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?

[micatala]

Still, I frankly do not see the issue is one worth making a fuss about. There are much more substantial and important freedom of religion issues to be fought over, like gay marriage and DOMA, or the Peter King hearings. Both of these represent substantial attacks on freedom of religion or endorsement of religion. I think you can make a case that the latter are an attack on a religion, and arguably denigrate members of that religion unjustifiably and with possible material harm.

Bans on gay marriage, in my view, endorse a religious view without any compelling secular rationale. They substantively limit the freedoms and violate the rights of some of our citizens.


The money thing, not so much in my view.

very well put in MY humble opinion. I agree that there is much more important issues, and more urgent ones.

I do wonder however, how many people have felt encouraged and validated, however slightly, in the righteousness of their desire to more fully intertwine their beliefs with the laws of the land by the subtle, but prolific endorsement of these symbols. The money, the pledge, etc are often pointed to directly buy people who support the causes you list and I agree are really dangerous.

Glenn Beck's rally to restore God may have been sparsely attended compared to the Rally to Restore Sanity but it wasn't without impact either. I would also add that while I thought Jon Stewart's message was pretty clear the media had a real difficult time with it. Glenn Becks was simple as could be and got LOTS of air time. Symbols matter, they are powerful in large part because they are simple.

I could care less if there is a nativity scene in my town hall, except I think of those that see it and feel affirmed in their belief that this is indeed a Christian nation and not just a nation with a lot of Christians.

I would not disagree that some might see the motto as a validation of their particular religious views. I would certainy not disagree that some seek to impose those views on the society at large.

The attitudes you point to, however, are not likely to be affected by removal of the motto. We could ask ourselves what would have happened had the court sided with Newdow.

I would guess a lot of the people with the attitudes you mention would see the decision as "another attack on religion" and another step on our road away from the godly nation we should be. They would see it as a defeat for their side, even an injustice.

In the sense that Newdow probably is intending to attack religion, they would be right. In the sense that there would be any real material infringement on their rights to hold particular religous views they would be, of course, quite wrong.

The problem is that you can never legislate people's attitudes. You might be able to limit the effects of those attitudes, or poke them in such a way as to produce a particular response. But keeping or changing the motto is probably not going to produce any change in the underlying attitude or world view. Thus, it seems to me unnecessary, perhaps even unwise, to base our decisions on the presence of these attitudes or how people with them might feel or respond to the decision.




If the goal is to get people to change the attitude that "the U.S. is a Christian country and should be run in a way that is consistent with a certain set of religious views" then fighting over the motto is a pretty irrelevant way to affect that change, in my view. It is only likely to lead to the opposite effect, getting people on both sides to dig in their heals further, and most of the rest of us will see it as a petty, meaningless spat.


Winning battles that really matter and have a real effect would, IMHO, be more likely to effect attitudinal change in the long term. If we do provide marriage rights for gays, some will dig in their heals, but because people will have to live with the real effects of that change, and those effects are not likely to be as dire or negative as the opponents say, that change is more likely to make a substantive change in some people's attitudes.

We can see this happening already in young people who, even if they continue to be religious believers, are still much more likely to be tolerant of gays. I think these changes in attitudes that have already occurred are largely the result of substantive changes in laws and behaviors that show more tolerance for gays. More kids now know gay people and see that they are not the reprobate evil sinners (at least not any more than the rest of ) that some have labeled them as. Even staunch opponents of gay rights have largely moderated their rhetoric and often couch their arguments with ameliorating language meant to persuade others they are not irrational gay bashers.



But I also think that, as attitudes do become more tolerant, which I think will continue to happen here in the U.S., that is not likely to equate to a corresponding reduction in religious belief. To the extent that some non-theists have the hope that religious belief will eventually disappear, and that this will be furthered by winning battles over money mottos, I think this is a false hope. A better hope is that people of all views on religious matters will learn not to let those differences unnecessarily become issues of conflict.

[McCulloch]

How would your life be better if that [the removal of any reference to deity on our money] happened?

Yes, but only in a very small way. It would reassure me that my government is not being directed by religious dogma and that they are not being coerced by narrow religious ideology. I am fairly confident that in reality, this is the case.

[nygreenguy]

How would your life be better if that [the removal of any reference to deity on our money] happened?

Yes, but only in a very small way. It would reassure me that my government is not being directed by religious dogma and that they are not being coerced by narrow religious ideology. I am fairly confident that in reality, this is the case.

The little things make huge changes in culture over time. If we start to remove certain images that we are bombarded with every day, we start to loose out attachment to them.

[East of Eden]

How would your life be better if that [the removal of any reference to deity on our money] happened?

Yes, but only in a very small way. It would reassure me that my government is not being directed by religious dogma and that they are not being coerced by narrow religious ideology. I am fairly confident that in reality, this is the case.

Mentioning 'God' is hardly a 'narrow religious ideology'.

Would you really check your change to see if the D.G. are there? Anyway that is one of the titles of Queen Elizabeth II, who is queen of Canada also, so it really is a UK thing.

[McCulloch]

I stand corrected. Mentioning God is wide religious ideology, not narrow.

Reading from a Toonie in my pocket. ELIZABETH II D G REGINA 1996




Some aspects of the monarchy are anachronistic throwbacks to theocracy. We ignore them, since like "In God We Trust", we all can generally ignore them. One of the many titles of the monarch is Defender of the Faith. The monarch is constitutionally not allowed to be Roman Catholic.

[East of Eden]

I stand corrected. Mentioning God is wide religious ideology, not narrow.

Reading from a Toonie in my pocket. ELIZABETH II D G REGINA 1996




Some aspects of the monarchy are anachronistic throwbacks to theocracy. We ignore them, since like "In God We Trust", we all can generally ignore them. One of the many titles of the monarch is Defender of the Faith. The monarch is constitutionally not allowed to be Roman Catholic.

You ignore the religious reference. If you do so, why is it a problem?

[McCulloch]

You ignore the religious reference. If you do so, why is it a problem?

It is a small and certainly not the greatest violation of my religious freedom, therefore I generally let is pass without notice. I do not advocate for its removal, not because I don't think that it should be removed, I believe that it should be removed, but because I really believe that the people in power should be looking after more important things.

But, if someone asks my opinion, I will point out that I believe that it is wrong for our government to be promoting religion, even if that promotion is merely ceremonial and somewhat innocuous.

[JoeyKnothead]

But, if someone asks my opinion, I will point out that I believe that it is wrong for our government to be promoting religion, even if that promotion is merely ceremonial and somewhat innocuous.

Being a paranoid sort, I'm not so sure if such promotion is more ceremonial than an attempt to enforce religious views.

[East of Eden]

It is a small and certainly not the greatest violation of my religious freedom, therefore I generally let is pass without notice.

It doesn't impinge on your religious freedom at all. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

But, if someone asks my opinion, I will point out that I believe that it is wrong for our government to be promoting religion, even if that promotion is merely ceremonial and somewhat innocuous.

From the Northwest Ordinance, passed by the same Congress that passed the First Amendment:

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

From the Northwest Ordinance, passed by the same Congress that passed the First Amendment:

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Who is surprised that religious folks would pass legislation or such that declares religion "necessary"?

This doesn't mean it doesn't violate the principle of separation. It is but one more example of religious folks violating the very laws they seek to impose on others.