Tennessee passes Law, schools must display “In God We Trust”

[Jesster]

I think that the legislators who made it the motto expected it to instill patriotism and rally support for the U.S. this intent is secular.

That was part of their intention, yes. The method was the flaw though. They instilled patriotism by shoving aside part of the protected people in their own country.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes yes I get that you speculate that it was establishment, what you have not given is reasoning.

Oh, I have.
You just don't accept it.

 

[Curious George]

It's already proven though. How many times do I have to repeat this? The motto was put into place with intention, and not just for ceremonial purposes. The purpose was to set us apart from atheism. This has been documented in our history. Are you acting like this is not the case?

It was not set to differentiate us from atheist but from atheist governments.

The declaration of independence came into being before our country was a country. It set no laws in our land. The constitution, which was written after the declaration, set the laws of the land in place. It would have opposed the wording in the declaration of independence, but it only really mattered for what came after.

Yet what came after was instance after instance of similar government recognition of peoples beliefs of a higher power. In every branch of government. Again, barring this was not the intent of the establishment clause.

By saying "In God We Trust"? Seriously?

correct.

It certainly does though. It's a motto. It declares a stance on a religious idea. Have you heard the definition of "motto"?

"A short sentence or phrase chosen as encapsulating the beliefs or ideals guiding an individual, family, or institution."

Not an official stance. It most certainly shows acceptance of some people's belief in God which was played on in order to encourage support. It is a historical phrase that was seized upon because it resonated with many not in order to establish religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's already proven though. How many times do I have to repeat this? The motto was put into place with intention, and not just for ceremonial purposes. The purpose was to set us apart from atheism. This has been documented in our history. Are you acting like this is not the case?

Aye, those godless commies during the cold war.
It had an inherently anti-atheist intent.

Poor fools of that day....thinking that communism & atheism go together.
We heathens love us some capitalism, & despise those collectivists.
Thus my favorite slogan is the 18th century Fugio Cent's....
"Mind your business"

 

[Jesster]

It was not set to differentiate us from atheist but from atheist governments.

And they couldn't have worded it differently so that "God" wasn't being set as the object of the motto's trust?

Yet what came after was instance after instance of similar government recognition of peoples beliefs of a higher power. In every branch of government. Again, barring this was not the intent of the establishment clause.

The intent of the establishment cause was to avoid favoring any stance on religious ideas by the government.

correct.

Noted. So you're okay with atheists being set aside as "other" by the country. Good to know.

Not an official stance.

So an official motto is not official to you? Opinion noted. Try reading the definition of "motto" one more time. Maybe twice if you still miss it.

It most certainly shows acceptance of some people's belief in God which was played on in order to encourage support. It is a historical phrase that was seized upon because it resonated with many not in order to establish religion.

It was never about "some poeple's" belief in God. You're contradicting yourself, even. You said it was about an atheistic government vs our government. Now it's about the belief of "some" people? Make up your mind.

 

[Shaul]

Burden of proof does not come into play here. All you are doing is saying "Well, the courts said so. I guess it's set in stone now!" Complete crap. Court decisions can be overturned, especially when the constitution's intention objects to it. Laws are not always legal or constitutional just because a court once said it was. Do you seriously think that people don't have the right to object to court decisions?

So you don’t feel required to recognize the decisions of the courts. That has interesting ramifications.

 

[Curious George]

Oh, I have.
You just don't accept it.

Because it recognizes a god that some people do not believe exists?

"For example, both Houses passed resolutions in 1789 asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favors of Almighty God."" See Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

You have clearly misinterpreted the intent of the first ammendment .

 

[Shaul]

And I didn't turn down free public school when teachers led us in prayer & told Bible stories.
The former doesn't make the latter right though.

Wow, and yet you survived?!

 

[Jesster]

So you don’t feel required to recognize the decisions of the courts. That has interesting ramifications.

Don't straw man me. I said people have the right to object to the decisions of the courts. Our government has set legal methods of approaching further changes, as well as free speech to voice our objections.

 

[Shaul]

Don't straw man me. I said people have the right to object to the decisions of the courts. Our government has set legal methods of approaching further changes, as well as free speech to voice our objections.

Object away! Yet the motto stands.

