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

[Jesster]

And then you simply say, “you’re wrong” and thrn prove that I’m not by, yet again, going back to “religion being promoted”. Just as I said you do. Seriously, what part of there is no promotion of a religion can you not understand?! The Congress passed and a President signed an Act making this the official motto. The courts have ruled there is no establishment nor promotion of religion with the motto “In God We Trust”. IOW all three branches of the U.S. government assent the this motto is Constitutional. You say it isn’t. Bully for you. Saying till you are blue the face doesn’t make it so.

"In God We Trust"
Explain to me how that's not a religious position. You can put your trust in them passing things all you want, but that doesn't change the constitution that came before them.

But I guess you'd rather take shots at me instead of argue the point.

 

[Underhill]

The North had slaves as well. It was a reformation for the entire country, not just the South.

Sure it was, but the southerners are the ones who fought for it...

 

[Revoltingest]

So what, it's still a defining document of our country, possibly the most defining, far more than any single line motto will ever be.

Oh, I disagree.
The country is not strictly by & for abrahamic monotheists.
But who can object to "We are one" or "E pluribus unum"?
That includes everyone from Wiccans to atheists to polytheists.
Why oppose them in favor of the exclusive one?

And yet I feel no need to change something that, in practice, doesn't actually affect me, stirring up a lot of trouble for no gain. And I thought liberals were the 'for the feelings' party.

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

An similous example isn't a deflection.

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

You edited a post to include inferences of a white-based, heterosexual-based slogan and you're complaining about this? For crying out loud.

I point out the fallacy of your arguing that a place in history is enuf to justify making motto standard for all.
Not every tradition needs to be codified as representing us all, simply because it was once a tradition for some.

What say you of Confederate symbols all over the south?
It's part of history to celebrate the Stars & Bars, Confederate soldiers, secessionist independent spirit.
Is it wrong to replace those historic symbols?

 

[Curious George]

Let's try again....

Tell me....what purpose does the motto serve?
Would you say we'd be worse off without it?
Is there no better motto?

Lol... I didn't think my answers were that confusing.

The motto serves ceremonial purpose. We would be better off without "In God We Trust" as our motto. And while there are absolutely better mottos that fact does not make "In God We Trust" unconstitutional as a motto.

 

[Jesster]

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.

This is where I was calling out your rediculous comparison. Again, they never said "In Latin We Speak". This is your dumb argument I was talking about.

"In God We Trust" on the other hand, lays out a position. They can say it in any language and the message remains the same.

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?

"Endowed by their creator" was not part of a document that set the law of the land. It was a statement declaring our independence. Learn the difference.

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.

A person can say anything they want. "Bless you" also has become a common meaningless phrase, since language evolves. Explain to me how "In God We Trust" has gone the same route. It's a very specific term with deep meaning.

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.[/quote
Are you aware of the part of our history that included the current motto becoming official for the country? It was used to differentiate us from the "atheist" Soviet Union. It was an anti-atheist agenda. How is this fair to the atheists in our country?

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).

They can say that, and yet it does not change the constitution's stance on it. That comes first. Unless they'd like to change the constitution, they are butting heads with it and claiming they are not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol... I didn't think my answers were that confusing.

The motto serves ceremonial purpose. We would be better off without "In God We Trust" as our motto. And while there are absolutely better mottos that fact does not make "In God We Trust" unconstitutional as a motto.

Good.
Now I know where you stand.
(You might be unaware, but at times you appear to argue for
the sake of argument, without actually taking a position.)

What is constitutional or not changes over time.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What is constitutional or not changes over time.

Indeed it does. *cough*

Oh, excuse me...

 

[Curious George]

This is where I was calling out your rediculous comparison. Again, they never said "In Latin We Speak". This is your dumb argument I was talking about.

"In God We Trust" on the other hand, lays out a position. They can say it in any language and the message remains the same.

And this is where your understanding is flawed. They needn't say "in Latin we speak" in order for my analogy to work. It is the idea of mere ceremonial words or symbols establishing something.

You can say that you understand but if you are focused on what the words say, you clearly do not.

"Endowed by their creator" was not part of a document that set the law of the land. It was a statement declaring our independence. Learn the difference.

