George W. Bush, on December 26, 2007, exactly twelve weeks following his veto on the SCHIP program that would provide health care to underpriveledged children, signed a bill that includes a measure that will have the American mint move the phrase “In God We Trust” front and centre of the face of the coin rather than along the edge.
Who are “We” for one? The American people? Is this going to be the direction of the United States, speaking on behalf of minorities, such as those who do not “trust” in a god or even that particular “God”? Why not, then, extend that phrase a bit more (they’ve certainly got more room thanks to that bill). Here’s my new phrase,
“As a white, jewish male living in New York, I feel a bit guilty for not calling my mother. Oh well, at least God still loves me.”
That’s fair, right? Wait, isn’t Spanish overtaking English? If it does, would it be, “En Dios confiamos”?
Wait, why not use this philosophy on other things? I mean, as long as we’re casting a general belief on all persons, we could make things a lot easier.
“For Obama we Vote”
There, no more of this ongoing election. Call it.
“It’s hotdogs we indulge”
American if I ever heard it.
“To Florida we vacation”
No more tough decisions.
“In Nikes we walk”
Shoe shopping should be much quicker.
But…what if we don’t like hotdogs? That’s possible isn’t it? What if Nike is too expensive? What if, maybe, just maybe, someone does not trust in God.
Something seems oddly familiar about these vague generalizations that could be interpreted in different ways and are meant to rule our lives. It couldn’t be connected, right?
In God We Trust? No We Don’t. Not all of us, regardless of how much some may insist.
Logic's Last Stand 