View Full Version : U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge to 'In God We Trust'
Because I'm sure "In Nothing We Trust" certainly sounds better.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-god
Joe McCarthy
03-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Given the current state of the culture, 'In Nothing We Trust' is probably more accurate, especially as 'nothing' is old English slang for female unmentionables...
If I recall, the term was first put into use in the 1950s as a way to remind America of the One it owes for its existence.
Joe McCarthy
03-12-2011, 01:27 PM
My assumption is that within twenty years of atheist complainers getting 'In God We Trust' removed, we'd see Muslim complainers making a major push demanding that Ramadan be a federally recognized paid holiday.
My assumption is that within twenty years of atheist complainers getting 'In God We Trust' removed, we'd see Muslim complainers making a major push demanding that Ramadan be a federally recognized paid holiday.
Traditional belief in God is in danger and has been for a couple of generations. A return to normalcy is required and, at the very least, some form of civil religion or ceremonial deism should be supported.
Psychonaut
03-12-2011, 01:36 PM
Shame on the Supreme Court for this. "In God we Trust" and the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge were just bits of anti-Communist propaganda that Ike gave us. They've got dick to do with any kind of pre-1950s traditional American anything and are an affront to Paine and Jefferson's notion of the separation of church and state. It's not as if there's any great history behind the inclusion of these phrases. They were propaganda tools, pure and simple. Toss 'em out!
Traditional belief in God is in danger and has been for a couple of generations. A return to normalcy is required and, at the very least, some form of civil religion or ceremonial deism should be supported.
The atheist rabble-rousers love to cite the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, loving the first part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
But convieniently forgetting the second part:
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Shame on the Supreme Court for this. "In God we Trust" and the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge were just bits of anti-Communist propaganda that Ike gave us. They've got dick to do with any kind of pre-1950s traditional American anything and are an affront to Paine and Jefferson's notion of the separation of church and state. It's not as if there's any great history behind the inclusion of these phrases. They were propaganda tools, pure and simple. Toss 'em out!
Are you referring to the so-called "wall of separation?"
Psychonaut
03-12-2011, 01:43 PM
Are you referring to the so-called "wall of separation?"
Yes (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Yes (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html):
Since when does a letter Jefferson wrote, as President, on a legal matter, have the force of Constitutional law? As I understand the matter, he was addressing a national, rather than local or state, issue. The federal government, as the letter goes, shouldn't meddle in the establishment of religion. That is all.
Jefferson also ends the letter:
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Who might that common father and creator of man be? The Odinic triad? The Olympians? Marduk? The Baba-Yaga? :lol:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Psychonaut
03-12-2011, 01:50 PM
Since when does a letter Jefferson wrote, as President, on a legal matter, have the force of Constitutional law? As I understand the matter, he was addressing a national, rather than local or state, issue.
The First Amendment has a long judicial history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s) of being interpreted in accord with Jefferson.
The SCOTUS and the lesser federal courts seem as much for as against the Establishment Clause, to be quite honest:
On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature. In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.
The Decalogue's first point is:
"I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me."
How is that secular in nature and educational as to American legal traditions?
Psychonaut
03-12-2011, 02:03 PM
How is that secular in nature and educational as to American legal traditions?
An exhibition of previously formulated, influential legal codes is a completely different animal than the printing of religious propaganda on our currency and the mandated recitation of the same in public schools.
Joe McCarthy
03-12-2011, 02:11 PM
As a point of history, a number of the Founders were outright theocrats, including Washington and Henry, both of whom opposed Jefferson's ultimately successful motion to disestablish Anglicanism in Virginia. Even so, state churches remained for decades after the First Amendment, which was only intended to prevent the establishment of a NATIONAL church.
An exhibition of previously formulated, influential legal codes is a completely different animal than the printing of religious propaganda on our currency and the mandated recitation of the same in public schools.
I'd say the motto "In God We Trust" is rather generic; it doesn't mention any deity specifically, even though the usual viewer of the phrase might see Yahweh as the deity intended. This is merely a form of conventional civic deism, and is far less explicity than "I am the Lord your God." :coffee:
Joe McCarthy
03-12-2011, 02:36 PM
Someone might also inform our atheist friends that the Constitution itself is apparently unconstitutional as it contains an allusion to Jesus Christ.
Someone might also inform our atheist friends that the Constitution itself is apparently unconstitutional as it contains an allusion to Jesus Christ.
Oh? I wasn't aware of this.
Turkophagos
03-12-2011, 02:46 PM
If I recall, the term was first put into use in the 1950s as a way to remind America of the One it owes for its existence.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2009/5/7/1241713745315/One-dollar-bill-001.jpg
Technically, the greenback is a worthless bank note. :)
Raskolnikov
03-12-2011, 02:52 PM
Islamonatonalsocialistblacknatioanlistatheistcommi es are taking over America.
Capital, Jews, no problem.
Joe McCarthy
03-12-2011, 03:29 PM
Pallamedes, toward the end of the body of the Constitution there is mention of 'in the year of our lord', which as you may know is a traditional chronological reference to Jesus.
Pallamedes, toward the end of the body of the Constitution there is mention of 'in the year of our lord', which as you may know is a traditional chronological reference to Jesus.
You don't say! Well then, for fear of offending anyone, let's have it removed via Congressional edict.
Joe McCarthy
03-12-2011, 07:07 PM
You don't say! Well then, for fear of offending anyone, let's have it removed via Congressional edict.
Franklin, who was no Christian himself, once said something to the effect that one could travel far and wide over the American landscape and never be offended by meeting an infidel, i.e., an atheist. Is there any chance we could get a collection fund going for our twenty first century Bolsheviki that want to erase our history and send them to Cuba?
Franklin, who was no Christian himself, once said something to the effect that one could travel far and wide over the American landscape and never be offended by meeting an infidel, i.e., an atheist. Is there any chance we could get a collection fund going for our twenty first century Bolsheviki that want to erase our history and send them to Cuba?
Infidels in those days were few and far between and probably knew how to keep their traps shut. Paine was called an infidel by Christians, but his devotion to God was, from his writings, stronger than that of most Christians.
I contend that, as Michael Savage says about liberalism, atheism is a species of mental disease. Even the supposed atheists in the ancient world, the Epicureans, were closert to Enlightenment-era deists in that, while believing in the divine, they didn't believe the divine interacted in worldly affairs (as did, say Stoics or Cynics).
Psychonaut
03-12-2011, 07:58 PM
I contend that, as Michael Savage says about liberalism, atheism is a species of mental disease. Even the supposed atheists in the ancient world, the Epicureans, were closert to Enlightenment-era deists in that, while believing in the divine, they didn't believe the divine interacted in worldly affairs (as did, say Stoics or Cynics).
Epicureans aside, atheism has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagoras_of_Melos) as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critias) long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodicus) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras) history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodorus_the_Atheist) in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato_of_Lampsacus) Western (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus) philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius) as any other philosophical doctrine.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.