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

[Jesster]

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

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What say you about changing historical documents to remove overmasculanized pronouns or adding gender neutral 'other' options?

As a trans person, I'd say changing pronouns in historical documents is unnecessary. I realize the difference in intent between that and a religious motto, as well as the effects they each could lead to.

 

[Curious George]

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.

No it is an example of the government recognizing religion that obviously did not contravene the ratified constitution 2 years earlier.

There are many more examples too.

It is plainly clear that the mention of religious points of view even when those views were exclusive did not go against the intent of the establishment clause.

Your argument is inconsistent with the historical intent of the constitution and with much of history. I am not sure how I can make it any more clear that what you think the 1st amendment should mean is not in fact what it does mean.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As a trans person, I'd say changing pronouns in historical documents is unnecessary. I realize the difference in intent between that and a religious motto, as well as the effects they each could lead to.

Having a religious motto or religious iconography in government documents doesn't mean intent to theocracize government, even if it did in the past. Again, there are religious motto and iconography strewn across UK, Scandanavia and Canada and yet they are arguably more secular in practice than the US.
Removing or changing the motto wouldn't seem to do anything for us as atheists, except maybe cement the inflexible stigma American atheists have.

 

[Jesster]

Having a religious motto or religious iconography in government documents doesn't mean intent to theocracize government, even if it did in the past. Again, there are religious motto and iconography strewn across UK, Scandanavia and Canada and yet they are arguably more secular in practice than the US.
Removing or changing the motto wouldn't seem to do anything for us as atheists, except maybe cement the inflexible stigma American atheists have.

The intent may have worn thin, but people will continue to attempt to exploit it for what it is as long as it remains. For example, look at how this thread stared.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The intent may have worn thin, but people will continue to attempt to exploit it for what it is as long as it remains. For example, look at how this thread stared.

*shrug* I'm sure people will intend to exploit other government language to push a 'there are only two genders' or 'for men by men' agenda too, but I'm way more interested in stopping sexist or transphobic legislation than rewriting past documents. Picking my battles so to speak.

 

[Jesster]

*shrug* I'm sure people will intend to exploit other government language to push a 'there are only two genders' or 'for men by men' agenda too, but I'm way more interested in stopping sexist or transphobic legislation than rewriting past documents. Picking my battles so to speak.

People will try anything. The difference there is whether or not there is a strong foundation for it. Your current example would not pass based on historical documents' wording. The use of the motto in Tennessee easily passed. By its passing, other more invasive things will become easier to slip through. I am also picking my battles, and this one is worth it to me.

 

[Curious George]

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

Yes with the intent to encourage patriotism and rally support.

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

Absolutely, but do you really want to get into the religious tests and all the court cases?

Then say it better.

Correctomundo?

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

Yes...err, no. Awkwardly worded question. I have in fact read and reread the definition and found it to be the same as I previously thought. In this regard it does not change my previously rendered opinion. A motto does not establish an official stance on religion.

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.

So it wasn't all inclusive. That is not the question at hand. The question at hand was did it establish a religion?

It did not establish a religion, and I never said it did.

Then it does not violate the establishment clause.

It did show a sense of favoritism for religion over non-religion, though. That's the part of the amendment clause you missed before.

Yeah, I think that the type of "favoritism" about which you are talking is not in violation of the establishment clause.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

People will try anything. The difference there is whether or not there is a strong foundation for it. Your current example would not pass based on historical documents' wording. The use of the motto in Tennessee easily passed. By its passing, other more invasive things will become easier to slip through. I am also picking my battles, and this one is worth it to me.

Imo that's a slippery slope not evidenced by countries which don't even have separation of church and state as policy but still manage to be more secular than the US. Implying that moves like this by atheists is not the thing that will make the country better for atheists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay so you're just being hypocritical.

This from someone who presumes my stance on updating
historical documents without even asking?
And then uses this as evidence for an ad hominem point?
No, you don't get to use the "h" word.

