Once Again The United States Supreme Court Blows It

[Sundance]

While you are correct on the tradition, you are incorrect in thinking the question turns on whether an American citizen is being forced or compelled to believe in a particular god. The question is whether a reasonable person would think that the phrase demonstrates the government adopting a religious position.

On one hand you have religious folks using this very issue as evidence that we are a religious country on another hand the rote and traditional usage devalues any meaning. I certainly wouldn't think that a nation had adopted latin as an official language merely because E pluribus unum was written on the money.

This is true, but even so, does it advocate for the adoption of any particular religion by our government? No.

 

[Road Warrior]

Then you do not understand either the U.S. election or polls. They were not "completely wrong". Trump won some very close states that swung the election. They were correct about the over all vote. Also sometimes people lie to pollsters, especially if they are embarrassed by their choice. It looks like the people that lied had a very good reason to be embarrassed.

Add to this the factor of actually showing up to vote. How many pissed off Bernie fans simply stayed home? Talk is cheap and polls, while often accurate, don't depict who will actually show up to vote.

 

[columbus]

So, too, does the Declaration of Independence.

There were a lot of time honored traditions amongst the Founding Fathers, like slavery, genocide, and the oppression of women
I can't say I'm sorry to see some of them go away.
But, that said, I don't much care about this. It's just one little drop in the bucket of abrasive arrogance I have come to expect from US Christians.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You can pray to yours and I'll pray to mine or, if you are your own god, you can believe in yourself..

The motto really doesn't establish a specific religion so there is basis to people saying it violates the Establishment Clause

 

[Subduction Zone]

you apparently like to rewrite history:

FLORIDA — 29 Electoral Votes
(numbers equal percentage points)
Exit Polls: Clinton 47.7, Trump 46.4 — Clinton wins by 1.3
Actual: Clinton 47.8, Trump 49.0 — Trump wins by 1.2
Trump gain between exit polls and actual results: 2.5

PENNSYLVANIA — 20 Electoral Votes
Exit Polls: Clinton 50.5, Trump 46.1 — Clinton wins by 4.4
Actual: Clinton 47.6, Trump 48.8 — Trump wins by 1.2
Trump gain: 5.6

WISCONSIN — 10 Electoral Votes
Exit Polls: Clinton 48.2, Trump 44.3 — Clinton wins by 3.9
Actual: Clinton 47.6, Trump 48.8 — Trump wins by 1.2
Trump gain: 5.1

NORTH CAROLINA — 15 Electoral Votes
Exit Polls: Clinton 48.2, Trump 44.3 — Clinton wins by 3.9
Actual: Clinton 47.6, Trump 48.8 — Trump wins by 1.2
Trump gain: 5.1

These are BIG differences.

Collusion to affect votes?

No, there is a very small difference in the percentages of voters. You are once again confused about how both polls work and the Electoral College works. Odds are that there was no collusion, only embarrassment by Trump voters that knew better.

 

[Road Warrior]

There were a lot of time honored traditions amongst the Founding Fathers, like slavery, genocide, and the oppression of women
I can't say I'm sorry to see some of them go away.
But, that said, I don't much care about this. It's just one little drop in the bucket of abrasive arrogance I have come to expect from US Christians.
Tom

You are free to see the negative in everything, to see the glass as always half full. OTOH, others see the US as taking up the lead in the same vein as John Locke, advancing the rights started with the Magna Carta and becoming the first modern Federal Constitutional Republic. A very significant event in the late 1700s.

 

[columbus]

You are free to see the negative in everything, to see the glass as always half full. OTOH, others see the US as taking up the lead in the same vein as John Locke, advancing the rights started with the Magna Carta and becoming the first modern Federal Constitutional Republic. A very significant event in the late 1700s.

I didn't say differently. I was just pointing out that the Founding Fathers had some serious faults, so just because they said or did something doesn't make it right.
And my comment was directed at the particular post I quoted.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

The only people it "sticks it to" are those who penned the Constitution and those who respect it enough to want it upheld.

The founding fathers were Theistic Rationalist (Christian at that). They would be fine with "In God we Trust".

Theistic rationalism - Wikipedia

"Theistic rationalism is a hybrid of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, in which rationalism is the predominant element.[1]According to Henry Clarence Thiessen, the concept of theistic rationalism first developed during the eighteenth century as a form of English and German Deism.[2] The term "theistic rationalism" occurs as early as 1856, in the English translation of a German work on recent religious history.[3] Some scholars have argued that the term properly describes the beliefs of some of the prominent Founding Fathers of the United States, including George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson.[4][5]"

 

[Curious George]

This is true, but even so, does it advocate for the adoption of any particular religion by our government? No.

It need not advocate for it. The intent need not even to be to establish religion. The government has a duty not to act in a manner which reasonable people would believe establishes religion.

As for this specific issue, i think there are reasonable points on both sides. Ultimately I fall on the side that doesn't think phrases on money amount to much. Though, I would also be content if the practice was stopped. I am more alarmed by the gotcha mentality of legislation that os being passed to display the words "In God We Trust" in schools.

 

[Enoch07]

The atheist communists murdered millions of their own people and tried, in vain, to eradicate religion. They failed despite over 70 years of trying. Why did they fail?

Ultimately they failed because they put their trust solely in humanity, which failed them.

 

[Road Warrior]

I didn't say differently. I was just pointing out that the Founding Fathers had some serious faults, so just because they said or did something doesn't make it right.
And my comment was directed at the particular post I quoted.
Tom

Of course they did. Everyone does. The importance of the the event was it was a beginning. You crapped all over like it meant nothing. Hence my assertion that you are free to see everything in the negative.