Good thing our motto isn't part of a document that sets forth the law of the land. Lol.

A person can say anything they want. "Bless you" also has become a common meaningless phrase, since language evolves. Explain to me how "In God We Trust" has gone the same route. It's a very specific term with deep meaning.

I do not think it has any more meaning than the phrase bless you. It is a historic holdover. It is no more relevant than the Eye of Providence. If you want to derive meaning from every symbol and phrase that is used then realize that it is you putting that meaning to the symbols and phrases. Unless you can demonstrate how their is intent to establish religion by using a motto with historical meaning, then you simply have no cause to say that the use is unconstitutional.

It is really a simple manner. The government can recognize religion. They need not censor their speech to eliminate any mention or allusion to religion. It is clear that this was not the intent of the 1st amendment.

 

[Curious George]

Good.
Now I know where you stand.
(You might be unaware, but at times you appear to argue for
the sake of argument, without actually taking a position.)

What is constitutional or not changes over time.

If you have an argument concerning why it is unconstitutional please by all means lay it out. So far you seem focused on the "it is hard to buy it does not establish a religion."

I gave you an example on how using another language does not "establish that other language as official"

It was an example that cut to the core of your argument. Then you have presented alternatives which would be better. Sure. But those are irrelevant regarding whether or not the motto establishes a religion

 

[Curious George]

Indeed it does. *cough*

Oh, excuse me...

With good argument. So far none have been produced.

 

[Jesster]

And this is where your understanding is flawed. They needn't say "in Latin we speak" in order for my analogy to work. It is the idea of mere ceremonial words or symbols establishing something.

And this is where your understanding is flawed. Yes it does. I think we're going to but heads on this all day. I'm not sure how else I can explain to you how making a phrase in Latin does not make it an official language of ours in any way. The meaning of the words is what matters, and not the language it is spoken in. Making it official declares a position based on what those words mean together.

You can say that you understand but if you are focused on what the words say, you clearly do not.

You can say I don't understand, but you are clearly wrong. *yawn* Try arguing the point instead of pointing fingers at me. It might get you somewhere.

Good thing our motto isn't part of a document that sets forth the law of the land. Lol.

No, the motto doesn't set the law of the land. The law of the land says it cannot be used as it is though. Lol.

I do not think it has any more meaning than the phrase bless you. It is a historic holdover. It is no more relevant than the Eye of Providence. If you want to derive meaning from every symbol and phrase that is used then realize that it is you putting that meaning to the symbols and phrases. Unless you can demonstrate how their is intent to establish religion by using a motto with historical meaning, then you simply have no cause to say that the use is unconstitutional.

Thanks for your opinion. It's not a historic placeholder though. It's from the 50's, which wasn't all that long ago in our country's history. The government made their intention clear when they threw out that motto. They weren't just doing it for entertaining ceremony. Like I said before, it was made to oppose another country's atheism by saying we aren't like them.

It is really a simple manner. The government can recognize religion. They need not censor their speech to eliminate any mention or allusion to religion. It is clear that this was not the intent of the 1st amendment.

The government can recognize religion, yes. They cannot make a statement to declare our country's official stance on religion, however. The government is supposed to be a secular entity no matter what the majority of the people believe about religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have an argument concerning why it is unconstitutional please by all means lay it out. So far you seem focused on the "it is hard to buy it does not establish a religion."

I gave you an example on how using another language does not "establish that other language as official"

It was an example that cut to the core of your argument. Then you have presented alternatives which would be better. Sure. But those are irrelevant regarding whether or not the motto establishes a religion

I call it establishment...."establishment lite", since it's about
a broad spectrum of Christian faiths, rather than just one.

Do you think the legislators who made it the motto intended
to serve Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Amerindians, & others?

 

[Shaul]

Apparently you cannot argue that the Tennessee law passes the Lemon test, the coercion test or the endorsement test. Correct?

I don’t have to prove a negative. By passing this legislation the Tennessee legislature gave it the imprimatur of legality. Those that think it is defective have the onus of proving so, in the courts. So until you prove your assertions in court, assuming you have standing to even bring suit, your arm-chair-lawyer assertions are mere internet chatter, and not proof of anything really.

