i still prefer the original official motto: E Pleribus Unum - From many, one - for it speaks to the true power of our people united in common cause and the very real danger of our division.
How precise is this translation?
I’ve also heard “From many, one”, which can be taken two ways: the same celebration of the individual (presumably over other individuals), or that the many come together as one, which is a much clearer call to action.
I prefer the Voltron version.
There’s not much distinction. Either translation would be appropriate. I’m many years away from high school Latin, but I think the direct translation would be, “out of many, one”. However, that’s awkward in English, so it is often written as “one from many”.
I’m sure there are at least one or two who do, so I think you mean you don’t like a pedant and feel like most people agree with you.
I like to read the correct spelling.
It explains stuff better and makes positive connections to other things I have learnt in the past.
When enough people stop caring about the details, for long enough, the results of science shall degrade into superstition, as the underlying science will be lost. And so the cycle revolves.
Also has a secondary interpretation: out of the many countries in the world, one of them. Putting the US on equal footing with the nations of old — despite not having a king with a divine right to sovereignty.
I like this interpretation because anno 2024 it also counterweights US exceptionalism.
Not American, but here’s my 0.02 euros:
The strength of the country was always in its’ diversity and the fact that motivated people came together to build better lives.
Nowadays there are people who hate the former and in terms of the latter, immigration is pretty hard and the H-1B is a lottery that unfortunately favors sweatshops (and yes, I’m salty because I’m a software engineer with no formal education so y’all don’t want me).
I get that there are legitimate reasons for limiting migration (your own people do want to work too, of course), but it does also limit economic growth and influx of different cultures.
Being from a small country in the EU that nobody’s heard of, the EU and its’ open borders are sorta doing the same to us now: Don’t get me wrong, it’s still primarily other white people migrating here, but at least they’re people of slightly different cultures, with different experiences. It benefits everyone because we all have something to learn from one another.
The “in God we trust” slogan thing was first used during the Civil War, and only brought about as an official thing in the 1950s when we had to differentiate ourselves from “those godless Commies”.
This seems like a good spot for a reminder that Thomas Jefferson edited his own copy of the bible to remove all of the magical/religious elements and left only the philosophical lessons.
And then there was Thomas Payne, who was as close to an overt atheist as you could get in the 18th century without having someone come up behind you and slit your throat.
There’s also a long list of great quotes here from the founders-
Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?
– John Adams
And he was one of the more religious ones.
There were many spicy quotes during the Enlightenment – the founding fathers were reflecting a common sentiment among the educated classes in Europe. Anyone interested in that time period would enjoy Peter Gay’s book about it. It’s incredibly well-written and much less dry than a book about that subject has any right to be.
One can be part of the system and recognize its faults.
Yeah, there were some people sort of bucking the system, and probably some closeted atheists, but criticizing the church for its corruption and failures is no different than us doing the same about our government today.
The next line after the quote is:
Upon this system depends The Royalty, Loyalty, and Allegiance of Europe. The Phyal of holy Oyl, with which the Kings of France and England are anointed, is one of the most Splendid and important Events in all the Legends.
So not necessarily an anti-deity statement, but more an acknowledgement that the Church is a system by which European rulers reinforce their power and wealth. The whole letter to Taylor from Adams really rants about the church’s power and attempts to control people’s lives.
I don’t disagree. Like I said, Adams was one of the more religious founders. He wasn’t anywhere near as extremely anti-religion as people like Madison. But that’s why I chose Adams.
If you want a good Madison quote:
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.
And then, going back to Franklin, was him suggesting America should be building lighthouses, not churches.
So not necessarily an anti-deity statement, but more an acknowledgement that the Church is a system by which European rulers reinforce their power and wealth.
He was basically just channeling Seneca, who wrote this circa 65 CE (in his Letters from a Stoic, which are a great read)
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
If the scriptures had been written with one half of the care and ability with which they have been explained and defended, they would not have been the cause of so much contention and mischief, and they would not have stood in need of so much explanation and defense.
and
To suppose that God Almighty has confined his goodness to this world, to the exclusion of all others, is much similar to the idle fancies of some individuals in this world, that they, and those of their communion or faith, are the favorites of heaven exclusively; but these are narrow and bigoted conceptions, which are degrading to a rational nature, and utterly unworthy of God, of whom we should form the most exalted ideas.
and
The discoveries of science have proved that the opinions concerning a firmament above, and a flat earth beneath, are completely inaccurate; but faith delights more in sublimity than truth; it soars far above science in its discoveries, and holds accuracy in contempt.
and
In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in such parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue; which is of itself a strong presumption that in the infancy of letters, learning and science, or in the world’s non-age, those who confided in miracles, as a proof of the divine mission of the first promulgators of revelation, were imposed upon by fictitious appearances instead of miracles.
–Ethan Allen, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man
who was as close to an overt atheist as you could get in the 18th century without having someone come up behind you and slit your throat.
I don’t really think that was a risk. My understanding is it was more like: “well this is what smart people have believed for centuries- what idea do you have for where we came from?”
Blasphemy was still illegal in many countries, and could even be a capital crime. And even in the ones that weren’t, there were plenty of bloodthirsty religious fanatics.
It is certainly easier to argue for an atheist position in an age of science, but atheism itself goes at least as far back as Diagoras of Melos in Ancient Greece. He threw an idol of a god into a fire and said that if gods existed, they would stop the idol from burning. He got chased out of Melos for his trouble. That sort of thing is why, even thousands of years later, if you were an atheist, you didn’t admit it.
You could go as far as deism in the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment was already in full swing in Britain when Thomas Aikenhead was executed for blasphemy due to being an atheist.
I really want to emphasize that Jefferson was not a good guy, not morally good at all, definitely raped his slave Sally Hemmings who was probably younger than 15 when it started but at least 15 (Jefferson was in his 40s). Prevented her from fleeing his rape house when he took her to France by promising he’d free her whole family and her when they got back, and then didn’t (because he wanted to keep raping her, probably). Oh and also, her brother went to France with them and learned French cooking for Jefferson, and the ice cream recipe he used for Jefferson is still served to this day at Mt Rushmore as Thomas Jefferson’s ice cream. Even though it’s not his.
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11389556/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-book
This is not a man with a good moral backbone. For reference, literally no other founder did anything like this. Sure, many cheated - with adults who weren’t their personal child slaves. This is extremely disturbing, and before anyone goes to defend him, really ask yourself why you’re empathizing with Jefferson here and not poor Sally.
There are better philosophers out there.
reminds me a yard sale plaque i saw once:
“like a good neighbor, stay over there”
Ah yes, alternate timeline that they add “Mind your business” to the pledge of allegiance instead of fucking “under God”.
