One Motto, One People: Reclaiming E Pluribus Unum to Heal America

With the concern of Christian Nationalism and the recent orientation of forcing "God" into our government, we have to start looking at what the problem is, where it started, why it started, and how to end it. Another concern is how Donald Trump has weaponized things like religion to regain power and get re-elected.

Worries over him and his desires for autocracy, power, greed, and kleptocracy with people like Elon Musk are a serious concern now more than ever.

From the Center for Religion in Public Life - Why E Pluribus Unum Is a Better Motto for Today than “In God We Trust”

1. Embracing True Diversity and Unity

The motto E Pluribus Unum was chosen by the Founding Fathers as an ideal that would unify a country of people from various places, backgrounds, and beliefs. The phrase encapsulates the American experiment: a diverse group of individuals coming together to form a stronger whole. It tells us that every American, no matter where they come from or what they believe, is part of that “One.”

Today, with even greater diversity in the United States than in the past, the meaning behind E Pluribus Unum is as relevant as ever. It serves as a reminder that our differences don’t divide us but make us stronger when they’re harnessed for a common purpose.

In contrast, In God We Trust doesn’t convey the same inclusivity. It implies a shared faith in a single religious concept, which isn’t true for everyone. America is home to a wide array of faiths, as well as people who don’t adhere to any faith at all. While “God” has different meanings for different people, In God We Trust is often interpreted as favoring a specific monotheistic view, alienating those who don’t share that view. In short, E Pluribus Unum brings people together, while In God We Trust can unintentionally create distance between them.

2. Reflecting the Constitution’s Religious Neutrality

One of the cornerstones of American identity is the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. This amendment ensures that individuals are free to practice any religion or none at all, and that the government doesn’t endorse any particular faith. By choosing In God We Trust as the national motto, the government has unintentionally aligned itself with a specific religious sentiment, creating tension with the very freedoms our Constitution is built to protect.

E Pluribus Unum, on the other hand, doesn’t favor any one religious belief. It’s a motto that respects both religious and secular viewpoints equally, making it a better fit for a country founded on the principle of religious freedom. Returning to E Pluribus Unum would reaffirm our commitment to a government that serves all its citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs.

3. Avoiding Division and “Othering”

Sadly, In God We Trust has sometimes been used to define what it means to be a “real” American, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. This mentality has led to a pattern of "othering" fellow citizens who don’t identify with that phrase—whether they are atheists, people of minority faiths, or those who interpret “God” differently. This approach risks dividing us along lines of belief when what we need, especially now, is unity.

The language of E Pluribus Unum shifts us away from viewing people as “insiders” and “outsiders.” It reminds us that we’re all part of one nation, and even when we disagree, we still share a commitment to one another. As a motto, it leaves no room for creating enemies out of fellow citizens. Instead, it creates a sense of common purpose that helps bring people together.

4. A Return to American Values

E Pluribus Unum has deep historical roots, representing the original vision of the Founding Fathers. It reminds us of what they hoped America would be—a united country formed by people of all backgrounds. Adopting In God We Trust as the motto in 1956 was a Cold War move to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union. While it served a purpose at the time, the Cold War is over, and today we face different challenges that call for a more inclusive approach.

By returning to E Pluribus Unum, we can return to a motto that reflects the diversity and openness our country was built upon. It’s a step back toward the founding principles that united people from all walks of life in the first place, and it can help us create a national identity that’s positive, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

5. Promoting a Motto for All Americans

In a nation that prides itself on democracy, a motto should be for everyone. A motto that only reflects the values of certain groups isn’t fully representative. While In God We Trust speaks to a large portion of Americans, it does not speak to everyone. There are millions of Americans who don’t connect with it and may feel left out or excluded from the national identity it represents. This isn’t just a minor concern; feeling excluded can lead to greater disillusionment with government, less civic engagement, and a more fractured society overall.

In contrast, E Pluribus Unum speaks to every American. It focuses on our common humanity and the shared commitment to creating a unified nation from many backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This kind of unity is essential to strengthening our democracy and ensuring that all citizens feel valued and included.

6. Focusing on Civic Values Over Religious Identity

E Pluribus Unum emphasizes civic unity, not religious unity. It doesn’t ask us to believe the same things or see the world the same way, but it does ask us to work together as one people. In times when polarization is high and public trust is low, a national motto that focuses on our civic values rather than our religious identity could help to bring people back together.

It would encourage Americans to see themselves, first and foremost, as citizens who are in this together—not as people divided by religion, politics, or ideology. At a time when we need less division and more common purpose, E Pluribus Unum offers an ideal that transcends our differences.

---

In sum, returning to E Pluribus Unum would help us refocus on the importance of unity across diversity, respect religious freedom, avoid divisive “othering,” and foster a civic identity that includes all Americans. It reminds us that no matter who we are or what we believe, we’re stronger when we’re working together as “One.”

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Allow The God Fearing to Rule the Day?

First off, Happy Labor Day! For more on that, see the link from my 2014 blog article on Labor Day.

Now, let's get to it!


