The next time they redesign a bill plate, yes they could take out the “In God we trust” part, however, they are not going to replace a single pair of plates without the verbage and run the rest with it. They would instead replace all plates at the same time with the “missing” verbage. Replacing ALL the plates, just to remove 4 little words isn’t exactly cost effective if you ask me. Replacing them with the missing verbage during a face lift would make more sense. Get it?
It’s all or nothing.
Half a pair. The motto is only printed on the reverse. There, I cut the cost in half for you.
In order:
GORSNAK, my response to you assumed a piece of information you did not have; namely, that the reason the courts have repeatedly determined that IGWT is constitutional is because it constitutes a type of ceremonial deism. And just so you as a non-American know, IGWT has been on coinage since the Civil War. That’s a little fact that the “anti” posters consistently ignore because it is inconvenient to their argument, but there it is.
MILLER –
I do wonder about the reading ability of someone who unaccountably reads what I said, accuses me of saying something that I clearly didn’t say, and then, having demonstrated their lack of cognitive skills, has the balls to call me stupid.
Let me continue to help you with that pesky reading thing: I said: “If you can find where I’ve said either” – ‘either’ means one or the other. So get cracking.
Try to follow along: There are two levels of analysis here. One is the philsophical, abstract question of whether a given proposition is or is not constitutional. For those of you – and it seems to be most of you – who feel comfortable deciding constitutionality in a vacuum, free from such annoyances as analysis of legal precedent or argument, this does end up at “The Supreme Court has said X, and I disagree with them.” This argument, by the way, can be made for any constitutional issue: The Supreme Court has said slavery is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has said discrimination is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has said unreasonable search and seizures are unconstitutional, but hey – I disagree with them.
Well, so fucking what? Who gives a rat’s ass what your opinion is, when it has zero relationship to reality? Because, of course, the second level of analysis is the concrete question of whether a given proposition is or is not constitutional in reality. Today, is discrimination constitutional? No. Why not? Because the body makes that decision (by which the rest of us is bound) has determined it is not. Is flag-burning constitutional? Yes. And for the same reason. So thanks for the update on the whole “fire hot” thing, but you might turn that penetrating intellect to the question of why people around here continually assert – wrongly – that something is unconstitutional, when what they really mean is that ITO the thing should not be constutitional, despite the fact that it *is[/i constitutional.
Listen, if you’re going to continue to just make up things you’d like for me to have said, at least make up something that makes sense.
ROLAND –
Thanks for clearing up that who question of what “debate” means. :rolleyes: Perhaps you have not had the dubious fortune of having this argument upteen times, but as I pointed out above, there are two levels of “discourse,” only one of which ends up anywhere. The first is the “this is all philosophical, but this is one man’s opinion on the issue of constitutionality” argument. Where does that end up? No where. Why? Becaus rather than consider logically the question presented, people rationalize: “Judges just rule this way because they don’t have the balls to make an unpopular decision.” “Judges just rule this way because people are afraid of poor little oppressed atheist me.” They don’t think it should be constitutional and therefore it isn’t constitutional. You can “debate” for pages – and believe me, I have – but when the opposite position boils down to “because I said so,” you never, ever get anywhere. Go ahead and try it if you don’t believe me. And, yes, at the end of the day “This is my opinion, and it has zero applicability to reality” is a largely irrelevant position if you in anyway attempt to remove it from the rarified air of purely theoretical debate.
The second level of discourse is, of course, “Is X constitutional in reality?” We look at the legal thinking and the decisions and we can say “Yes, right now it is (or is not.), and here’s where that was decided, and here’s why.” We may even add “But that could change; courts are taking a second look at the X issue, as you’ll see here and here and here.” In the case of IGWT, if you were to present those arguments – and I have – the response would be “I disagee.” And there the argument stops because if we are talking about level (A) – dueling opinions – your disagreement is as valid (or invalid) as my agreement, and we each go home, while if we’re talkinng about level (B), you have no real basis for your disagreement.
This is hilarious in this particular context, where if you were aware of the previous debates, you would find that it is the “anti” side who consistently argue that the constitutionality of IGWT is an absolute: It either is or is not constitutional and, because it mentioned the dreaded “G” word, it must be unconstitutional. No need to look at such factors as how it is used, or when, or for how long. Some one in the government said “God”! QED: Unconstitutional! As to your larger point: Of course constitutionality can be changed! Discrimination: Formerly constitional, now not constitutional. Shoot, that’s the example I’ve already posted once, so to say that I’m “implying” the contrary is ridiculous.
