In Middle Americans We Distrust

The citizens of the state of Indiana ("Hoosiers" as we're inexplicably called) trust in God--or so I am led to believe on my daily commutes by the increasing numbers of "In God We Trust" license plates worn proudly on the rusty derrieres of many a GM vehicle. In my latest ACLU-Indiana newsletter, I learned there was a lawsuit pending against the state, citing "unequal treatment," because these plates are available at no extra charge over the standard state flag plate whereas other non-standard plates incur a fee. Although I couldn't be more vehemently opposed to these license plates, the case doesn't appear viable because "In God We Trust" remains in fact (and against all better judgment) a national motto. There would certainly be no cause for a court case if, for instance, another, more neutral motto/catch-phrase were used, such as "America the Beautiful" (gag), "Sweet Land of Liberty" (double-gag), or "E Pluribus Unum" (Middle Americans loves them the shit out of some Latin). But, unfortunately, if the "In God We Trust" plates were to be (legitimately) challenged, it would only be in a higher arena. Yes, I'm talking about the Supreme Fuckin' Court, baby, and it wouldn't be on the basis of "unequal treatment" but the contentious issue of separation of church and state.

Legality aside, the issue of these license plates intrigues me because it is a striking provocation against liberalism. Now, I've never been a fan of tepid American liberalism, preferring a more radical standpoint instead, but it certainly beats the shit out of conservatism or the so-called "moderate" position. [It strikes me that "moderate" is the word conservatives use to describe themselves so as not to appear extremist or unreasonable. The tactic doesn't succeed on either of these counts.] Any number of patriotic images and/or banner-waving slogans could have been chosen for the plate design, but tellingly "In God We Trust" was selected--and it reminds one of a petulant child doing something antagonistic just because he can.

It further reminds me of the liberal "War on Christmas" fabricated by the conservative pundits. There is a neat simplicity of logic that these cultural hawks seem eager to ignore... Saying "happy holidays" is not only more efficient because it includes both holidays, but more importantly it is an authentic display of the so-called Christian spirit that Christmas purports to celebrate. It is an inclusive statement rather than all of this exclusive, arrogant "taking back Christmas" baloney. It comes down to this: By wishing others well who do not share our beliefs, we do not thereby diminish our own beliefs. This would seem apparent and yet isn't.

Similarly, people claim that if the government is not allowed to mention God, then this favors or is partial to the beliefs of atheists. This is a clear logical fallacy. The opposite of the government's reference to God would be an explicit statement of some kind that there is no God. The government's silence regarding religion and spiritual matters, on the other hand, is not an affirmation of atheism, but an expression of its respect for and non-interference in the personal beliefs of citizens.

I cannot speak for all nations or all peoples, but I have always intuited a strong fascistic vibe among Americans; perhaps this is true for all human beings in general, but I have not lived, for any significant time, in another nation in order to be able to extrapolate this claim. I do contend that Americans, by and large, immensely enjoy the pageantry and fanfare surrounding our country's claims to freedom and equality, but underneath all of that lip service there resides a strong, unnamed impulse to marginalize and to outlaw those persons and beliefs who do not fall within a relatively narrow spectrum of "moderate" ideology that is deemed acceptable by our banal median culture.

Of course, since I am a cynic, I would guess this impulse is inherent to humanity itself, but the level of the intellectual development of a nation determines how much free reign this impulse is given. America, by these standards, is very much a middle-of-the-road country, having not outlawed dissent, per se, but having limited the boundaries of ideology by means, for example, of the media and social conditioning. We are hardly in the dire straits of Iran, Taliban-era Afghanistan, or Sudan with respect to the legal prohibitions of expression, but we dangerously imagine our freedoms to be greater and more all-encompassing than they are. Rather, the rules of the game have only changed, adapted, been optimized. Citizens are controlled not through the explicit force of law, but through subtle means, which often remain unrecognized.

As a postscript, I'd like to clarify the concept of "intellectual development" to which I alluded in the previous paragraph. I am not therein speaking of "book learning" or the regurgitation of data, nor am I speaking about acquiring practical abilities for a wage-earning career. I am talking about the rarely taught skill of learning to think critically and independently--or as independently as is possible in our message-saturated culture.