DescentBB

Again Upheld by Federal Appeals Court

Tribune Weekly Chronicle wrote:Washington, DC – In a 3-0 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, DC, ruled that the National Motto, “In God We Trust,” is constitutional and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Quoting the 1970 decision in Aronow v. United States, the Court wrote: “It is quite obvious that the national motto and slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”

http://tribwekchron.com/2010/07/in-god- ... als-court/


Very good news!

Waiting for the atheists to chime in; 10, 9, 8....

They always take that line from the Declaration of Independence out of context. Atheism is not an option.

7, 6, 5...

What ever happened to \"E Pluribus Unum\"?

It's sad that we can approach the concept of separation of Church and State, but we never really reach it.

Kilarin wrote:It's sad that we can approach the concept of separation of Church and State, but we never really reach it.

thats because there is no Seperation of Church and state to reach.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe. As 19th century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed:

“The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

sadly our nation has chosen to follow the european model over the years and come to hate religion.

Such bull★■◆●, but at the same time, really ... inconsequential. It's a raised relief on a coin and a scribble on a dollar bill. The \"under God\" in the pledge is just as stupid, and just as stupid to worry about.

There are way more important things to be spending time and energy on that this nonsense.

Did you know -- you can believe in god and hate organized religions...

Cuda wrote:thats because there is no Seperation of Church and state to reach.
...
sadly our nation has chosen to follow the european model over the years and come to hate religion

When Church/State combinations lean towards religion you get Sharia Law, the Inquisition, and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. When Church/State combinations lean against religion you get the "cultural revolution" in China, the religious persecutions in the USSR, and the French Revolution.

Modern Europe leans towards the "Anti" side. But it really makes little difference which way the Church/State combination leans, the combination is ALWAYS disastrous.

The Church does not NEED the support of the government. Quite the contrary, the church does much better without that interference. And vice versa. The unholy amalgamation of Church and State always corrupts both.

And that's why I'm opposed to even small and fairly inconsequential violations of the principle, such as having "In God We Trust" on our coins. I don't need the government telling me to trust in God. And forcing people who do NOT trust in God to use money with that motto is insulting to both the people AND God.

My freedom to follow God in the way my conscience leads me, and my right to preach and promote my religion is dependent on the government staying OUT of religion entirely. My right to stand up for and defend what I believe is the SAME right that lets Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher stand up for and teach what THEY believe. If I wish to remain free, I must defend THEIR rights as well. NEITHER side should have government support.

When Church and State remain separate, then all ideas can compete in the free marketplace of thought. When the State gets involved with the Church (and vice versa), freedom of thought is always one of the first victims.

Well, if you have a problem with “In God we Trust” then you might also have a problem with where our “inalienable” rights come from…

If you catch my drift.

Spidey wrote:Well, if you have a problem with “In God we Trust” then you might also have a problem with where our “inalienable” rights come from…

If you catch my drift.

I think you'll have to elaborate.

null0010 wrote:Such *****, but at the same time, really ... inconsequential. It's a raised relief on a coin and a scribble on a dollar bill. The "under God" in the pledge is just as stupid, and just as stupid to worry about.

There are way more important things to be spending time and energy on that this nonsense.

Oh the pledge of allegiance isn't stupid, but "In God We Trust" and the like is? lol

Spidey wrote:Well, if you have a problem with “In God we Trust” then you might also have a problem with where our “inalienable” rights come from…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

I have no problem at all with the concept, I agree with it completely. BUT, you will note, when the founding fathers set down to the serious business of forming a government, they took a different direction. The only reference to "God" in the constitution is "In the year of our Lord", which they probably never even noticed.

yes but if you read the 1st again, the purpose of it is to keep Government out of religion, not neccesarily the other way around. the Danbery letter from Jefferson confirms this.
Do not take this as me advocating a theocracy because I dont. my problem is too many people want to wipe out ANY signs of religion from our government. and freak out at the slightest hint of religious recognition by any one or anything in our government. even to the use of schools in their off hours as rented Churches. this is a violation of the Free excerise clause and is wrong.

Kilarin…

So if I read you correctly you are saying the government has no compulsion to protect your “god given rights” only legal rights, since god is a separate domain.

Spidey wrote:So if I read you correctly you are saying the government has no compulsion to protect your “god given rights” only legal rights, since god is a separate domain.

correct. If the government tries to defend "god given rights", then the government has to try and decide which god gave those rights, and exactly what rights it was that this god gave us. The eventual end point of this is Sharia law.

We are better off with a very limited set of "legal" rights. These rights are really founded on religious principles (in my opinion), but are basic enough that all humans, religious or not, can agree upon them. Anyone who can't is incapable of participating in a functional society.

CUDA wrote:yes but if you read the 1st again, the purpose of it is to keep Government out of religion, not neccesarily the other way around. the Danbery letter from Jefferson confirms this.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Danbury letter. It's not a wall of separation if it only works one way. This does not mean religious individuals do not vote their conscience. Nor does it mean that people serving in government have to pretend they are not religious. What it DOES mean is that government does not directly support religion.

