Branding America – In God We Trust. Or, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington Debate the American Slogan – Stand for America®

In personally filing more than 500 United States federal trademark registration applications at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, I’ve participated in many team debates about slogans. In one particular case with a dream-team, we examined the selection of In God We Trust versus E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) for the slogan of the United States.

[Zegarelli] Good morning gentlemen, thank you for asking me to participate in the debate about the slogan for the United States of America. Mr. President?

[George Washington] Sir, it is our honor to be here. Let us make straight-way to the business at hand. Allow me to begin by saying my preferred slogan is, “In God We Trust”—and I say this understanding Secretary of State Jefferson’s opposition. This nation is grounded in god, and grounded in godly and god-fearing principles, and this slogan hits the nail squarely.

[Thomas Jefferson] But, Good Sirs—and I say this with the greatest respect—the nail may be squarely hit, but the board is split by the hit, and that slogan does more to divide than unite.

[Washington] Mr. Zegarelli, I mean no disparagement to Mr. Jefferson, but I can testify to men, because I commanded men in the late Revolution. Mr. Jefferson has the brilliance of his books, but I know men at a level not understood by many men. Without god, Sir, men are as beasts. It is god that gives unity and purpose to men.

[Jefferson] Mr. President, Mr. President. You say, without god, men are as to beasts, but Good Sir, it is in the name of god that has turned generation and generations into beasts. In the name of god, Sirs, more abominations have been committed for god than by any other cause. Floggings, burnings-at-the-stake, witch-huntings, inquisitions, and all other forms of war, torture and miserable unhappinesses, all in the name of god. Sirs, have we not finally escaped and left that mean and base god-governed history of Europe behind us, separating for a new system of governance?

[John Adams] Gentlemen, Gentlemen—best of gentlemen. You each do have a point. I say this, and you may mock me as you wish. I may neither have the brilliance of Jefferson nor the command of President Washington, but I know men, such as I may know men from my own context and experience. Yes, I will say it once again: When I defended the Crown’s Red-Coat soldiers against the colonists, in the massacre at Boston, I felt the sting of the greatest prejudice from my own brethren—simply for defending the Red-Coats, giving them all their rights of equal justice before the law.

Sirs, again I say here and now, as I was compelled to say to the jury of men then, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Men are passionate beasts, and men are weak for their passions, whims and desires, but it is not god who turns men into beasts—far from it—it is but the excuse of god that men say allows them to turn into beasts. God is good, Sirs, and, if God is powerless in anything, God is powerless to turn a man bad.

This, Fine Sirs, is the evidence: God is good, but men use god to justify their base passions. So says Mr. Madison, “If men were angels, government would not be necessary.” Thrice did Jesus our Christ deny his passions and Satan with them. But, men are not the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Zegarelli] And, Dr. Franklin, shall we hear from you?

[Benjamin Franklin] Sir, some of my friends stand for “In God We Trust” and some of my friends stand for “E Pluribus Unum“; I, Sir, stand for my friends. But, of course, I jest. I should be pleased to hear more before I comment.

[Washington] As a soldier, I am a practical man, that is true. But, governing men is not to govern angels, with or without god. I say, because I know men, God is necessary to control men, which is a better weapon than guns. God is as much a voluntary bonding element of association as anything we might otherwise contrive, and oft much more. That is the evidence.

[Adams] Yes, yes, Mr. Zegarelli. President Washington—ever a General—is a warrior, and, as such, he deals in the “what is.” Mr. Jefferson—ever an intellectual—is a philosopher, and, as such, he deals in the “what should be.” Both should have their place.

Mr. Jefferson’s perspective is pure in the philosophical framework of the United States: that a diverse group of persons, with diverse personal beliefs, should be—that is, should be—able to keep their personal beliefs personal, without imposing them onto another, and to use government for the most basic framework of society, leaving all else to voluntary personal associations.

But, President Washington knows, however, that, as a practical matter, most, or almost all, of citizens are theists—a fact of pure statistical truth—and governing is in large part controlling, and there never was a better lever over governing men than god.