Through the course of human endeavors,
before there was God there were Gods.
Before there were Gods there was Heaven.
Before there was Heaven there was the Sun.
Before there was the Sun there was darkness.
In that darkness there was no language.
There was no way to store and convey information
to any, to all.
But then there was language, then there was writing,
then there was, reading. But only to the few.
The few who had seen a book, who had a book, who learned to read.
This was magical. Words were magical.
It was unbelievable. It was powerful. It was Holy.
It was sacred. it was God like.
The Word became God.
Those who held the Word, became God like.
God has power. God IS power.
Those who serve God, have power.
To protect themselves from those they read to, the had to say they served.
Those who the servers served, they ruled over.
The servers became the served.
Their word becomes the Word.
Those who now serve Them, find themselves believing things.
Things not originally intended.
Things not currently intended.
Things that were never intended.
Those who believed, altered the Word of those who once served
and are now being served.
Then the nothing became the something.
And so the word was broken.

This is the problem in treating the modern day extremist God Fearing respectfully. Just as it is with the other extremists (and some even not so extreme) of the right wing politically conservative and Republican crowd. We should treat people respectfully to be sure, though not so much their beliefs, if respect for those beliefs are reasonably undeserved.

The trouble is in showing them respect, and therefore their beliefs, respect in discourse and debate tends also to lend a respectability overall. One they simply do not deserve. Religion has a lot of pretty (and not so pretty) words.

The trouble is, every religion breaks down because no philosophy answers all questions in every instance. A closed system such as any religion is, cannot answer all things in an ever changing universe. Which gives us a clue. ANY religion that seems to have ALL the answers, is a broken religion, a defective form of deity worship with a set of rules designed to subvert reality. Because there is no such thing as a philosophy that can answer all questions all the time.

It's like any form of government, not pure form is fully functional, only hybrids. It's why in part, Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

It's an uneven playing field right from the start. Which explains so much of the current situation in our dealing with true God Fearers. Both those politically in general as well as in Congress. If one treats them as derisively as they may well deserve, then it becomes the rational people who are seen as rude and illegitimate. Rather than simply taking an appropriate stand against utter silliness. Dangerous, silliness.

If on the other hand they are treated with respect, they receive a perceived legitimacy they have failed to prove deserving of. Other than a general respectful right to believe in any delusion they choose to come up with. Delusions that are typically supported by some ancient book of "wisdom" recorded over time, founded in antiquity and conjecture, based on imperfect observations, conflated histories and your basic magical thinking.

Such is our world today. It will change though. It has to.

Not because it's wanted, rather because in the end the Truth typically wins out. It is nature's course. It's the balance in history that sooner or later incorrect but accepted beliefs will be superseded from improperly recorded histories. Reality tends to win out in the end. Something that is becoming more and more prevalent as technology allows us anymore to record nearly everything, nearly anywhere.

The question as usual is, will these more accurate public appraisals of history happen within our lifetime?

As a friend once said to me in reply to this question:

"But who is the arbiter of silliness? To a devout evangelical, my atheism is just as silly."

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not so much what is on their side of the equation that is at issue. Some might even say that is a lost cause anyway. It is on our side, the side of those of us who might put up with it all, to ignore, to allow delusions to continue unabated. Out of good manners, ill conceived political correctness.

As a general rule we must all agree upon at very least a general baseline of belief. And in America it is and always has been through a government without religion. While now that seems to many load voices to be the outlier position. Something that grew out of fear that back in the origins of the post WWII cold war. A belief we allowed insidiously to creep into our national mindset, even into our pledge of allegiance, and onto our money.

It is not "In God We Trust" that we need to proclaim on a national basis, but "In Ourselves". To do what is right regardless of God, or whoever's God, or whatever religion, or even...no religion at all.

Our option needs to be government devoid of deity, and a government's belief based in Science. Reality as best our minds can fathom to use in our decision making. Since we cannot choose one religion over all others in a country where all religions are welcome (anyway those who don't go out and kill people over religion or some antiquated medieval view of God), then we simply have to choose... no religion.

To find order in no religion requires science. It's not a big leap in logic. Science that we need to be protected from through our government and if you will, moderated by our mindsets of Liberté, égalité, fraternité ("liberty, equality, fraternity"). Moderated by an individual's own beliefs even in religion and through ethics and morals.

The Grammarist defines Morals as the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Ethics are principles of right conduct. So the two nouns are closely related and are often interchangeable.

The main difference is that morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based, while ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.

We need more of the practical and less of the ethereal.

In order to govern people, we need beliefs founded in what is real and functional. If prayer worked every time, I'd say fine, we can use that. But it is not fine, it does not work every time, if it even works at all, ever. And I'd argue that it never works. It merely buffers our reality. It is simply coincidental on any real results from its use and is pretty dysfunctional in any kind of way in governing people.

Here's the really important thing... to all theists, all believers, all religious types. In order to have all religions for all people, none must govern.

It is on us all to stop this madness. To allow those who wish to continue to believe in the ethereal as real, is fine in their personal lives, just not in their public lives. Especially if it affects others. including those of the rest of us who use the rational and real in our own daily lives.

Allowing the God Fearing to Rule the day couldn't be a bigger mistake. Shying away form this fact is only going to make everything worse. We need to speak up, speak out, stand our ground, Politely but firmly state our case and if necessary, bulldoze our public ways right over top of them if not straight through them if need be.

For our protection. For their own protection. For all of our protection.