For example, Thomas Jefferson was STRONGLY opposed to the concept of a "National Day Of Prayer". He said:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it."

And that is EXACTLY how it should be. We need people all over the world to pray! We don't need the government telling or even suggesting to them when to do it.

Well the way I look at it, I'd rather have a government that expounds a trust in God than a trust in the Government. One only needs look at the old Soviet Union to understand.

woodchip wrote:Well the way I look at it, I'd rather have a government that expounds a trust in God than a trust in the Government. One only needs look at the old Soviet Union to understand.

Which God? For there are many.

woodchip wrote:Well the way I look at it, I'd rather have a government that expounds a trust in God than a trust in the Government. One only needs look at the old Soviet Union to understand.

It's just two sides of the same coin. fliptw's point is valid. For example, consider what it was like to live in England after the split with Rome. You get a "protestant" monarch, and the Catholics are persecuted. Then the next Monarch is Catholic and the protestants are persecuted. Repeat ad infinitum.

It's really better to have a government that leaves religious choice up to the people and feels no need to interfere either for OR against religion.

How come no one has brought up this yet.

http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/ ... en-issues/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/ ... erships-pr

Bringing the power of 370,000 houses of worship across the country to the fight of climate change by greening buildings and promoting environmental stewardship in their congregations.

I guess we should change it to \"In Obama We Trust.\"

.

fliptw wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well the way I look at it, I'd rather have a government that expounds a trust in God than a trust in the Government. One only needs look at the old Soviet Union to understand.

Which God? For there are many.

you probably dont want to take this thread down that Road

Atheism is a religion too, I demand that all Atheist texts and references be removed from anything to do with government no matter how trivial.

Remember folks: its \"Freedom of religion\", not \"Freedom from religion\".

Edit: CUDA, that new avatar rocks.

fliptw wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well the way I look at it, I'd rather have a government that expounds a trust in God than a trust in the Government. One only needs look at the old Soviet Union to understand.

Which God? For there are many.

Take your pick. In God We Trust does not mandate any particular one.

Krom wrote:Edit: CUDA, that new avatar rocks.

I gotta give props to Issac for this one

Kilarin wrote:It's really better to have a government that leaves religious choice up to the people and feels no need to interfere either for OR against religion.

agreed 100% but thats not what our government does. it interfere's regularly with peoples religion and practice there of.

Kilarin wrote:...
I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Danbury letter. It's not a wall of separation if it only works one way. This does not mean religious individuals do not vote their conscience. Nor does it mean that people serving in government have to pretend they are not religious. What it DOES mean is that government does not directly support religion.

For example, Thomas Jefferson was STRONGLY opposed to the concept of a "National Day Of Prayer". He said:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it."

..
..

It is quite clear he is saying the constitution protects the rights of the people to establish when the 'day of prayer' will be and so he creates a paradox because the government is for the people by the people so if the people decide their government should honor a day of prayer he has a conflict between what he wants to be (no national day of prayer) and what he says must be the law (the peoples right to decide when it should be).

I'm no big fan of theocratic governments and to paraphrase a bumper sticker I always loved that speaks about my feelings on it:
'Jesus is alright by me but his fan club scares the ★■◆● out of me' so I'm not in favor of Jerry Falwells kind of America by any stretch.
However...
The facts are there to show this country was founded on judeo christian principles and it's founders thought of the christian god when the said god. It's just the way it was back then and the law/constitution is intertwined with it.

fliptw wrote: Which God? For there are many.

That kind of thinking is erroneous and can lead a person into sin, which means death.

The 10 Commandments wrote: 3 Do not have any other gods before me.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Krom wrote:Atheism is a religion too, I demand that all Atheist texts and references be removed from anything to do with government no matter how trivial.

Then we can stop paying taxes too? Anyway, Atheism is not a religion (in the sense of the word). It's simply a term given to a person that has an absence of belief that any God exists.

Bee

oh and FYI I pay taxes
also then why the need for the ritual??? seems by his action it's a religion.

American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."

Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."

CUDA wrote:
Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."

So Atheists think reason and truth is nothing but a lot of hot air?

AlphaDoG wrote:

fliptw wrote: Which God? For there are many.

That kind of thinking is erroneous and can lead a person into sin, which means death.

The 10 Commandments wrote: 3 Do not have any other gods before me.

How can you be so arrogant as to think YOUR God is the ONLY true God! Christianity is but ONE religion out of multitudes in this world. So who's to say that the Christian God is the only God, and that ALL other people who may NOT believe in this God should be worshipping that God anyway just because Christians say so? You're forgetting that this nation is a giant melting pot of people and not all are Jews or Christians.

