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.
When a critical level of understanding has been attained, I create definitions.
You have crested said hill!
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".
This is also true. 🤙🏼 Though, to be ahem "pedantic", the statement above is more accurate as "E Pluribus, Unum" ~ "One From Many".
Literally, Latin; from e "out of" (see ex-); ablative plural of plus "more" (see plus (n.)); neuter of unus "one" (from PIE root *oi-no- "one, unique"), ergo "a result of" rather than "origin", IIRC?
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.
This.
It's called learning, and no one should ever stop doing so until their last breath. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something — which, could very well be your personal liberty.
Don't stop learning. Always start teaching. 🙇🏽♂️
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.
It's kinda vague though. It could also mean "Out of many, there can be only one." Thereby establishing a Highlander-like contest among nations to be the last one standing.
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.
Madison’s quote closely mirrors Adams’ for sure, noting the church just being another power structure used by the wealthy.
Franklin is one of the only founders I haven’t read much about, mostly because he seems too good to be true and there’s a lot of worship surrounding him. I feel like I could never get an honest look at him.
There's plenty of bad things about Franklin. For one thing, he cheated on his wife all the time, often with women who were also married. And really didn't care who knew about it either.
He was also rumored to have had many affairs. This shows that he not only invented the lightning rod, he probably also had one.
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
Payne was a proto anarchist. His response to coming to America was “this no king thing is awesome but let’s look at the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and maybe since we’re on their land consider that they might be living better lives than us.
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.
https://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf
Or another version: https://archive.org/details/TheLifeAndMoralsOfJesusOfNazarethJeffersonBibleByThomasJefferson/page/n119/mode/2up
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.
Wow you got me, I'm actually a racing racist and pedo just because I mentioned that one of the most prominent founding fathers was not terribly religious (??)
What a terribly bad faith interpretation of their comment. Theyre making the point that while it's neat that Jefferson de-religioned the bible, and left the philosophy, Jefferson himself wasn't exactly an ethical paragon and that should be remembered. It wasn't an attack against you.
They replied to me, and it had nothing to do with the topic at hand (the founding fathers' religious beliefs). It's like barging into a conversation about the autobahn yelling GUYS, HITLER WAS REALLY BAD! I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT!
I mean, the broader thread has been talking about the philosophy and such included in the Jefferson bible. Seems pretty reasonable to put a note on a link to the thing just for the edification of anyone that checks it out.
Its more akin to being adjacent to a conversation about the history of the autobahn, and being the one to say "so for anyone who's not aware, the autobahn was largely built by the Nazis"
It wasn't an attack on you, just context for those who weren't aware.
What? Where did I state that?
I'm giving context to people reading your suggestion -that Jefferson isn't a saint and we have evidence he was engaging in some really immoral actions, even for the time. That's relevant when we are talking about philosophy and how he may have used this work to justify some of these beliefs.
It's fine to like a work and be critical of that work. Critical thinking is good.
Great, thankfully I didn't say any of those things, so I'm not sure why you're calling me out on a conversation you seem to be having only with yourself. What a weird interjection to make. Should I always include a disclaimer warning people not to go on a rampage against the Marcomanni if I mention Meditations?
Sure, give whatever historical context you like. To me, a woman, that he was a rapist is highly notable. Women have been calling out rapist men, because they tend to be Bad Guys in general who have certain beliefs that are Bad (which is what enables them to rape). What Jefferson did with his slave is like a horror movie. It's genuinely disturbing to think about. Would you like to be some 40 year old guy's fuck meat at age 15? How about at the age you are now?
It's like if people started talking about R Kelly's music - and I'm like hey, for context, many of these girls he's talking about were child victims - it changes his music. Thomas Jefferson factually did those things and it should be part of his history when we talk about his philosophies and morals.
Ah yes, alternate timeline that they add "Mind your business" to the pledge of allegiance instead of fucking "under God".
The pledge of allegiance (to a literal flag no less) is really weird. But, the enweirdening was enhanced in the 1950s when the government added "under god" to make the difference from the commies more clear.
Omg I forgot that was a thing, I couldn't believe it wasn't trolling, but no some of those people literally believe if they don't whack it they'll have superhuman powers, sounds similar to all the benefits of essential oils (/s) /Rant
Which is funny because there is a ton of data saying that ejaculation is good for you. And I'm sure most of them aren't having sex that often.
I had a youth pastor back before I was old enough to have started masturbating, and he gathered all the boys 'round one day to talk to us about masturbation, because the previous weeks one of the boys had made a joke about it.
Basically, the consensus at the Denbigh Christian Church was that ejaculation is only sinful if you're lustful. So loving sex between spouses is okay, jerking off is a sin, and wet dream can also be sins, if accompanied by dirty dreams. But the real problem is that ejaculate is, basically, your bodies reserve of energy. If you're constantly cumming, you won't have energy for other things, because your body needs that for shit like thinking, and moving.
Basically, you're wasting calories, I think?
I was 10, and very confused.