But the reality-based analysis of a question of constitutionality is time-specific. If we are talking about a specific time – like, say, now – something either is constitutional or it isn’t. It logically cannot be both. Obviously, that is an absolute, as is every proposition where the subject under discussion must be one thing or anohter, but cannot be both. The standard lamp is either off or on. It is absolute in its state of being one or the other, because it cannot be both.
I think I’m pretty aware of how cases come before the various courts, but if I need clarification, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, maybe you can tell me how having people whine incessantly about an issue, consistently totally disrgarding the legal reality of the issue, means that “nothin will ever change.” Cause boy, you guys are sure working for change here, right? Right. Furthermore, I said go ahead and Sharpie up your money if you want, and support organizations that challenge this, because, hey, the winds could change. Guess you missed that part, though.
And just as an aside, your examples of slavery and women’s rights are not the greatest in this context, because while the rights have of course been intepreted and explained by the Supreme Court, slavery was abolished, and univeral suffrage confirmed, by constitutional amendment, not by action of the Court.
The bottom line is that y’all can debate constitutionality to your heart’s content. You’re either going to debate it as a matter of opinion, in which case you have yours and I have mine and so what?, or you’re going to debate it keeping in mind that philosophy intersects with reality in this case (as in so many others) and in THAT context – the relevant context – the answer to “Is IGWT unconstitutional?” is NO.
OTTO –
Plessy v. Ferguson – ah, yes. You do realize that for the 75 years that decision was good law, discrimination was, in reality, constitutional, right? So you’re kind of reinforcing my point, though it’s unlikely that was your intent. And, in the spirit of “when in Rome,” no no no: fuck you.
Tiggrkitty, you know nothing about it. From the Bureau of Engraving and Printing:
In other words, they CAN remove the words fairly easily. I can’t imagine why the cost would be a problem, anyway; it apparently wasn’t an insurmountable issue in 1957…
Golly, out of all that I had to say, including citing three other cases, this is the best you could come up with? I’m kind of disappointed.
Let me see if I can paraphrase your argument. You don’t get to decide what’s constitutional, the courts do. The courts say IGWT is constitutional. Accept this because there’s nothing you can do about it. Is that a fair and accurate summation of your position? I’d hate to be accused of misrepresenting you, even if it would net me an offer of a c-note (btw, if I win that c-note, please be sure to strike through “In God We Trust” on the back. I try to spend the unadulterated currency and it burns! It burnsssss!).
I for one get that I’m not the one who decides whether something is constitutional. That does not mean, however, that I am not free to believe that the folks who do get to decide such things made the wrong decision and (here’s the fun bit) actively work to get them to change their minds.
So yes, to answer your dumbass question, I am fully aware that Plessy was “good law” until Brown. Bowers was good law until Lawrence v Texas, Minersville was good law until West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette and Bradwell was good law until (at the earliest) Reed v Reed. The thing is, under your “suck it up” doctrine, it’s entirely possible that all four of these bad decisions would still be good law today. Segregation would be legal, the pledge of allegiance would be mandatory, consensual gay sex would be a criminal offense and women couldn’t practice law.
How you can possibly read my citing multiple cases in which people who disagreed with SCOTUS and, rather than sucking it up, challenged them to reconsider and got them to change their minds as in any possible way supporting your asinine argument is beyond me.
I’ve taken to either crossing off the slogan or writing in the border “Is this the God we trust?” from time to time… Either promotes a change that I’m interested in.
Jodi, at the risk of being too reasonable for a Pit thread, allow me to interject here and try to provide a foreign, external to the debate, and non-pissed-off-opinion based on just observing the thread.
I really do not think you understand what the other side’s position is here, nor do I think you (or Bricker) understand why you appear to other people to be acting like asses. Nobody has said what you claim them to be saying, namely that they can decide X is unconstitutional if the Supreme Court decided otherwise. The OP never suggests this. You’re arguing against a position that does not exist in this thread. Moreover, you and Bricker, for what reason is unclear to me, have chosen to argue against this non-position with a deliberate flavour of “and you’re stupid to hold the minority opinion” in your response. Or in your words, “So fucking what? Who gives a rat’s ass what your opinion is?”
