The motto is “With God, all things are possible,” a verse from the book of Matthew. This motto was adopted in 1959 and was recently challenged (by a Presbyterian minister advocating Separation of Church and State). The motto has been debated by a number of courts, and finally, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals says that the motto is fine.
Their rationale? The motto is constitutional as long as the state does not attribute the New Testament as the source. This silly logic, naturally, ignores the fact that the motto is often attributed to the New Testament!
What the hell is so difficult to understand about the phrase “Separation of Church and State”? It doesn’t mean, “Well, by Church, we mean all non-Christian religions.”
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s change the state motto to “Life is Suffering.” As long as we don’t cite the First Noble Truth of the Buddha as the source, it shouldn’t offend anyone. What kind of outrage would there be if a verse from the Satanic Bible were adopted as a motto? Would Christians be placated by, “Well, it’s not really from the Satanic Bible, even though that’s the only place you’ll find it”? I think not.
Perhaps this is a pit rant, but I suppose some people who don’t understand the meaning of the word “Separation” would like to weigh in (Wildest Bill, I’m looking at you).
My favorite quote from that link above is from former Ohio governor George Voinovich: “This is great news. It really makes you believe that things are right with the world.” Apparently, we live in different worlds.
Thank goodness I’m not originally from this nutty state.
Quix
P.S. I know that there was a thread about this motto earlier, before the Court of Appeals ruled, but the Boards go so slowly during the day. I’ll do a search later tonight and link to it.
When Teddy Roosevelt tried to eliminate this from coins he met stiff resistance. It was then adopted during the cold war to be printed in all paper money (it is pleasant to find an old bill without it written on it–they’re even greener for some reason). Same deal with the pledge of allegiance, “One nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible…” The “under god” part was added in the early fifties to ostensibly define ourselves against communism. Thanks.
In answer to quixotic78, what I find so difficult to understand about the words, “Separation of Church and State,” is why some people imagine that they come from our Constitution. Actually, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the “establishment of religion,” which means not having an official state religion. The words, “Separation of Church and State,” do appear in the ACLU Revised version of the Constitution.
I personally do not feel intimidated by slogans with the word “God,” although I’m an atheist. There are more important issues.
Actually, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. In so doing, they clarified the meaning of the First Amendment by using the term “separation of church and state,” which is now a long-established principle of Constitutional jurisprudence.
Exactly. The reason I used all capital letters in Separation of Church and State is because I was going to use the SOCAS acronym, but then realized that I didn’t actually use the phrase enough to warrant introducing an acronym.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that I only have a limited number of topics I can take issue with. Just to clarify: how many topics can I object to again? 5? 10? Thanks for helping me out. :rolleyes:
I’m not exactly intimidated by the motto either, particularly since I’m only a temporary resident of Ohio anyways. I just think that it is obviously a religious motto, and so flies in the face of the established policies of the US (via the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution). Even worse, the justification REDEFINES stupidity. “It’s not religious if you don’t attribute it to Jesus. Nevermind that word `God’ in there, naturally.”
For the record, I expect “In God We Trust” to be removed from money sometime in my life, even if that’s 50 years from now. As America becomes more cosmopolitan, it will become even more apparent that “God” cannot actually mean everything from YHWH to Gravity. That justification is also, IMO, stupid.
First of all, I don’t really understand the rationale behind both this decision and the earlier decision striking down the motto, which both hinged on whether this motto is different from “In God We Trust” because it either is (the earlier decision) or is not (this decision) specifically Christian. Why draw that line? “In Jesus We Trust” would be “non-denominational”, right? Protestants of all stripes, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, even Mormons could all use IJWT without any problem. Only those pesky Jews and pagans and atheists would be offended. But it would be wrong to adopt a national motto which told all non-Christians to go to hell. Apparently, though, it’s okay to adopt mottoes which tell all non-theists to go to hell, as long as it doesn’t single out any particular sort of monotheist and tell them to go to hell, too.
As for why these mottoes matter: Well, if it’s the national motto (or the official motto of the Great State of Ohio) you can hardly object to posting it prominently in every public school, can you? If it’s good enough for the Almighty Dollar, and it’s right there in the lawbooks and everything, and the courts have always refused to strike it down, how can it be wrong to post it in the schools? (This proposal has come up in a number of school systems now with respect to IGWT.) You could even make it a part of the curriculum, say devote an hour of Civics class to it: “Our national motto is ‘In God We Trust’. This means that all Americans believe in and trust in God. Except little Timmy there, who is an atheist. But we should all respect his right to reject the principles which make this country great, and not beat the living daylights out of him after class.”
Similar fun and games could be had in courthouses. (Naturally, no one could object to the prominent display of this country’s national motto in a courthouse, right?) Just a little something for the jury to stare at while the defendant makes a big deal out of affirming instead of swearing to God on the Holy Bible like regular people do–clearly, he must be some kind of godless atheist Commie devil-worshipper*, and therefore blatantly guilty.
*[sub]Actually, he’s a devout member of some little sect which forbids the taking of oaths because that’s what Jesus said–an atheist in that situation would probably just swallow hard and swear on the Bible–alas, this never comes up in the cross-examination, and the poor fellow gets the chair.[/sub]
Wow. This is one of the most calm and reasoned things I’ve heard an atheist say on this message board! I’m genuinely impressed.
Ben said:
It’s the actual document itself, the Constitution, that is the law of the land. The Supreme Court’s interpretation can be wrong, as when they judged that ‘separate but equal’ was constitutional.