[Jefferson] But, principles man, principles. A man ever looking at his feet in the mud will be lost for the star he should follow.

[Washington] Mind yourself, Mr. Jefferson, I think I am well-proven for principles and accomplishing what is necessary for good as we are blessed to see it.

[Jefferson] And so you are—so we are—Mr. President. But, if only one man in the United States—even one, all alone—wished by conscience to be an atheist, and was a patriot to the constitution of our framework of association for governing all, meaning really all, and happiness and justice for all—not some, not many or not most—but all, really all—then that one man should be able to say the slogan of the United States proudly and without any begrudgement, omission or reservation. That, Sirs, is the formula of our bond. That is our promise.

[Washington] Mr. Jefferson, have you ever commanded a regiment? Let me explain leadership, Sir, respectfully, Sir, in practical terms. If I should give the battle cry to my men that we fight for the truth, my men might attack, until some fear makes them remember their Pontius Pilate, and then they will say to themselves, “What is truth anyway?” and they will turn and run away in fear retreating. But, if I should say that we fight for God, and by God’s hand, my men will endure every hardship and torture, for God, achieving the victory. I know this to be true. I lived it, Sir. I endured it, Sir. Other countries call upon god, and, if we do not also do so, Sir, we would be at the greatest tactical disadvantage.

I am for every man’s right of conscience, but this is governance, Sir, governance, which is a practical business, and, in large part, governance is control of or leading others. Therefore, Sirs, we must use In God We Trust and we must reinforce, at every opportunity, god, god, god, in every coin, emblem and pledge, and press this deeply into the minds of men and citizens, for the good of our country. Governance, like war, is a practical art, and there never was a more powerful weapon or binding agent than God. This is a universal truth, Sir.

[Jefferson] And, yet, it remains the truth, Mr. President, that it was one Jesus the Nazarene who was the first to teach us to separate god from the government, saying, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s.” In our Constitution, we purposely removed any requirement to swear oaths before god, allowing men to affirm into office without the European governmental horrors of religious tests, because, Good Sir, this is the guiding star of our association. Men should have the dignity and tempered restraint to leave each other alone. It is not the business of government to tell men how or what to think, or to have one god, twenty gods or no godthe role of government is to tax and to manage and to adjudicate a picked pocket. This is our truth, Sir.

[Adams] All true, Good Sirs. God binds men better than any Constitution. But, imposing faith onto others is a fraud to the principles of our Savior. Jesus never imposed a system of belief upon others, but invited others by voluntary association for each his or her own.

Sirs, to apply the rule that I, myself, have recently stated, I must admit that it does not logically follow that, because God is good, that all men must believe in God—or the same god—to be good. It is a fact that there have been many cultures throughout time, in East and West, with no god, one god and many gods, and yet loved their spouse, loved their children and loved their neighbors. And, yet, I still do fear a country without god. The difficulty is clear: Men must bind—freedom must unbind.

[Washington] In all that I have said, so help me God, Gentlemen, on my sacred honor, Divine Providence was at work in achieving freedom from the tyranny of King George. What leads a man, or compels or binds a man—or a people—to act is one thing, but I have no doubt that the Hand of God was in aid of our just and rightful cause.

[Jefferson] But, Mr. President, should that opinion—should your opinion—be such as law unto others? Devout men pray to God and do not acquire the object, and devout men also do not pray and yet acquire the object—and some men pray to twenty gods and acquire the object—and pagans and atheists do not pray at all and yet still acquire the object. What man—you, Sir?—is so knowing, divine, or proud to presume to know the acts or intentions of God? My god, Sirs, let our passions, desires and selfish presumptions be set aside. Experience tells us that God—such as he is—has his own plans.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, I beg you, please! In this life, men form many associations: a man with his god, a man with his spouse, a man with his family, a man with his neighbors. Each association has a different framework, each operating at different tiers. But, government, Sirs—our government, Sirs—is the most basic framework, the lowest and most common tier, almost abstract. Our government, Sirs, is a type of justice itself, in that it is the association that allows all other associations—many contradicting each other—freely to exist in civil harmony.