What people are ACTUALLY arguing is that the Supreme Court ruled in a manner that was not conducive to the public interest or the spirit of the Constitution. They accept that the ruling stands as the current legal standard for what is or is not Constitutional; what they are saying is that they feel the ruling should be changed and that the Supreme Court erred. And one poster was nice enough to provide examples where the Supreme Court has, in fact, reversed its own position on some matters, which demonstrates that even the Supreme Court is willing to admit that its rulings can be changed.
What frustrates people is not that you’re saying that the Supreme Court’s opinion is the law of the land. What frustrates them is that you seem to be saying it’s the law of the land so everyone who disagrees with their ruling should shut up and forget about ever challenging it again. Or in your words, “Not everything is going to go your way. Suck. It. Up.”
I don’t exactly understand why you have a problem with this, but I guess you’re free to blast me, too.
Piss off, Jodi. I and most other dopers are well aware that the Supreme Court says what the law is.
I’m going to reply to what I think you meant by this tortured syntax. The “legal reality” is that any decision can be overturned or vacated by the Supreme Court (given an appropriate case), but that they are unlikely to do so unless a compelling change in their perception of the issues takes place. This has happened in the past, and may happen in the future. It could happen in the matter of “God” appearing on money or the Pledge. Part of their perception in the matter is that these uses of “God” are ceremonial, not religious. That perception rests on other perceptions, including their perception of the public climate: if the majority of the populace comes to regard “In God We Trust” as a serious religious utterance, the “ceremonial deism” argument no longer holds water. Without abandoning the reasoning, SCOTUS could change the law.
Now, how are public opinion and the climate of the times to be assessed if no one speaks? “Whining,” as you put it, is one way for the people to make their opinions known. If people like you, with your “that’s the law, so shut up” attitude, manage to silence those “whiners,” we may never see such a change. And yes, the fact that a majority approve of such a motto is perfectly irrelevant to me. I think it was a statement of religious faith by members of the legislature, I think it’s presently defended as an affirmation of faith by its supporters, and I think that the federal courts were factually incorrect in dismissing it as “ceremonial or patriotic.” Yes, I am offended by “God” appearing on Federal instruments. Not offended enough to bring it up myself, but offended enough to answer “yes” if someone asks me.
OTTO –
No. You might look back at where I said, “Go ahead and pull out your sharpies, work with organizations to change the law if you want because while the position is a loser now, you never know.”
So let me sum up my argument for you:
This is a subject that for some reason makes otherwise rational and generally pleasant people such as yourself irrational and offensive. And for the life of me, I don’t see why. Many people on this Board are in favor of the legalization of marijuana use, or prostitution. But they still manage to (a) recognize that ‘this is legal’ is not the functioanl realistic equivalent of ‘in my opinion, this should be legal,’ and (b) recognize that other people might legitimately disagree with them.
But introduce constitutionality and religion into it, and some bizarre hysteria overtakes people. Point out that ‘this is constitutional’ is not the functional realistic equivalent of ‘in my opinion, this should be constitutional,’ and people accuse you of being an absolutist who doesn’t understand how cases come before the Supreme Court. And legitimate disagreement? No no – That couldn’t be it, no, it must be intellectual dishonesty, or moral cowardice, or the Vast Anti-Atheist Conspiracy. Someone posts to point out that this is not a major constitutional issue worth getting your panties in a wad, and your hysterical reply? “Fuck you, you pompous prick!” And then of course, there’s your (inevitable?) allusion to yourself as one of a “despised minority” – your term not mine. The irony is that as a gay man, you really are discriminated against. But not by this. You remind me of the serf in Monty Python’s Holy Grail: “Help, help! I’m being oppressed!” I mean, it’s your time and all, but if you’re going to pass out “fuck you”s like breath mints, you can expect people to point out that you are having a hissy fit over something that nine out of ten people (regardless of what side they’re on) consider no big deal.
By calling Rick a prick? Fuck you, and fuck you, and you in the corner over there – fuck you too? By climbing on your cross to recite your litany of grievances? “Help, help, I’m being oppressed!” Sorry if I missed how this actively works to get anyone to change their minds.