When a religion starts interfering in the lives of law abiding non-followers, THAT'S when we really need the separation of church and state. That's not putting down Christians, it's protecting the NON-CHRISTIANS! Christians can worship as freely as they want, but the line needs to be drawn when they start to manipulate others that don't want to follow the Christian faith. Christians are not victims, but bullies when it comes to dealing with the PUBLIC square. The only reason that "IN GOD WE TRUST" is in the pledge NOW is because of right wingers and Eisenhower and the fear of Godless Commies in the late 1950's and right wing efforts to whip up anti-communist propoganda during the Cold War! Oh, we're so much MORE superior of a nation than the Soviets because WE believe in GOD! What bunk!

tunnelcat wrote:When a religion starts interfering in the lives of law abiding non-followers, THAT'S when we really need the separation of church and state. That's not putting down Christians, it's protecting the NON-CHRISTIANS! Christians can worship as freely as they want, but the line needs to be drawn when they start to manipulate others that don't want to follow the Christian faith.... BLAH BLAH BLAH!

I was with you up until the point that your started to BLAH BLAH. thats where you went wrong.

.

Bee you should have read more of that second link and the link on that link

The term “partnership” should be expanded in other ways. Too often, this term is
understood as being limited to government grants for private voluntary organizations.
It should be understood much more broadly. The Federal Government often forms
nonfinancial partnerships with faith-based and neighborhood organizations. These
partnerships are as valuable to government as financial partnerships, and they are preferred
by many kinds of civil society organizations. The Government should highlight and develop
these partnerships as much as partnerships involving financial collaboration.
And while partnerships in this area are now commonly understood to encompass joint
efforts with secular and single-faith bodies, they should also be understood as involving
relationships with multireligious or interfaith entities, both domestically and abroad.
Multireligious or interfaith entities include religiously affiliated individuals or groups
from more than one distinct denomination, tradition, religion, or spiritual movement, and
they also may include individuals and groups identifying as secular. By partnering with
organizations like these and others working across faith lines, the Government can build
respect for religious pluralism and freedom of religion or belief. As President Obama has
noted in several speeches, including his historic Cairo address, interfaith service initiatives
are a particularly good way to build understanding between different communities and
contribute to the common good. This report calls for the scaling and strengthening of such
initiatives

The importance of engaging with religious organizations in
addressing climate change and environmental concerns has become even clearer—as has the
importance of faith-based organizations taking a prominent leadership role in influencing
policy, education, and action in those areas. The more than 370,0001 houses of worship alone
provide locations for information to be shared, training to take place, and modeling of best
environmental practices to occur.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... report.pdf

Bettina wrote:It's nice to see you're still here

I've just been busy as all get out. Big project at work. But thank you.

Cuda wrote: but thats not what our government does. it interfere's regularly with peoples religion and practice there of.

Yes, it does. Our government regularly fails on BOTH sides, because we've never really been in favor of full separation of Church and State. It seems that a majority of both those for and against religion, think the government should back their point of view.

Will Robinson wrote:It is quite clear he is saying the constitution protects the rights of the people to establish when the 'day of prayer' will be and so he creates a paradox because the government is for the people by the people so if the people decide their government should honor a day of prayer he has a conflict between what he wants to be (no national day of prayer) and what he says must be the law (the peoples right to decide when it should be).

He's saying it's the right of INDIVIDUALS and CHURCHES to decide when and where to pray. They do NOT have the right to impose that upon others through governmental support.

tunnelcat wrote:How can you be so arrogant as to think YOUR God is the ONLY true God!

Cause we are RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG. And the wall of separation between Church and State is what defends my right to say that.

tunnelcat wrote:When a religion starts interfering in the lives of law abiding non-followers, THAT'S when we really need the separation of church and state.

AND when a government starts interfering in the rights of people to follow their own conscience. It happens. A lot.

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:...also then why the need for the ritual??? seems by his action it's a religion.

There isn't any need. He's just a crackpot who has some crackpots following him. We have no rituals or persons we pray to thus we have no religion. (In the true sense of the word)


Bee

Apparently your not familiar with one of the leading athiests in the country.

Currently, Kagin is host for the Internet radio show “Answers in Atheism,” www.answersinatheism.net . He is also the current National Legal Director, and Kentucky State Director, for American Atheists. He is on its speaker’s bureau and in 2008 was voted onto the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc.

and why is he a crackpot and not other athiests? and why is your brand of athiesm better than his???

Well Kilarin, one of those “god given rights” is LIFE. I want my government to protect it.

The founding fathers weren’t religious, so that point has no merit, they believed in a “natural” god that gave humans their basic “human” rights.

So there is no need to determine “which” god. All you need to do is determine what constitutes “human” rights, and “which” god is irrelevant.

Bet51987 wrote:Personally, I would like "In God we Trust" and any other reference to any God or Gods removed from government buildings, coins, dollar bills, and especially from public schools, to attain true separation between church and state.

I wouldn't have a big problem with that. Of course, "In God We Trust" is now more a historical item than some kind of federal mission statement; personally, I don't think it's worth the outcry such a move would create.

Honestly, though... I'm a bit amused by Christians who claim they want to keep government out of religion, but simultaneously want their government to actively espouse a Christian view.

Since when, Foil, is God just a Christian view?