failed us so often in the sense that the major check (SCOTUS) on the tyranny of the majority has so often succumbed to pressure by that majority.
Or at least as it perceives that majority as presented to them by the media and friends of the Court briefs.
Lest one think I am anti-religious, far from it. I am simply anti-tyranny.
By the majority or otherwise.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 06:10:44 PM
A creature is something that has been created. So, if you're looking for a generic term for a god (or God), "deific creature" is not a very good one.
Post by: 230RN on January 01, 2008, 06:17:31 PM
Whence the antipathy toward that phrase.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 06:56:07 PM
Quote
Conceptual genesis? Of this deity?
Yes. All three share a common history centered on the theology of the same anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent deity - there is an accepted unity ('god of Abraham') between Allah and Yahweh in the Christian and Judaic senses.Actually, this "accepted unity" is not very widely accepted. But I think I get your meaning about the various ideas about Abraham's God having roots in the same original concept. Just in point of fact, though, the "Abrahamic" ideas of God are not anthropomorphic. The term you're looking for is "personal."
Speaking of Allah, I think it bears on the discussion that Christian Arabs refer to the Christian God as "Allah," because it is a term which means "God," rather than the name of a specific God.
Quote
Quote
There's more than one version of "God" though. That's the point.
But there's not - 'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 06:58:07 PM
^^^ Others would disagree that a creature is necessarily created (by some creator.)
Whence the antipathy toward that phrase.
Whence the antipathy toward that phrase.
I wasn't trying to convey any antipathy, just stating a fact. In any case, why not just say "deity"? I don't see any reason for controversy with that word.
Post by: wooderson on January 01, 2008, 07:00:42 PM
Quote
Certainly, the three religions describe God very differently, while claiming to worship the same one Abraham did.
This tells me that you're arguing from a minority position that chooses to disagree with the widely-held version of events.This is akin to "Mormons ain't Christians" wrangling in that it has no relevance to analysis from outsiders and unbelievers. All a bit "Judean People's Front," really.
And no, I meant anthropomorphic.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2008, 08:18:59 PM
Quote
Certainly, the three religions describe God very differently, while claiming to worship the same one Abraham did.
This tells me that you're arguing from a minority position that chooses to disagree with the widely-held version of events. Huh? The Big Three disagree on some pretty big issues regarding the nature of the Almighty. That's hardly a minority position.
Quote
And no, I meant anthropomorphic.
Then, respectfully, you could benefit from some study of comparative religion.
Post by: roo_ster on January 02, 2008, 03:00:33 AM
And even if it is stated in terms of merely a "Creator" or "creator," it offends those who do not believe in any deific creature at all. To this extent also, it is the establishment of a religion, even if that religion is unnamed.
"Establishment of Religion" has a particular meaning that does not match your words.For example, the UK has an established religion, Church of England.
Also, at the time of the ratification of the COTUS, several states had established churches.
Mashing, "In God We Trust" into coinage is not an establishment of religion to anyone who understands what an establishment of religion is.
Post by: roo_ster on January 02, 2008, 03:05:00 AM
Quote
Conceptual genesis? Of this deity?
Yes. All three share a common history centered on the theology of the same anthropomorphic, omniscient, omnipotent deity - there is an accepted unity ('god of Abraham') between Allah and Yahweh in the Christian and Judaic senses.Quote
There's more than one version of "God" though. That's the point.
But there's not - 'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology.Your position, "'God' refers to the same ultimate being in Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology." is the minority position held by theological liberals.
Orthodox* Judaism is not on board with the Christian conception (yuk, yuk) of the triune Christian God.
Orthodox* Christians believe that Islam is either the spawn of one of the false prophets (Mohammed) we were warned against or, if Islam's Allah is real, he is a creature of Satan (demon, IOW).
* Not indicating the sect, but the state of belief: orthodox vs heterodox
Post by: wooderson on January 02, 2008, 06:03:25 AM
Quote
Huh? The Big Three disagree on some pretty big issues regarding the nature of the Almighty. That's hardly a minority position.
Holding that the Big Three don't believe in the same historical "god of Abraham" is very much a minority position. That you lot have issues is irrelevant to the matter (and the fact that all three groups maintain that they believe in this particular god...).
Quote
Then, respectfully, you could benefit from some study of comparative religion.
So the Abrahamic god isn't given human characteristics?
Post by: wooderson on January 02, 2008, 06:10:25 AM
That tells me y'all have a rather different standard for majority/minority and theological ideology than everyone else.
Post by: K Frame on January 02, 2008, 06:26:19 AM
Now that I've read this thread, I know....
Post by: roo_ster on January 02, 2008, 07:26:42 AM
Uh, GWB is a Methodist. Specifically, a member of the United Methodist Church, a mainline protestant denomination in the USA.
The leadership of the UMC is rife with theological liberalism, so much so that, the theological conservatives in the UMC are contemplating separation. Many individuals dissatisfied with the drift of the church leave and they are some of the folks swelling the ranks of the conservative churches. This is common across the mainline prot churches that have gone theologically liberal: loss of parishioners to theologically conservative churches.
Also, the UMC is a member of numerous theologically liberal organizations to include the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.
It is thus no surprise that GWB would mouth such language, if one is to equate his theology with that of the UMC's leadership. I am more likely to attribute his ecumenicalism to politics. Either way, it is incorrect.
---
As to the Anglicans, you must be more specific. Some of the organizations are theologically liberal and some are not. The leadership of the largest Anglican org in the US is theologically liberal and many Anglican churches have decided to dis-associate themselves from it. They will find their connection to the Archbishop of Canterbury via another route.
---
One last thing, evangelicalism and liberal theology are not mutually exclusive concepts. They are different concepts and some manage to square them, though this is a minority of a minority of Christians in the USA.
Post by: wooderson on January 02, 2008, 08:18:54 AM
The Anglican split is largely over teh gayz and other social liberal "ills" - the Archbishop the conservatives would like to remain in communion with, after all, maintains that Islam, Christianity and Judaism worship the same God.
So when you decide that these "liberals" are incorrect - what that really means is that you disagree and remain in the minority.
Post by: roo_ster on January 02, 2008, 09:01:04 AM
My mistake, I thought you understood the concept of theological liberalism.
Here are two sympathetic articles:
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txn/liberali.htm
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm
Not-so-sympathetic:
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/society03/2.shtml
An example of a thoroughly theologically liberal denomination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
----
It would also help to have an understanding of conservative/traditional theology.
Post by: wooderson on January 02, 2008, 11:38:14 AM
What I also understand is misdirection - "only this small minority of liberals believes in the shared god," yada yada yada, "conservatives are running from the liberal churches" yada yada yada. Except you haven't shown the former and the latter is demonstrably not connected to the former in terms of your example (Anglicans).
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 02, 2008, 03:12:35 PM
And pardon me for not really listening to "only the liberal theologians" believe that when the primary example of these is movement Christian conservative George Bush.
Bush's religion is about as conservative as his politics. Which is to say, it's not.
Quote
Holding that the Big Three don't believe in the same historical "god of Abraham" is very much a minority position. That you lot have issues is irrelevant to the matter (and the fact that all three groups maintain that they believe in this particular god...).
I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. Overall, we have a number of communication problems, and I think you are quite confused about the issues at hand. No doubt you feel the same about me. Worse yet, the discussion has become quite acrimonious, so I am not willing to say much more. Perhaps we can discuss things more clearly and more pleasantly later on. Thanks for the discussion.
Post by: Ben on January 02, 2008, 03:20:43 PM
Quote
Worse yet, the discussion has become quite acrimonious,
As these threads usually do. Let's stop and take a break while we're all still pals.