Right, because all those were changed by whining on a message board. :rolleyes: You want to effect change? Go crazy! You want to debate this issue AGAIN? Go nuts. But you’re in a poor position to demand that everyone agree with you or suffer the dubious Wrath of Otto. And while I appreciate the (undoubtedly unintended) compliment in elevating my off-the-cuff remark to legal doctrine, let’s not go quite that far. Rather, take it as it was intended: A personal directive to you, the OP’er and everyone else who acts like the earth crashes into the sun over this issue, and who can’t even be constrained to be polite about it.
That’s my argument.
RICKJAY –
Gosh, it sounds so much nicer when you say. Because here’s what I read:
Nice enough? The poster who told “fuck you” to Rick and to me? I truly don’t mind you trying to mediate here, but please attempt to accurately represent both sides.
Well, you know what frustrates me? People’s inability to argue this issue in precisely the manner, tone, and terms you have used – which they, quite obviously, have not. Let’s be clear: I do think this is a piddly issue, I do not think it is worthy of much attention (especially in light of other, far more pressing constitutional issues), I do think it’s a damn shame people can’t speak rationally at it, and when I see the irrationality trotted out for the 9 billionth time, my reaction is ‘suck it up.’ If that frustrates some people, so be it.
NAMETAG – No, you piss off. Or, at the least, try a different opener for your post if you have any expectation that I will take the time to read it.
OTTO –
No. You might look back at where I said, “Go ahead and pull out your sharpies, work with organizations to change the law if you want because while the position is a loser now, you never know.”
So let me sum up my argument for you:
This is a subject that for some reason makes otherwise rational and generally pleasant people such as yourself irrational and offensive. And for the life of me, I don’t see why. Many people on this Board are in favor of the legalization of marijuana use, or prostitution. But they still manage to (a) recognize that ‘this is legal’ is not the functioanl realistic equivalent of ‘in my opinion, this should be legal,’ and (b) recognize that other people might legitimately disagree with them.
But introduce constitutionality and religion into it, and some bizarre hysteria overtakes people. Point out that ‘this is constitutional’ is not the functional realistic equivalent of ‘in my opinion, this should be constitutional,’ and people accuse you of being an absolutist who doesn’t understand how cases come before the Supreme Court. And legitimate disagreement? No no – That couldn’t be it, no, it must be intellectual dishonesty, or moral cowardice, or the Vast Anti-Atheist Conspiracy. Someone posts to point out that this is not a major constitutional issue worth getting your panties in a wad, and your hysterical reply? “Fuck you, you pompous prick!” And then of course, there’s your (inevitable?) allusion to yourself as one of a “despised minority” – your term not mine. The irony is that as a gay man, you really are discriminated against. But not by this. You remind me of the serf in Monty Python’s Holy Grail: “Help, help! I’m being oppressed!” I mean, it’s your time and all, but if you’re going to pass out “fuck you”s like breath mints, you can expect people to point out that you are having a hissy fit over something that nine out of ten people (regardless of what side they’re on) consider no big deal.
By calling Rick a prick? Fuck you, and fuck you, and you in the corner over there – fuck you too? By climbing on your cross to recite your litany of grievances? “Help, help, I’m being oppressed!” Sorry if I missed how this actively works to get anyone to change their minds.
Right, because all those were changed by whining on a message board. :rolleyes: You want to effect change? Go crazy! You want to debate this issue AGAIN? Go nuts. But you’re in a poor position to demand that everyone agree with you or suffer the dubious Wrath of Otto. And while I appreciate the (undoubtedly unintended) compliment in elevating my off-the-cuff remark to legal doctrine, let’s not go quite that far. Rather, take it as it was intended: A personal directive to you, the OP’er and everyone else who acts like the earth crashes into the sun over this issue, and who can’t even be constrained to be polite about it.
That’s my argument.
RICKJAY –
Gosh, it sounds so much nicer when you say. Because here’s what I read:
“This is the most infuriatingly sad thing I’ve heard in a long time. I officially have almost no hope left for this country.”
“I try to forget that many in this country think I (as an atheist) am evil, depraved, and in no way a good American.”
“You know what Rick? Fuck you. You have become such a pompous prick lately.”
“A classic example of the sort of oxymoronic nonsense courts invent when they don’t have the balls to hand down unpopular rulings.”
“These days, many people are OK with the notion that atheists aren’t “real Americans”. Somehow, my lack of belief is very, very threatening to many people.”