ETA: got the church wrong. Can't remember the name of the one with that youth pastor. But the Sunday school teacher at the same church (not DCC, the one I can't remember) told us that Angels hate us, because we have free will and they don't, and if it were up to them, they'd slaughter us in our sleep. They only don't because they're told not to by God.
Better than what my grandmother (who was not the best person) told me when I was very small and taking a bath- "if you keep touching it, a man will come with a scissors and cut it off." Even now more than 40 years later, just typing it kind of freaks me out because it scared me so much.
On the other hand, it never stopped me from masturbating, so I guess she failed there.
Nothing stops masturbation. Best you get is creating a complex around it.
But when I was a kid and in the "I grew a fidget spinner!" phase of the late single digits, my mom told me that it i didn't stop playing with it, it would get stuck in a random position and then I'd have to lay on my side to pee.
Apparently not since they brag about how long it's been since they've jerked off.
I suppose they could be lying though.
I feel like there is a toxic Andrew Tate black hole that has been sucking up incels lately. The whole NoFap, wife should be a virgin, high/low value women shit is starting to get popular in these circles.
Sucks, halfway want to blast the group with facts on the off chance it spares a single kid from getting sucked into that kinda crap, but I'm sure id just be banned instantly.
Note that Mr. Franklin’s motto meant “Get your shit done” rather than today’s interpretation of “Get the fuck out of my face.”
Sorta. It meant mind your business if you want to be successful as in like literally being there at your business to make things run smooth. That said he also heavily implies that you should stay out of others business if you want to succeed.
So it more or less means both just more nicely put like a southern "bless your heart" not actually being a positive.
Republicans: Clearly Benjamin Franklin was woke, and probably a communist!
(Because this would work against their efforts at book bans, their anti-trans crusade, their general anti-lgbtq+ crusade, their crusade against reproductive autonomy for women, and probably other things that aren't immediately springing to mind.)
I could be dead wrong, but I actually get the impression this wasn't really meant in the modern colloquial sense of keeping your nose out of other people's affairs, and more in the literal sense of keep on top of your business dealings. Which would make sense, since it was to be printed on money.
That's a good point and I have no doubt you are correct. Interesting wikipedia entry, thanks!
That sort of admonition would quickly be used as a mild insult though, no matter how literal. Same with something like "set your house in order" which is a biblical phrase with a very similar meaning to what Franklin was going for, as it's related to there not being much time and Franklin relates his phrase to time flying. It's too direct for English.
I think both of them have a more specific meaning of something like a combination of "you're the master of your own fate" and "seize the day."
I think I remember reading about similar phrases telling the reader to be conscious of their mortal life on a bunch of old world clocks? Maybe he was influenced by those.
Benjamin Franklin distributed a book containing basic first aid, which included which herbs can be used to "restore the menses."
Thats an old timey way of saying inducing an abortion. So you're not that far off from what Republicans would say about him if they were actually educated.
He was later anti-slavery so yes, many would consider him radical even by today's standards (think of how people feel about prison reform, ask people how they'd fix homelessness or mental health crises, and you'll see a shocking amount of people are 100% fine with slavery)
How about E PLURIBUS UNUM ? Out of many, one. A good motto for a nation of people, and federated states, working together?
It means both "leave other people alone" and "focus on your business" since the US was founded by landowning businessmen.
So slightly better, but not quite as good as "Don't tread on me" would be (if it wasn't currently coopted by fascists).
I agree, but I like to think it means the first one. Honestly, I don't know that "don't tread on me" works in that vein perfectly either, just because it's not as simple to understand. Maybe "mind your own business?"
As a NW Ohioan, i like "Don't Give Up The Ship" since it carries a similar ideal without all the baggage of "Don't Tread On Me" or "An Appeal To Heaven".
what would he say about all the chuds today flying gadsden flags while trying to dictate how everyone lives their life, i wonder..
All good and all but even with something like this, what if your business was to try to rule the world and everyone in it with the billion dollar resources at your disposal?
The problem isn't the money, the religion, the systems .... it's the age old ancient idea we never seem to want to acknowledge or deal with, ever since we first stepped out of our cave thousands of years ago ... the idea that some people should rule and others should be ruled and that we should all fight and kill one another to maintain that order.
I've been made to feel like I had to walk through a lot of crap over the past few decades of world history only to realize that people have been walking this same path for thousands of years more to realize this.
Well I've never met an upbeat historian, to put it another way. Still, there are glimmers of light and civility in this open air abbatoir it pleases us to call life.
lol ... my sentiments exactly and its a message I have to keep reminding myself about. Things are looking terrible right now .... but they are less terrible then they were before.
The only caveat to that is that in the past, we were incrementally getting less and less terrible to one another and it wasn't really world changing. We are the point now where a small group of people can just decide to end it all for us and start nuclear war to end humanity in one angry blow. We used to be able to kill each other one by one but now we're so sophisticated that we can kill everyone in one shot.
I am obliged to ask if you are a historian, or like me merely a Carlinesque fan of history
the idea that some people should rule and others should be ruled
Well there are movements like voltunarism and individualism. Something Franklin probably would've been a supporter of.