 

[Jesster]

Object away! Yet the motto stands.

It is the motto, yes. I never disagreed with you there. I'm saying, according to the constitution, it shouldn't be the motto. Are we back on track yet?

 

[Curious George]

And they couldn't have worded it differently so that "God" wasn't being set as the object of the motto's trust?

It doesn't matter if it could have been worded different or not. It was a historical phrase, even then.

The intent of the establishment cause was to avoid favoring any stance on religious ideas by the government.

The intent of the clause was to avoid the establishment of a religion.

Noted. So you're okay with atheists being set aside as "other" by the country. Good to know.

Not what I said.

So an official motto is not official to you? Opinion noted. Try reading the definition of "motto" one more time. Maybe twice if you still miss it.

And official motto is just an official motto. It is not an official stance on religion.

It was never about "some poeple's" belief in God. You're contradicting yourself, even. You said it was about an atheistic government vs our government. Now it's about the belief of "some" people? Make up your mind.

There is no contradiction, just your inability to see the distinction. The idea was to rally the people behind how much better the U.S. was because we did not persecute religious belief. The other countries did. In order for us to not, we would need to acknowledge that we accepted religious beliefs. We did this by taking a phrase that was once printed on some of our money. It embodied the philosophical and religious acknowledgment that has occurred consistently throughout our country's history in every branch of government.

But even with all of this, it did not establish a religion.

 

[Shad]

Another court that didn't need to be fought using tax payers money..... At least in my view.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was only 4 years before adopting the "In God We Trust" motto that the USSC effectively rendered anti-blasphemy laws unenforceable. Many still remain on the books in various states, including my own.

Ref....
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson - Wikipedia
http://centreforinquiry.ca/blasphemy-laws-still-exist-in-the-united-states/

 

[Revoltingest]

It was only 4 years before adopting the "In God We Trust" motto that the USSC effectively rendered anti-blasphemy laws unenforceable. Many still remain on the books in various states, including my own.

Ref....
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson - Wikipedia
http://centreforinquiry.ca/blasphemy-laws-still-exist-in-the-united-states/

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it recognizes a god that some people do not believe exists?

"For example, both Houses passed resolutions in 1789 asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favors of Almighty God."" See Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

You have clearly misinterpreted the intent of the first ammendment .

Am I the one misinterpreting it?
Your "Almighty God" is not Lakshmi, Thor, Ganesha, Zeus, Allah,
Krom, or any of the other non-abrahamic gods.
So it is establishment to an extent, albeit one you find acceptable.

 

[Jesster]

It doesn't matter if it could have been worded different or not. It was a historical phrase, even then.

But they could have chosen anything. They chose that one with a specific intention in mind.

The intent of the clause was to avoid the establishment of a religion.

That's a simplistic take on it. It's more complex than that.

Not what I said.

Then say it better.

And official motto is just an official motto. It is not an official stance on religion.

Read the definition of motto again. Or have you not read it yet?

There is no contradiction, just your inability to see the distinction. The idea was to rally the people behind how much better the U.S. was because we did not persecute religious belief. The other countries did. In order for us to not, we would need to acknowledge that we accepted religious beliefs. We did this by taking a phrase that was once printed on some of our money. It embodied the philosophical and religious acknowledgment that has occurred consistently throughout our country's history in every branch of government.

The idea was to rally people, but not if they were atheists. The motto would not say "In God We Trust" if it was an all-inclusive rally.

But even with all of this, it did not establish a religion.

It did not establish a religion, and I never said it did. It did show a sense of favoritism for religion over non-religion, though. That's the part of the amendment clause you missed before.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, and yet you survived?!

And by refusing to cooperate.
To this day, I've never said the Pledge Of Allegiance.
I've also refused to swear to God in court.
It makes for mildly interesting times.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another court that didn't need to be fought using tax payers money..... At least in my view.

At least it's taxpayer money which won't be used to kill people for the purpose of nation building.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If it doesn't affect you, then why advocate for keeping it?

Because the push to remove it effects me more, as I've already pointed out.

It's not an example when you mischievously presume a hypothetical

Okay so you're just being hypocritical.
What say you about changing historical documents to remove overmasculanized pronouns or adding gender neutral 'other' options?