“Fuck you too (just so you don’t feel left out).”
I mean, really. Have you people lost your minds?
Nice enough? The poster who told “fuck you” to Rick and to me? I truly don’t mind you trying to mediate here, but please attempt to accurately represent both sides.
Well, you know what frustrates me? People’s inability to argue this issue in precisely the manner, tone, and terms you have used – which they, quite obviously, have not. Let’s be clear: I do think this is a piddly issue, I do not think it is worthy of much attention (especially in light of other, far more pressing constitutional issues), I do think it’s a damn shame people can’t speak rationally at it, and when I see the irrationality trotted out for the 9 billionth time, my reaction, in the context of this message board, is ‘suck it up.’ If that frustrates some people, so be it.
NAMETAG – No, you piss off. Or, at the least, try a different opener for your post if you have any expectation that I will take the time to read it.
That’s nice. But finding that IGWT constitutes ceremonial deism isn’t a finding about what the constitution means. It’s a finding of fact concerning the motto in question.
Let me try a farfetched example. Suppose South Podunk, Missouri, passes a law stating that no Wiccans can hold the office of mayor. And now suppose, somehow, the case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, which upholds the law on the grounds that Wicca is not a religion, and hence the law does not violate that pesky clause about religious tests for public office. In such a case, SCOTUS has not made a ruling based on the meaning of the Constitution. It’s made a ruling based on the factual nature of Wicca. If I were to comment on this case, saying that it’s ridiculous to claim Wicca isn’t a religion, would you go off on me for arrogating to myself the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution? Let’s not be ridiculous. In such a case I’m not commenting on the interpretation of the Constitution.
Similarly, when the courts rule that IGWT is ceremonial deism, they’re clearly in error. If you adopt something explicitly in order to paint the country as Christian, you’ve got something that’s clearly neither ceremonial nor deist. Now I’ll grant that one can make a farfetched argument based on old money, that somehow the adoption of IGWT as a motto isn’t a newfangled idea, etc., but in the first case, I think that’s simply incorrect, and in the second case, whatever the merits of that argument, it means that IGWT is not a “classic example” of ceremonial deism, as Bricker claimed, but rather a disputed example of the same. A classic example would be the reference to “Nature’s God” in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, which is clearly both ceremonial and deist, unlike IGWT.
Finally, I have a question. When friend Dewey disputes the Supreme Court’s reasoning when they make findings based on substantive due process, is he making the same mistake as all us idiots in this thread? Just curious, thanks.
And another thing:
I do think you all should have better things to do than worry about this one very minor thing which you have very little hope of changing and which change, even if instituted, would be largely meaningless in terms of effect. And why would it be meaningless? Because this is a piddling little issue! And I am certainly not the only person who has pointed out that it is.
Now, you can extrapolate from that statement that I must think that (a) no one should ever work for meaningful change; (b) the constitution can never under any circumstances be changed; and/or © I must have been talking about not just the specific issue under discussion, but every constitutional issue all the time, but I trust it is obvious that all those extrapolations are crap.
Work being kind of busy, I’m afraid I haven’t contributed to this thread as I should have. Fortunately, I am able to resoundingly endorse Jodi’s posts and adopt them by reference as representing my thoughts as well.
And Otto - I appreciate the invitation, but you know what they say about long-distance relationships.
GORSNAK –
It’s both. The constitution prohibits excessive entanglement of church and state. Does IGWT present excessive entanglement? No. (Finding about what the constitution means.) Why not? Because it’s an example of ceremonial deism (among other reasons). (Subjective determination – not a finding of fact, which is a term of art in American law – concerning the motto in question.)
Okay.
This is not a great example, because in the example, the hypothetical court has removed the issue from the context of constitutionality altogether – “We are not talking about an issue of religion and the constitution, because we are not talking about a religion.” In IGWT, in contrast, no one has held that IGWT is not on its face a reference touching on religion and concerning the government, and thereby triggering constitutional scrutiny. See the difference?
“Clearly”? Why so? Not that I’m especially interested in having this argument for the upteenth time, but it does not seem to me to be a case of “clearly.”
. . . Except that the courts have never held that the motto was adopted “explicitly in order to paint the country as Christian.” Indeed, they have explicitly rejected the “Christian” part of that argument because the motto is not on its face Christian.