 

[Jesster]

Yes with the intent to encourage patriotism and rally support.

... for people who trust in God.

Absolutely, but do you really want to get into the religious tests and all the court cases?

I want the constitution to be properly represented in court cases. This is one that slipped by.

Yes...err, no. Awkwardly worded question. I have in fact read and reread the definition and found it to be the same as I previously thought. In this regard it does not change my previously rendered opinion. A motto does not establish an official stance on religion.

Then you didn't understand the definition. Read it again.

So it wasn't all inclusive. That is not the question at hand. The question at hand was did it establish a religion?

That's not the question at hand? The question at hand is my personal objection. I'll repeat it again and again until you actually read what I'm saying. I never said it established a religion. I said it showed favoritism for religion over non-religion, which defies the constitution. If you want to beat up a straw man, you can have your own conversation without me. I'm clearly not needed here.

Then it does not violate the establishment clause.

Yes it does. That's not the only thing the establishment clause does. It also prohibits government support of religion over non-religion. I don't know how many times I have to say this before someone reads what my actual objection includes.

Yeah, I think that the type of "favoritism" about which you are talking is not in violation of the establishment clause.

It is though. Think what you'd like, but you'd be wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it is an example of the government recognizing religion that obviously did not contravene the ratified constitution 2 years earlier.

There are many more examples too.

It is plainly clear that the mention of religious points of view even when those views were exclusive did not go against the intent of the establishment clause.

Your argument is inconsistent with the historical intent of the constitution and with much of history. I am not sure how I can make it any more clear that what you think the 1st amendment should mean is not in fact what it does mean.

My argument really boils down to this one claim....
The earlier official mottoes are still better than the
codified religious one of questionable legality.

 

[Jesster]

Imo that's a slippery slope not evidenced by countries which don't even have separation of church and state as policy but still manage to be more secular than the US. Implying that moves like this by atheists is not the thing that will make the country better for atheists.

It doesn't even need to be a slippery slope. The ruling is already through. Look back at post #1 of this thread.

 

[Curious George]

My argument really boils down to this one claim....
The earlier official mottoes are still better than the
codified religious one of questionable legality.

And with that, I absolutely agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

People will try anything. The difference there is whether or not there is a strong foundation for it. Your current example would not pass based on historical documents' wording. The use of the motto in Tennessee easily passed. By its passing, other more invasive things will become easier to slip through. I am also picking my battles, and this one is worth it to me.

The slippery slope argument could apply here. After all, the motto's becoming national law has been used here as argument for the TN law. And the TN law could very likely be used to support teaching creationism, since TN is now ostensibly a Christian state.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It doesn't even need to be a slippery slope. The ruling is already through. Look back at post #1 of this thread.

I am talking about this ruling. Why should I care about it?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This from someone who presumes my stance on updating
historical documents without even asking?
And then uses this as evidence for an ad hominem point?
No, you don't get to use the "h" word.

You don't get to tell me that criticizing what you've just done isn't hypocritical.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't get to tell me that criticizing what you've just done isn't hypocritical.

I just did.
I'm at a loss for why you'd even think so.
Not that I'm asking....I'd rather let your faux pas pass.

 

[Jesster]

I am talking about this ruling. Why should I care about it?

Why should I care what you care about? I'm voicing my objections. You don't have to join in. If you have better things to do with your time, then by all means...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Why should I care what you care about? I'm voicing my objections. You don't have to join in.

That's fine. I am just replying to your reply to me. I'm voicing why I think this focus is off, that this ruling isn't a big deal and why I think the US view of what is secularism is destructively polarizing and doesn't seem to be helping us getting past evangelical legislature the way other countries have. Countries that don't sweat religious iconography on public lands, etc.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I just did.
I'm at a loss for why you'd even think so.
Not that I'm asking....I'd rather let your faux pas pass.

Well then, we both think the other is hypocrites because of examples we both disagree are related. I guess we are done.