I don’t see that. I was asked whether I thought the motto is religious. I answered. Nothing in that requires me knowing the intentions of others.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tennessee passes Law, schools must display “In God We Trust”
Not really. As I have previously stated I don’t accept your premise that this motto promotes any religion at all. As I have stated, more than once, I think this motto acknowledges that this nation trusts God, it does not promote that.
In reply you always just revert that it promotes. It doesn’t. We are talking past each other, it seems to me. So I thought we could approach this from a different angle, to which you object. Let’s try this way. If an impartial observer came to America (a “Martian”) and was given an opportunity to observe Americans. Then we asked him, “Do Americans trust in God?” I think it is entirely plausible that he could say “Yes, I have observed that Americans, in general, trust in God.” That’s possible. Now that Martian wasn’t promoting God. He was just acknowledging that Americans trust in God. Similarly the motto “In God We Trust” is just an acknowledgement, not a promotion nor any establishment.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well think of it like this: does e pluribus unum establish Latin as the official language? No. Nor does "In God We Trust" when it is just put it on money or for some other ceremonial effect. While it is understandably questionable, this use is wholly different from how the motto seems to be used in the schools.
Then you're just wrong. I don't know how much more clear I can be. How is discussing God not based in religion? How is a government stance on this by using a motto not clearly a promotion of it? Please explain your reasoning to me.
But this isn't even addressing the same argument as my objection. You're still going for the "most Americans" point. That has nothing to do with anything I am saying. That's why I refuse to bother with this point.
My objection to the motto being posted at the school has to do with the constitution, specifically with religion being promoted over non-religion by the government. The people can take up whatever religious stance they want, but the government should take no part in it as an entity of the country. Why are you not okay with discussing my objection? Doing otherwise is a straw man argument.
Last edited:
"E pluribus unum" doesn't mean "In Latin we speak"
Curious George
Veteran Member
You are missing the point. The use of "God" on a coin does not establish anything. The use of "endowed by a creator" did not establish anything either. It is not about a word as much as it is about the intent behind the word. "God" on a dollar bill is not establishing anything. "God" in the classroom for the purpose of recognizing "God" does establish something or at least attempt to do so. The instances are different. And the fact that people are using the motto in order to establish religion is very much indicative of the fact that the allowance of the "Indian God We Trust" motto was in fact a mistake. It was allowed precisely because there was no intent to establish religion. Now that it is used for that purpose, should it no longer be allowed?
I didn't miss the point. I thought the point was dumb. Words have meaning. The language the words are used in doesn't matter.
The word "God" is steeped in religion. There's no other purpose it could possibly hold. Our constitution does not allow for the government to promote religion over non-religion. One religion doesn't need to be specified over others for this to be an issue.
Curious George
Veteran Member
And how does using the word God on coinage promote or establish religion over none?
Again, I think you missed the point.
You can say I missed the point all you want, but I'm following you exactly. I just disagree with you.
It doesn't just say "God". It says "In God We Trust". That's the government displaying a position on a religious idea. This is exactly what the constitution prohibits. It might be even worse when placing it above a government funded learning center for children, who are easily influenced by official statements like this.
So you're agnostic about their intentions, eh?
This means that I could be correct.
We don't have a constitutional amendment addressing language though, do we.
Moreover, the language of a motto is far less significant that what the motto says.
They named the Xian god specifically, ie, "God". And even if one is generous
about their inclusiveness towards other religions, they excluded non-abrahamic
religions, polytheistic religions, & non-believers.
It's telling that they replaced the earlier Fugio Cent mottoes, which
were directed at everyone of every religion & non-religion.....
"We are one"
"Mind your business"
That these inclusive mottoes were replaced by an exclusive one which
represented the dominant religion speaks to intent. This fits the pattern
of these same lawgivers wanting to teach creationism in schools, & post
the 10 Commandments in public buildings. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Last edited:
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's pretty stupid. You can't pass a law that flies in the face of the constitution on the logic that the majority want it. It's kind of what the constitution is there for.
The majority in the south wanted slavery legal. How did that turn out for you?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But not in a literalistic sense otherwise Christianity would be polytheistic. The supposed connection between God and Jesus does not posit Jesus as being the exact same as God, thus the terminology used in Catholic circles at least: "the Mystery of the Trinity".
In the "NT", Jesus says he doesn't know the answer to certain questions, such as when "the end of times" would supposedly occur, so Jesus cannot be literally God. There are many other examples of things like this, btw.
IOW, same God; some different interpretations as to God's "nature"; which is very "Jewish", btw.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That is the government using a slogan for a piece of money. It is the same as their use of the eye of Providence. If it was limited to these ceremonial contexts it literally affects nothing.
