Supreme Court upholds "In God We Trust"

[Gone Apostate]

http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/RNS-C ... Trust.aspx

My question, for those that may understand better than I do how this makes sense is this - isn't this pure bunk? Is there some legal technicality that caused this or does the decision really come down to justifications like this quote from the 1970 decision they referenced:

"that said the use of the motto on U.S. coins and bills is ;of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.' "

Patriotic? Ceremonial? Not a religious exercise?

How does any of that survive ANY kind of scrutiny?

[flitzerbiest]

Appeals to the "intent of the forefathers" are just as fallacious as any other argument based on appeal to authority. First of all, we only have a glimpse about what they thought about 18th century society. We know nothing of what they would have thought had they been informed by 235 years of American history. Second, they secured their place in history by challenging tradition and questioning authority. I can only guess what they might have thought about the fervor to see them as infallible founts of wisdom for all subsequent ages.

[East of Eden]

Appeals to the "intent of the forefathers" are just as fallacious as any other argument based on appeal to authority.

Yes, the Constitution IS the authority. When sworn in, the POTUS pledges to uphold it.

First of all, we only have a glimpse about what they thought about 18th century society. We know nothing of what they would have thought had they been informed by 235 years of American history.

Let me guess, they would have agreed with you? Doesn't matter how many years have passed, human nature doesn't change, tyrants tend to want more power at the expense of the people. It's what the Revolution was about.

Second, they secured their place in history by challenging tradition and questioning authority. I can only guess what they might have thought about the fervor to see them as infallible founts of wisdom for all subsequent ages.

Pure speculation. If you want to change the Constitution, don't disregard it, use the mechanism provided to make changes. A 'living Constitution' is a dead Constitution.

[JoeyKnothead]

A 'living Constitution' is a dead Constitution.

Or, a "living" Constitution is better able to adapt to new times and new understandings.

[East of Eden]

A 'living Constitution' is a dead Constitution.

Or, a "living" Constitution is better able to adapt to new times and new understandings.

Who gets to decide what changes? If by 'living', you mean changing, there is a way to do that through the amendment process, the through judicial fiat by a nine-judge dictatorship.

What if some judges decided we really should have an established church?

[McCulloch]

Don't regard The Founders as if what they wrote was some kind of Holy Writ. They would not have wanted that. They knew that they would not get it entirely right nor that it could answer every question. That is why there is an amending formula. Heck of a good idea, that. Don't make it so easy to change that every new administration would want to put its own spin on the constitution, but don't make it so difficult that important stuff like outlawing slavery, prohibiting booze and the equal rights amendment cannot get in.
And have a judiciary to interpret things. The constitution says that Congress will not promote nor prohibit religion. The courts rule that this extends to the Executive and that it means religion in general, not just a specific religion.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 44:

A 'living Constitution' is a dead Constitution.

Or, a "living" Constitution is better able to adapt to new times and new understandings.

Who gets to decide what changes?

The people in the form of their elected representatives.

The Bill of Rights was signed practically before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

By binding ourselves to ancient thought, we become ancients ourselves.

If by 'living', you mean changing, there is a way to do that through the amendment process, the through judicial fiat by a nine-judge dictatorship.

Thus making it "dead"?

What if some judges decided we really should have an established church?

Given the recent Supreme Court ruling, which further energized religious conservatives to call for "In God We Trust" to be on even more government stuff, I'd say they already have.

[scottlittlefield17]

Hmmm I have to admit that I haven't read all the pages of comments on this OP but here's my two cents. If government cannot endorse any type of religion that means that the president must not personally ascribe to any religion, or if he does he must make sure it isn't known. That would also apply to any congressman etc but especially the president.

[nygreenguy]

Hmmm I have to admit that I haven't read all the pages of comments on this OP but here's my two cents. If government cannot endorse any type of religion that means that the president must not personally ascribe to any religion, or if he does he must make sure it isn't known. That would also apply to any congressman etc but especially the president.

your logic is flawed. The government isnt the people but the institution.

[scottlittlefield17]

Hmmm I have to admit that I haven't read all the pages of comments on this OP but here's my two cents. If government cannot endorse any type of religion that means that the president must not personally ascribe to any religion, or if he does he must make sure it isn't known. That would also apply to any congressman etc but especially the president.

your logic is flawed. The government isnt the people but the institution.

Agreed, but the president is the spokesperson, head and the image of the government.

[flitzerbiest]

Appeals to the "intent of the forefathers" are just as fallacious as any other argument based on appeal to authority.

Yes, the Constitution IS the authority. When sworn in, the POTUS pledges to uphold it.

Agreed. Now kindly explain what, if anything, stamping a terse pro-God motto on our currency has to do with the Constitution.

First of all, we only have a glimpse about what they thought about 18th century society. We know nothing of what they would have thought had they been informed by 235 years of American history.

Let me guess, they would have agreed with you?

Don't know, don't care. They lived, made their mark on history, and retired to the worm ranch. My best guess of what they would think of 21st America probably would amount to something along the lines of "holy living ****". They were caretakers of an 18th Century agrarian state. Trying to figure out which way they would bend on contemporary political issues is a fool's errand, and wholly irrelevant.

Second, they secured their place in history by challenging tradition and questioning authority. I can only guess what they might have thought about the fervor to see them as infallible founts of wisdom for all subsequent ages.

Pure speculation. If you want to change the Constitution, don't disregard it, use the mechanism provided to make changes. A 'living Constitution' is a dead Constitution.

Where have I ever advocated disregarding the Constitution? To my recollection, I didn't even mention it. My objection was to yet another of your declarations that, happily enough, the founding fathers would have endorsed your political agenda.