 

[Curious George]

And this is where your understanding is flawed. Yes it does. I think we're going to but heads on this all day. I'm not sure how else I can explain to you how making a phrase in Latin does not make it an official language of ours in any way. The meaning of the words is what matters, and not the language it is spoken in. Making it official declares a position based on what those words mean together.


You can say I don't understand, but you are clearly wrong. *yawn* Try arguing the point instead of pointing fingers at me. It might get you somewhere.

The idea that ceremonial text establishes religion is what you have yet to prove. Your effort to distinguish the two on the basis of "what the words mean" is incorrect. The symbols and and words do not serve to establish anything.

No, the motto doesn't set the law of the land. The law of the land says it cannot be used as it is though. Lol.

It was humorous because you told me to learn the difference between the declaration of independence and the Constitution like that was relevant to my point. When my point is that a motto no more establishes "the law of the land" any more than the use of "creator" in the declaration of independence or the star spangled banner or the use of the eye of Providence or the song god bless America. Yet somehow you recognize there is a difference between the use in the declaration of Independence but fail to recognize that same difference in a motto, which no more

set the law of the land

Thank did the declaration of independence.

Thanks for your opinion. It's not a historic placeholder though. It's from the 50's, which wasn't all that long ago in our country's history.

It is older.

The government made their intention clear when they threw out that motto. They weren't just doing it for entertaining ceremony. Like I said before, it was made to oppose another country's atheism by saying we aren't like them.

It was done to distinguish us from those that prohibited religion on a government level.

The government can recognize religion, yes. They cannot make a statement to declare our country's official stance on religion, however. The government is supposed to be a secular entity no matter what the majority of the people believe about religion.

Good thing the motto does not declare the countries official stance on religion.

 

[Curious George]

I call it establishment...."establishment lite", since it's about
a broad spectrum of Christian faiths, rather than just one.

Do you think the legislators who made it the motto intended
to serve Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Amerindians, & others?

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.

 

[Shaul]

"In God We Trust"
Explain to me how that's not a religious position. You can put your trust in them passing things all you want, but that doesn't change the constitution that came before them.

But I guess you'd rather take shots at me instead of argue the point.

You don’t get it. There is no burden for me to proof any such thing. The burden is upon those such as yourself that claim it has a defect in a court. This motto was made official over 60 years ago, no one has done that yet. That is prima facie evidence it is legal. Until a court rules this motto is improper all your arguments are a tempest in a tea cup. It won’t change the fact that this is the U.S. motto and is constitutional.

 

[Curious George]

I call it establishment...."establishment lite", since it's about
a broad spectrum of Christian faiths, rather than just one.

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

 

[Jesster]

The idea that ceremonial text establishes religion is what you have yet to prove. Your effort to distinguish the two on the basis of "what the words mean" is incorrect. The symbols and and words do not serve to establish anything.

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 humorous because you told me to learn the difference between the declaration of independence and the Constitution like that was relevant to my point. When my point is that a motto no more establishes "the law of the land" any more than the use of "creator" in the declaration of independence or the star spangled banner or the use of the eye of Providence or the song god bless America. Yet somehow you recognize there is a difference between the use in the declaration of Independence but fail to recognize that same difference in a motto, which no more

Thank did the declaration of independence.

It is older.

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.

It was done to distinguish us from those that prohibited religion on a government level.

By saying "In God We Trust"? Seriously?

Good thing the motto does not declare the countries official stance on religion.

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."

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

We'll agree to disagree about their intent.
If it were just about patriotism, they'd have picked something more patriotic.
I'd prefer....

Spoiler: Rude slogan from Team America World Police

Whaddaya know....the filter prevents the picture.

Let's see if the youtube video works....

No establishment of any religion or non-religion in that one!

 

[Jesster]

You don’t get it. There is no burden for me to proof any such thing. The burden is upon those such as yourself that claim it has a defect in a court. This motto was made official over 60 years ago, no one has done that yet. That is prima facie evidence it is legal. Until a court rules this motto is improper all your arguments are a tempest in a tea cup. It won’t change the fact that this is the U.S. motto and is constitutional.

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?