“Simply incorrect”? IYO, you mean. Which is fine, of course. IGWT is the classic example of ceremonial deism – classic in the sense of “most often used,” not necessarily in the sense of “old.” But I admire your arguments, because they are (so far) the only ones focusing on the issue at hand. (“Here’s what the court has said, and here’s why I think they’re wrong.”) I doubt I will change your mind, and I doubt you will change mind. You don’t think it’s ceremonial deism; I mostly do (I qualify with ‘mostly’ because I do see the other side). But I can’t get worked up about it either way.
Please keep in mind that the person referring to people in this thread as “idiots” is you, not me. But I don’t understand your question. First amendment questions of religion do not generally implicate substantive due process, unless we’re talking about issues of religious expression (as opposed to government entanglement), which here we are not.
First of all, I want to comment that Jodi has always been a poster who I held in extremely high regard. I’ve basically never (before this thread) seen her post anything that (even if I disagreed with it) I didn’t think of as a well-thought-out, well-expressed, sincere and reasonable opinion.
However, I have to take issue with her posts in this thread. As others have already commented on various parts of them, I will restrict my comments, for the most part, to things others haven’t remarked on.
First of all, almost all of this discussion has been in the context of constitutionality… what is constitutional, what should be constitutional, etc. Which is all well and good, but there’s another entirely reasonable discussion to have, namely, what is right. If right there in Article I, section 3 (or whatever) of the constitution, it said "the national motto of the US is ‘In God We Trust’ ", there would obviously be no argument about whether it was constitutional or not, but it would still be perfectly reasonable to discuss whether it was a good idea or not – that is, whether it made the US a “better” country. Certainly, if I had the Absolute Power to change the US as I saw fit, I would remove IGWT, “under God” from the pledge, etc. Doubtless, other reasonable individuals disagree with me. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t discuss the issue without it all coming down to whether it’s constitutional or not.
Secondly, I personally find it quite frustrating when someone says something like “I’ve argued this issue umpteen times here” or “I love this reasoning, an oldie but a goodie at the Dope”. So what? If you want to provide links to previous arguments where particularly telling points have been made, feel free. If you’re so exhausted that you can’t even participate, well, that would be a shame, but that’s your right. But to merely point out that the argument has occurred many times in the past, and that thus, we shouldn’t even try, because you’ve heard it all before, and (the implication goes) you’ve dismissed any argument we could ever conceivably come up with, is totally unproductive, as far as fostering spiritied and instructive debate is concerned.
Thirdly, if you’re curious why people reacted to your post with such vitriol, much of it is due to this paragraph:
Both Miller and Otto have called you on this paragraph, and, as far as I can tell, you’ve ignored them. So I’ll call you on it again. Why should I care whether the vast majority of my fellow citizens approve of the motto? What’s the relevance of that? As has been pointed out many times, there have been plenty of times throughout US and world history when the majority of people have approved of really horrible things. The small minority (atheists) aren’t trying to force their atheism on everyone by removing theistic statements from currency. They’re just trying to prevent theism from being forced onto them.
So, to sum up:
(a) I, personally, am bothered by references to God on coins, mottos, pledges, etc.
(b) I also feel that it makes the US a worse country, in that we aren’t living up to our ideals of being a nation which welcomes peoples of all faiths. Or perhaps those aren’t our ideals. But if they aren’t, I feel they should be
© Not being a constitutional scholar, I can’t make a learned argument about the constitutionality of any of these issues. So I’ll light-heartedly throw out my non-learned opinion that “ceremonial deism” has a very Orwellian ring to it. It’s also something that’s impossible to argue against. So what if it was claimed that the 10 commandments being in that courthouse were “ceremonial deism”? Well, uhh, OK, you got me.l
One other thing, upon previewing: Yes, we all have better things to worry about than this issue. It’s something that I think is definitely bad about the current state of the country, but not nearly as bad as many other things. It’s something that’s worth occasionally debating on a message board (which, hey, look, I’m doing right now), but not worth actually taking action, making political donations, etc. What’s your point? That non-life-threatening issues shouldn’t ever be passionately discussed?
Sorry, guys, but Jodi is 100 % percent right in this thread. IGWT has been upheld by the Supremes and therefore it’s Constitutional because they are the arbiters of constitutionality, not the TMs. Perhaps the Supremes will decide against it in the future, and then it will be un-Constitutional.
