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?

[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.

Agreed, but the president is the spokesperson,

Only for the executive branch

head and the

3 branches of equal power

image of the government.

The government has no image except perhaps the flag.

What you propose is quite absurd.

[scottlittlefield17]

What you propose is quite absurd.

mmm ok...thats still my two cents.

[nygreenguy]

What you propose is quite absurd.

mmm ok...thats still my two cents.

But its a total non-sequitur

[scottlittlefield17]

What you propose is quite absurd.

mmm ok...thats still my two cents.

But its a total non-sequitur

hmm ok

[STLSkeptic]

The main issue with this ruling is two fold.

ONE] The ruling by SCOTUS should trigger a response by the religious adherents that believe in the Ten Commandments as this is a violation of their Third Commandment which, by ruling causes it to violate their Second Commandment as well.

TWO] So the people that have a sacred text and that believe the commands in it are divinely required to obey then THEY should be the one most vocal about removing the text of the name of their god removed from the vain use that the government uses it for.

As the ruling from SCOTUS says it is not religious so as such it isn't sacred either.

Why aren't the adherents up in arms over this vain use of the name of their god?

[East of Eden]

This seems like a non-issue, does it not? The courts ruling is correct because "In God We Trust" endorses to particular or specific religion,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The First Amendment doesn't say "make no law respecting an establishment of A religion" but even if you don't agree with that interpretation (most people seem to assume that the issue is with a an endorsement of a specific religion so I'll drop that.

Instead i will take issue with your dismissal of every religion that has more than one God. To say that "In God we Trust" doesn't endorse a specific religion may be technically correct but it does EXCLUDE several (Native Peoples, Hindu's, Wiccan, just to name a few) If it said "In Divinity We Trust" your assertion might be valid.

Nothing new about that, there was never a time in US history when everyone was a Christian.