I’m an atheist who wishes the Founders had more explicitly put “Separation of all religious matters and State” in the constitution. As it is, I can’t see that the actually wording merits the limits the SCOTUS has devised. “Establishment of religion”, to me, is a bar that’s much higher than “in God we trust”.
Do you think we should rename all the cities in the US that have religious (in fact, Christian) roots? That’s a lot worse, IMO, than “in God we trust” on the currency.
No. Calling a place, say, Calvary, isn’t a statement of anything at all. Placing “In God We Trust” on the currency is a statement that the producer of the currency, the Federal Government, representing the People, believes in God and trusts in God.
“Seperate and equal” would still have been wrong, regardless of how scrupulously practiced. “Ceremonal deism”, as a gesture of accomodation, is not. If an musician invokes the blessings of the Muse Calliope, I am not offended. Or any of the vast assembly to mythical beings, gremilins, goblins, fairys, djinn, etc. I look with disfavor upon the Norse gods, being alltogether too Wagnerian and aggressive for my taste. Though one was low-key…
It is fundamentally irrelevant to discuss how you would feel when a musician does something. Those opposed to Ceremonial Deism don’t see their neighbor saying “God Bless You” as in anyway as important as the Government printing on the currency “In God We Trust.”
Places like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Corpus Christi? I’m an atheist, and that doesn’t bother me at all – they are often named after the church or mission that was the first European settlement there. It doesn’t imply support of any religion, any more than the people who founded Mahomet, Illinois, were Muslims.
A phrase like “In God we trust”, on the other hand, makes two theological assertions: there is one god, and people in the United States have a particular relationship to that god.
I am aware Lutherans, among the ‘mainstream’, are rather unecumenical. If a given person is solid in his belief that the church he attends is the ‘correct’ one, above all others, it would seem public ‘toleration’ (let alone tacit assent) would definitely rankle.
I think a nice compromise would to put on half the money “No god or gods exist, in rationality we trust”. As long as we call it “ceremonial atheism”, and not an official endorsement of atheism by the government, what’s the problem?
So polytheists don’t have rights? Shouldn’t a third of the coins have “In gods we trust” on them?
I have understood it to be that the government (Us) cannot impose a religion on the people (us), but that there is nothing keeping the people (Us) from worshipping a deity on publicly (Ours) owned land. Therefore, I can put up a Festivus pole on the courthouse lawn, but no legislation can be made saying that a Festivus pole has to be placed there.
Seems pretty straightforward to me, and an odd thing for so many people to gripe about, but YMMV. Why not get a group of people together and put up some anti-commandments around town?
While we’re being ecumenical here, what about the polytheists who believe there are good and bad gods (“In some of the gods we trust”)? And what about the agnostics (“I’m not sure if we trust in a god or gods”)?
This isn’t an accurate representation of the current status of the law on religious displays on public property. And they’re also a different argument to Ceremonial Deism.
For no reason that I can see, other than your say-so. Why do we need to accomodate bigots, whether by forcing segregation or (Christian) monotheism?
Again, THE MUSICIAN IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT. This is not about what *private people *do in their personal lives. This is about what the *government *does as the government.
You’re a smart guy, so I can’t help but feel that you’re being deliberately obtuse here, or that this is some sort of bizarre blind spot for you. Maybe you have a brain lesion that’s centered entirely on “state-endorsed religions.”
It’s hypotheticals like this that knock the biggest holes in the “ceremonial” excuse. Because somehow, magically, *all *of our “ceremonial deism” is monotheistic and often *explicitly *Christian. And if anybody attempted to enact any “ceremonial deism” that wasn’t at a minimum *compatible with *Christianity (i.e., could not in some way be interpreted to apply, such as referencing multiple gods), you bet your ass it wouldn’t get through.
Do you know the way to San Jose?
I don’t because it’s been renamed…
[/Dionne Warwick]
Not just his say-so. Messrs. Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, and Mme. O’Connor also agreed, with their joined voices carrying considerable persuasive weight.
Who do you think we are borrowing all the money from to cover the deficit?
I think you are mistaken here, or simply appealing to inappropriate authority. The list of justices did indeed approve Ceremonial Deism. But that isn’t what elucidator said.
He was describing Ceremonial Deism, and Shot From Guns was responding to his description of Ceremonial Deism AS A GESTURE OF ACCOMODATION. The decisions on Ceremonial Deism don’t talk about it as such - they describe it as being such a part of the national landscape that it has no religious effect - that it importantly isn’t an accomodation of religion in anyway. By describing it as a gesture of accomodation, Elucidator removed it from its current legal status as ceremonial deism, and moved it into the wild and whacky world of endorsement.
The atheist Chinese? Or is this a trick question?
In Mao We Trust?
How so?
Gotcha. My bad.