Well, what december said may have been calm, but certainly don’t think it was reasonable. As MEBuckner pointed out, it’s more than just some silly state motto. To wit, if we can put “With God, All Things Are Possible” on our statehouses, “In God We Trust” on our money, and “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, discrimination based on these comments is inevitable. And, come now, be honest: the reason you like what december said is because you AGREE with it, not because it was some pinnacle of literary and logical thought. Way to insult all the atheistic postings that have been pinnacles of literary and logical thought, by the way.
**
Well, it’s my understanding that the Supreme Court of the United States actually CANNOT be wrong. (I don’t mean “wrong” a moral sense; I mean wrong in a legal sense). If the SCOTUS says tomorrow that all mottoes with the word “God” in them are unconstitutional, guess what–that’s the way it goes in the US.
BTW, did you know that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee you the right to post whatever the hell you want on the Internet? “Au contraire,” you reply, “I have freedom of speech.” Funny, I don’t remember the word “Internet” being in the Constitution. The reason you have this right is because the SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment right to say whatever you want to mean that you can also write whatever you want. In brief: no, the Constitution is NOT the sole law of the land.
Finally, just a simple question for you: would you object to a State Motto saying “God is dead”? I mean, as long as we don’t attribute the quote to Evil Nietszche, it’s OK, right? After all, “God” can mean anything from Krishna to the Big Bang. So, I assume that you’re OK with this motto, yes? If not, why not?
The unfortunate phrase ‘seperation of church and state’ often confuses people as to the meaning of this first clause of the First Amendment. While it would be somewhat presumptuous of any modern-day person to question Jefferson’s assertion as to the purpose of the religion clauses, certainly the Supreme Court did not adopt that concept in its treatment of the establishment clause for the first roughly 150 years. Instead, as J. Story wrote in 1833,
(3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1865 (1833))
In this view, the purpose of the clauses was to prevent religious persecution and establishment of a national church.
The Supreme Court finally began the abandonment of this approach in the 1940’s. In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947), the court expounded the concept that the clauses forbid not only aiding a particular religion, but also aiding all religions. This refinement (some would say wholesale change) of interpretation has come under recent attack from such justices as Rhenquist, Thomas, White and (surprise, surprise) Scalia. The dogmatic dispute has not been resolved.
The result of a long line of cases from 1947 to 1970 was the so-called Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971)). In this ‘test’ of permissible governmental action, an action is not acceptable if it has either the purpose or effect of promoting religion, nor is it acceptable if it results in 'excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon remains the standard for review, and was applied by the Sixth Circuit in the Ohio case. The trouble, of course, is that such slippery slope tests can be argued both ways in close cases. Indeed, the original appelate panel decision in the particular case in question also applied the Lemon test and reached the contrary conclusion. Still, as can be seen, the test hardly sets up an inviolable wall between religious activity and the state. Indeed, Justice Burger himself, author of the Lemon opinion, noted
Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970)
Interestingly, as the Lemon test comes under attack, attempts to replace it often fail for either too much rigidity or to much amorphism. For example, Justice O’Connor has expounded an alternate concept, disallowing governmental action that a reasonable observer would perceive as either endorsement or disapproval of a religion. Certainly, under such a test, the Ohio motto would have more difficulty surviving. See for an example of her thinking the opinions in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (concurring); Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (concurring); Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 712 (1994) (concurring). However, this test has been attacked as amorphous, lacking in true guidance or predictable results (not too surprising, because Justice O’Connor prefers to handle things case by case).
What, then, are we left with as to the meaning of the clause on establishment? To assert that government is precluded from any religious activity, or activity that appears to approve of any religion is incorrect, both on the basis of the history of the text (not to mention the plain meaning of the text) and the basis of the case law that has developed. Certain government activities will be viewed as impermissibly interjecting government into religious affairs, but nothing about the amendment requires a totally neutral governmental viewpoint that eschews any reference to religious thought or practice. Wishing it were so does not make it so.
P.S. For what it is worth, the Supreme Court has never asserted that there should be a seperation of church and state, and the Lemon test is not designed to provide one. Clearly, though, the Lemon test derives from a more strict approach to governmental involvement in religion, and the phrase from the letter by Jefferson has been quoted in court opinions with favor. See, for example, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879).
P.P.S. I have, for the time being, removed from the discussion the effect on the interpretation of the religious establishment clause the selective incorporation of the principle to the state governments by way of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Clearly, the thought regarding religion and government changed when the states were told to butt out of religious establishment, too.
P.P.P.S. I am tired of people who conceive of the Constitution’s words as having little value, since the Supreme Court can and does interpret them. Although certain interpretations have mutated over the years, the principle of stare decisis, combined with usually reasonable thought processes, means that the words emplaced in this document do indeed have value. It is the application of that meaning to a given set of facts that matters, and that process is a large chunk of what law students spend three or more years learning how to do.
FriendofGod, if you’re looking for a GOOD post, refer to that gem by DSYoungEsq (although, make sure you change the word “seperation” to “sepAration” ). I’d like to point out that he essentially disagreed with everything I said, but he had facts. He’s made me realize how totally off-base I am with my understanding of separation of church and state. I’d advise you to not ignore his post simply because it doesn’t jive with your world-view.
I’m bookmarking this thread, because that post was an informative summary of religion vs. a-religion in US Judicial thought. It made me smile, because it’s EXACTLY the reason I post almost exclusively to this Message Board. I consider myself an intelligent individual, with knowledge in many areas, but there are people here who are EXPERTS (or close enough for me) in fields I know jack about.
So kudos to you, DSYoungEsq, for doing your part to help eliminate my ignorance in this area.
Also, here’s that link for the previous thread about the motto:
). I’d like to point out that he essentially disagreed with everything I said, but he had facts. He’s made me realize how totally off-base I am with my understanding of separation of church and state. I’d advise you to not ignore his post simply because it doesn’t jive with your world-view.