Dear God, Sirs, lest we forget our Founding Congress, our government binds men together grounded upon a constitutional republic of laws—ours is not a government grounded upon god! Indeed, we loathe a government grounded upon a god—King George grounded his government upon God, and, from this, we revolted! Are we vigilant to see that tyranny begins with God? Sirs, government should not presume to need to help God bless any man! Blessings, such as they are, come from the man, his god and perhaps his church, but not from government.

[Zegarelli, looking at Dr. Franklin…]

[Franklin] Dearest Gentlemen—gentle, gentle men—I will make a comment. You know me as a scientist of sorts, therefore being—in equal parts—a lover equally of both what is and what should be. And, this experiment of America—this greatest and most wonderful of experiments ever devised for the governance of men—must be allowed to fulfill its time of test. Therefore, before we bias the experiment, let us give it time.

Let me say this: I’ve heard that a gentlemen does not discuss religion at a wedding, but only a rogue or rabble-rouser. Do you not agree, Mr. President? That is, that we should not discuss at a happy event something like religion?

Why does our experience teach us this practical application of courtesy?

Surely, we all know it to be true that we do not speak of religion at weddings and places of pursued happiness, because it is a deep and personal issue that imposes upon others, having a tendency to divide and to anger. This is a practical consideration, and this is the evidence. We know this fact to be true, and I will not ridicule Mr. Adams, who is correct to say, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

So I say this, my Honorable Gentlemen all: It seems to me very wise indeed, in matters of social civil decisions, to elect the option that has the most net benefit, or should I say, the most benefit with the least detriment and risk. This, Sirs, is prudential governing.

We must first know who we are and why we are. We are a republic of free-thinkers, entitled to associate in a political body without favoritism in matters of theism and personal conscience. We allow contradictions. This is our experiment, Sirs.

If we should choose E Pluribus Unum, or From Many, One, we say in an abstract way, that we are standing united as one, from many diverse populations and beliefs. This is consistent with who we are as a country and reflects our philosophy of association. It unifies wholly and abstractly without risk of offense. It presents upside, without downside.

But, now, if we should choose, In God We Trust, we will immediately be setting some practical challenge to our compatriots, the atheists, who would disdain the thought of saying the slogan, since it violates their system of personal conscience—and violates a principle to which we have entitled them by the rules of our association. This is not a question of whether we personally believe that atheists are correct or incorrect, but only whether we believe that the slogan of our country should not imply a factual conclusion against even one person who has a right to dispute it. I should decide no differently for my children than for any patriot.

Therefore, I must agree with Mr. Jefferson. E Pluribus Unum is a superior brand for a republic of free-thinking individuals who have associated without regard to race, color, creed, or other matters of personal preference or conscience. As between the two slogans, only one should be acceptable to all. I call the question.

[Zegarelli] There we have it, Gentlemen. All in favor?

And, thusly, my dream-team conversation ended with an awakening.

~ Gregg Zegarelli

______________________________

<< Back to Last Story #GRZ_72Forward to Next Story #GRZ_97 >>

© 2018 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/branding-america-god-we-trust-adams-franklin-debate-zegarelli-esq-

See Article Index

Stand for America® is a series of publications written by Gregg Zegarelli intersecting philosophy and traditional American values published by Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group. Printed or reprinted with permission.

______________________________

You might also like:

I Never Promised to Love My Wife. Or, All About Oaths

Prove it! Words v. Action. No. 27. The Leap at Rhodes – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series

Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_61]

SQL Nulls, Socrates, and Black Holes. Or, the Great Lawn Chair Debate [#GRZ_72]

John Adams, Thoughts on Government – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_75]

All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong – Stand for America® [#GRZ_78]

TEV Law Group. Legal services for American entrepreneurs: Stand for America®

We Represent the Entrepreneurial Spirit.®

GRZ82.20250202

<< Back to Last Story #GRZ_72Forward to Next Story #GRZ_97 >>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.