Once Again The United States Supreme Court Blows It

[Sundance]

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

This is true. However, moral issues notwithstanding, the Founding Fathers were indeed human beings who, while possessing and expressing their own conceptions of religion, were not ones to compel other individuals to believe against the dictates of their consciences. As expressions of the sincerely-held religious beliefs of other citizens of this nation, it is fair and just to leave references to any god or gods, wherever they may be found already, be. Do you not agree, @columbus?

 

[sealchan]

.

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

.​

Is there a difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion?

 

[columbus]

As expressions of the sincerely-held religious beliefs of other citizens of this nation, it is fair and just to leave references to any god or gods, wherever they may be found already, be. Do you not agree, @columbus?

No. I don't.
I think that what unifies our fractured country is best.
Clearly religious people like you and @Spartan think that dividing the country further, over nonsense like words on some currency, is more important than the USA.

It's not like I didn't know that already. Y'all are just demonstrating that I am right. Religionists don't care about the country as much as their religious beliefs. This isn't news to me.
Tom

 

[Vee]

.

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

.​

I think they wanted to say "In God we trust because we can't trust the banks" but they forgot the second part.

 

[Sundance]

No. I don't.
I think that what unifies our fractured country is best.
Clearly religious people like you and @Spartan think that dividing the country further, over nonsense like words on some currency, is more important than the USA.

It's not like I didn't know that already. Y'all are just demonstrating that I am right. Religionists don't care about the country as much as their religious beliefs. This isn't news to me.
Tom

I don't like the fact that this country is divided. At all. Especially over personal matters like religious preferences. This is why precisely I feel the way I do regarding this topic. I feel that making a big deal over words on currency when those words have no bearing at all on one's ability to spend it is, to be honest, childish. This issue shouldn't exist, especially in a nation where each individual is perfectly free to believe in anything he or she may choose, or disbelieve if such is preferred.

Also, regarding my religiosity, I do not affiliate with any particular religion, although my beliefs do align with two: Shinto and Pure Land Buddhism, so if I choose to do so, my affiliations would be with these, again as is my right.

 

[columbus]

I don't like the fact that this country is divided. At all. Especially over personal matters like religious preferences.

Then why do you think it's right and just to maintain the status quo?
Why do you religious people think that an inscription on a coin is worth alienating a sizable chunk of the citizenry?

I believe it's like @Spartan summed it up quite well.
"Booya! Eff the damn atheists! They can go pound sand." Because that's the Christian way.
Tom

 

[Shad]

They exclude themselves. No one says they have to trust in God. It does them absolutely no harm for this to be on coinage.

Jehovah´s Witnesses do not say the pledge of allegiance, yet they retain all the rights of citizenship

I was close to tears when I read how Congress considers atheists outsiders because In God We Trust is on the currency.
Does that make me an Outsider because In God We Trust wasn´t on my tax refund check ?

Should a Libertarian party member feel like an outsider because the faces of none of them are on the money ?

Are Jews and Seventh Day Adventists excluded because the government delivers mail on the Sabbath ?

The Atheists lost their silly suit, best to get over it.

There is a point when one needs to consider that the courts are no longer the avenue to use. At least avoid until there is a major shift in SCOTUS.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Call me crazy, but I knew you would reference such. My point is regarding religion, the government isn't advocating for any particular religion, so such issues as this one shouldn't exist. Are you not free to practice Germanic Religion as you desire? Are not they (the Atheists) free to disbelieve as they desire? I'll say — as a religiously unaffiliated person myself, aobeit one with decidedly religious beliefs — I'm absolutely free to do so without violating any laws. I ask in reiteration: what do references to any God or no gods at all matter then? Do such impact your freedoms here?

Also, I may not be a Christian, or a monotheist at all actually (I'm actually a henotheist, rather), but, my dear friend, I too worship a single deity who I consider the Supreme Being, while according to others the right to do the same. So, I myself take no offense whatsoever to the words “In God We Trust”.

Once again, my point is that a secular state has no business making religious statements. Period. I'm not sure what's difficult about this to understand.

 

[JJ50]

Religion and politics should never be intertwined, countries that permit this aren't good places in which to live, imo.

 

[metis]

Religion and politics should never be intertwined, countries that permit this aren't good places in which to live, imo.

It's impossible to completely separate them, but I agree that they should be separated as much as possible.

 

[JJ50]

It's impossible to completely separate them, but I agree that they should be separated as much as possible.

Here in the UK religion and politics seem to be kept separate.

 

[Thief]

if you strike the outstanding features of our money.....
the currency would be called counterfeit and no one will use it

I think pyramids are an odd feature

what do Egyptians have to do with our money?

 

[shmogie]

T

There is a point when one needs to consider that the courts are no longer the avenue to use. At least avoid until there is a major shift in SCOTUS.

he courts have always been the avenue of choice for those who want what the people do not want.

 

[Shad]

The courts have always been the avenue of choice for those who want what the people do not want.

I am talking about the win/loss rate for the motto. How many Ls do people need to consider that the case is a waste of time and money.

 

[metis]

Here in the UK religion and politics seem to be kept separate.

Have we not seen many official ceremonies at Westminster Abbey? Is not the monarchy closely tied to the Anglican Church?

 

[Twilight Hue]

At the end of the day it all spends the same, god or no god. I find it interesting someone would obsess that much over something so small.

It is.

It's really a lot of hulabloo over our Cold War spat with the USSR.

Personally I would think nobody would should really care whether it's there or not.

As an atheist I don't give a rat's *** if it's there, and Christians should go back to that parable whereas you give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and God's what is God's.

 

[Sundance]

Once again, my point is that a secular state has no business making religious statements. Period. I'm not sure what's difficult about this to understand.

Frank, while the phrase undoubtedly has religious origins, it is very widely recognized as being nothing more than ceremonial now. What’s so upsetting about this?

 

[shmogie]

Many of the founders were slaveowners, too, so what's your point? My point is that the government has no business endorsing religion or religious belief, especially since a sizable proportion of our citizens don't believe in a god. I do not believe in a capital "G" deity so that does not represent me.

However, it represents the majority. So you, the tail has no business trying to wag the dog. Get over it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Frank, while the phrase undoubtedly has religious origins, it is very widely recognized as being nothing more than ceremonial now. What’s so upsetting about this?

"Ceremonial"? What does that even mean? It's obviously a religious statements and has no business being there.

 

[Sundance]

"Ceremonial"? What does that even mean? It's obviously a religious statements and has no business being there.

1. marked by, involved in, or belonging to ceremony : stressing careful attention to form and detail.

2. having no real power or influence.

Check the second definition in bold.