 

[Road Warrior]

Ultimately they failed because they put their trust solely in humanity, which failed them.

Humanity would be great if it wasn't for all those humans.

 

[columbus]

Of course they did. Everyone does. The importance of the the event was it was a beginning. You crapped all over like it meant nothing. Hence my assertion that you are free to see everything in the negative.

You must not have read the post I was responding to.
I don't see everything in the negative, I was responding to the premise that because it's traditional we should keep doing it.

But really, my point was the second part. About Christians demonstrating abrasive arrogance. It's not like this bit on modern currency is important to their ability to spend it either. All I really see is Christians supporting their ability to annoy fellow citizens, just because they can.

So, let me ask you. Why do Christians find this issue a big deal?
Tom

 

[Road Warrior]

You must not have read the post I was responding to.
I don't see everything in the negative, I was responding to the premise that because it's traditional we should keep doing it.

But really, my point was the second part. About Christians demonstrating abrasive arrogance. It's not like this bit on modern currency is important to their ability to spend it either. All I really see is Christians supporting their ability to annoy fellow citizens, just because they can.

So, let me ask you. Why do Christians find this issue a big deal?
Tom

Damn democracies!!! Majority rule sucks. No doubt you are against getting rid of the Electoral College since that'd only exacerbate the problem.

 

[columbus]

Damn democracies!!! Majority rule sucks. No doubt you are against getting rid of the Electoral College since that'd only exacerbate the problem.

You'd perhaps be surprised by how many people still whine about marriage equality, despite SCOTUS rulings and a clear majority supporting it.
Tom

 

[The Hammer]

.

Aside from its 2008 ruling on the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm this is one of the Court's more egregious decisions.

"Earlier today, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a group of atheists trying to get “In God We Trust” off our money. (It’s case 18-1297 in case you’re curious.) This was the most recent case brought forth by atheist activist Michael Newdow, most famous for his unsuccessful battle over “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Last August, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously (3-0) against more than two dozen atheists, their children, and two groups named in the lawsuit. They said the phrase didn’t violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), or the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

The judges said that the motto was part of an established tradition in the U.S. going back to our founding and that the phrase wasn’t unfairly coercive. (One judge didn’t concur on some of the analysis, but the end result was the same.)

The Constitution does not prevent the Government from promoting and “celebrat[ing] our tradition of religious freedom,” even if the means of doing so — here, adding the national motto to U.S. money — was motivated “in part because of religious sentiment”… Placing “In God We Trust” on coins and currency is consistent with historical practices.
…
… we recognize that convenience may lead some Plaintiffs to carry cash, but nothing compels them to assert their trust in God. Certainly no “reasonable observer” would think that the Government is attempting to force citizens to express trust in God with every monetary transaction.​

source

.​

Well God isn't specific to any religion/belief, so the govt isn't mandating any specific beliefs. And even those without theistic beliefs still hold a concept of what God is to them, even "nonexistent" means that the concept has been thought about.

The founding Fathers did not place God on our currency, but most of them believed in a Deistic view of religion and God, so it's not out of character for our country to leave this on currency.

 

[Curious George]

Well God isn't specific to any religion/belief, so the govt isn't mandating any specific beliefs. And even those without theistic beliefs still hold a concept of what God is to them, even "nonexistent" means that the concept has been thought about.

The founding Fathers did not place God on our currency, but most of them believed in a Deistic view of religion and God, so it's not out of character for our country to leave this on currency.

Acting in accordance with the founding fathers religious beliefs or acting in ways which would not offend the founding fathers religious beliefs has little to do with the argument.

In fact, that you would argue that leaving the phrase on the money is in accordance with their religious beliefs is evidence that we should not have it on our money. That said the real question is does having the phrase "in god we trust" give the appearance that our government favors a belief in god as opposed to no belief in god or belief in multiple gods.

 

[Spartan]

.

Aside from its 2008 ruling on the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm this is one of the Court's more egregious decisions.

"Earlier today, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a group of atheists trying to get “In God We Trust” off our money. (It’s case 18-1297 in case you’re curious.) This was the most recent case brought forth by atheist activist Michael Newdow, most famous for his unsuccessful battle over “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

.​

Yea for the Supreme Court! Atheists can go find something else to whine about.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

With Trump as our leader, he and we as a country certainly ain't acting like "In God We Trust".

We have a leader that scriptures tells us to be wary of and not follow, and we have a large minority who blindly believe in this man who commits adultery, uses prostitutes, lies an average of 10 time per day when he speaks publicly, doesn't pay people for work done, sides with brutal tyrants while dissing our allies, brags about his penis size and how he can grope and forcibly kiss women, etc.

Last time I heard, those ain't Christian nor observant Jewish values. His pandering, especially on the issues of abortion and Israel, is nauseating since he never took those positions prior to trying to get Republicans to vote for him during the primaries.

Christian men are now all on their knees worshiping Donald J. Trump. And, if requested by the Donald, they'd all line up on their knees before Trump for a different reason (let the reader infer).

 

[columbus]

Yea for the Supreme Court! Atheists can go find something else to whine about.

Quick catch dude. I thought I was quoting your "Atheists can go pound sand" version.

Hey, @Road Warrior .
Remember the point I was making? About Christians and abrasive arrogance?
You never responded to that point. Perhaps this quote will spur you a bit.

Or maybe not, it won't surprise me.
Tom