Sort of how if everything officially published was done only in Latin you could argue that the government was establishing Latin as the language, while the use of a couple of Latin phrases in a ceremonial context do nothing. The use of a the Eye of Providence, "In God We Trust" or "endowed by their creator" do not in themselves establish anything. The government is using a slogan no different than E Pluribus Unum for ceremonial effect. Do you believe that the U.S. is a religious country based the words "endowed by their creator?" Or can you recognize that these words simply allude to a philosophy acknowledging natural rights?
I do not think a person saying bless you for instance when someone sneezes is a taking of a religious position. Yet you want to argue that any use of something that can also hold religious significance also establishes religious intent. It is a clearly wrong minded approach. I can think of no way in which my atheism has been impacted by the use of "In God We Trust" on currency. At no time have I thought that the United States is a religious nation because of the use of "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill or because the word "creator" is found in the declaration of Independence.
I am acutely aware that part of the nation's history includes people who did in fact hold religious beliefs. I think that ignoring intent as a factor and trying to censor any use of the word "God" is an extreme and unnecessary position. The questions-- Does this have a religious effect? And, is there religious intent?--are important questions that need to be asked.
When we ask these questions we do not see evidence of any establishment of religion. "[T]he Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious." (see Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
Curious George
Veteran Member
And you seem to have missed the point as well. The language is not the point. The point is that we do not see mere ceremonial invocations as establishing anything.
And the same can be said for many historical instances dating back to the establishment of our country. The establishment clause was clearly never intended to prevent any invocation or use of any religious thought.
with another historically used phrase.
No, nothing happens in a vacuum. And the phrase "In God We Trust" has historically significance. You cannot simply ignore that historical significance because as you accurately point out: "Nothing happens in a vacuum"
In some cases displays of the ten Commandments are OK, in others, they are not. The devil is in the details.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
The North had slaves as well. It was a reformation for the entire country, not just the South.
You brought up language.
I pointed out its irrelevance.
And I'm the one missing the point?
What appears to be merely ceremonial to you, I see as
the spearhead of attempts to theocratize government.
And yet, based upon original intent & upon the Constitution, the USSC has ruled
against some invocations in public school. I recall when teacher led Xian prayer
& Bible stories were the norm in school. That has ended.....mostly.
You & I would just set the limits differently.
2 phrases...take your pick.
Each is more inclusive & more useful.
As I said, you & I would set the limits differently.
I'm less comfortable with compelled religious speech, de minimis though it be.
Not entirely factual, either. Yes, it is "the one and only official motto" now, but has only been that since approved by Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956. It appeared on one coin (two-cent piece) in 1864, not on any other money, and was only mandated for use on paper money in 1957. How many of the Framers of the Constitution were still around then to object, I ask myself. And while I understand what "accommodationism" is, it still very much seems to me that in any proper sense, this usage is an offence against the purpose behind the Establishment Clause.
By the way, when was the last time you heard that fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner (which did not become the National Anthem until the sixth time it was introduced into Congress by John Charles Linthicum -- and even then only 2 years later, in 1931) sung?
I doubt it'll be challenged like that. Because saying it represents a breakdown of church state balance would open the door for the usage of the term on anything. And that's something people on both isles don't want, because the resources and time and beurocracy involved to remove the motto everywhere isn't worth it.Obviously your legislators, and evidently a lot of Tennesseans, are not all that bright. In any case, expect a visit from the ACLU very soon, and don't expect the act to last past Christmas, if that.
.
.
And I agree. Quibbling over things like this represents a uniquely American battle where overenthusiastic atheists only push Christians to be more oppositional through intolerance and inflexibility. Most Western European nations, particularly Scandanavia and the UK, manage to be more secular than the US despite not having church state separation, and having some level religious iconography.
Removing the motto does not represent an increase if liberty, just an increase of obstinence and polarized fighting.
Tl;DR, I imagine the ACLU will find something more important to do.
Not entirely factual, either. Yes, it is "the one and only official motto" now, but has only been that since approved by Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956. It appeared on one coin (two-cent piece) in 1864, not on any other money, and was only mandated for use on paper money in 1957. How many of the Framers of the Constitution were still around then to object, I ask myself. And while I understand what "accommodationism" is, it still very much seems to me that in any proper sense, this usage is an offence against the purpose behind the Establishment Clause.
By the way, when was the last time you heard that fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner (which did not become the National Anthem until the sixth time it was introduced into Congress by John Charles Linthicum -- and even then only 2 years later, in 1931) sung?