Second, it’s a piddling issues, as Jodi said? Do I like seeing superstition on my nation’s currency? Not especially, but frankly it’s not a battle worth fighting. Having theism endorsed on the coinage is not hurting me, so I don’t worry about it. Like it or not, theists are, have been, and always will be in the majority, and removing IGWT would only serve to engender more hatred against freethinkers. It would solve nothing and cause greater problems. If we mean what we say about inclusiveness for all, that means that we atheists have to grit our teeth and accept that our countrymen want to have meaningless religious symbols included in our nation’s ceremonial trappings. Tolereance has to extend both ways, and the constsn whining of atheists strip away all signs of relgion doesn’t strengthn national unity, but weakens it. I’m happy to bow down in the House of Rimmon if I can make Jodi feel that her rights are also being respected.
If the Church/state separationists want to fight a battle, write a letter to your Congresscritters opposing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (S. 893) and the Federal Marriage Amendment.
You guys are straining out gnats and swallowing camels, to borrow an expression. Save your fire for the big stuff, not trivia.
I do not care to dispute this issue any further, since I see no value in disputing whether the nature of the question “Does IGWT constitute ceremonial deism?” is one about the meaning of the constitution or one about the nature of IGWT. I clearly think it’s the latter, and is (largely) a matter of fact based on the concepts of ‘ceremonial’ and ‘deism’. Deism, you see, is a very specific form of theism, and not just any nonspecific reference to God qualifies. You, on the other hand…well, it’s not altogether clear to me what your basis for disagreeing with me is, but I don’t much care about the issue either, as I stated in my second post.
As to the general flavour of this thread, I think you set it off yourself. Indeed, I was rather insulted by the tone of your initial post - “I love this reasoning, an oldie but a goodie at the Dope. The courts are charged with determining what’s constitutional; I disagree with the courts; therefore the courts are “wrong” and their rulings “not true,” because I determine what’s constitutional . . . oh, wait.” Not only do you imply that my view is stupid, your comments indicate that you didn’t understand what I had posted. This pissed me off. If you don’t like the tone of responses, well, I’ll respond with your own words, “Tough shit. Suck it up.”
MAX –
Ta. Hold yer fire, boys. 
Respectfully, then discuss it in the context of what is right, not in the context of what is constitutional. Of course, then you’ll have to define “right” and I’m betting you’ll get mired down before you get any further than that, but that’s where you’d have to start.
A fair point, but then, you can search for “IGWT” and easily as I, and my time is as valuable as yours. I have heard this all before – as have several others – and I don’t think I’m out of line to mention that. But if that came across as dismissive of those for whom this is bright shiny and new, it was not intended that way. But frankly (and not that it matters), part of the reason I rarely participate on the MB anymore is because people have the same old tired fights over and over and over again. And I must also point out that I do not necessarily feel constrained to only “foster spiritied and instructive debate” when I’m in the Pit.
I said, “You don’t respect the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens do approve of the motto and don’t object to it being present or even – gasp! – invoked, because you don’t believe in God and your government is supposed to represent you (as opposed to the clear majority who disagree with your position) and you are bothered and you you you.”
To which you reply:
Why should they care that you don’t?
The relevance is that you are arguing that something is wrong that many, many people have no problem with. Does that mean the majority is necessarily right? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean that you’re right, either.
There have also been plenty of times throughout US and world history when the majority of people have approved really good things. And the small majority certainly is attempting to force their concept of the constitutionality on this issue on the majority. And why? Because they think they’re right and the majority is wrong. So why is it that the minority must be concerned about something noble "what is right", but the majority must be concerned with “forcing theism on them”? Again, isn’t it possible that the majority just don’t see a constitutional problem? Because I largely don’t. To read some vast anti-atheist conspiracy into that is hysterical (in both senses of the term) and, incidentally, insulting.
Of course, I have no real quarrel with your opinion.
No, but if you choose to publicly spend your time passionately discussing the unimportant, you run the risk that people will tell you that you appear to have too much time on your hands, or you should be worrying about other things, or that you need to just get over it and move on. I’m hardly in a position to decide what “should” be discussed. But I have the same right as the rest of you to comment on the discussion, especially in the context of a message board.
GOBEAR, thank you for your defense, but don’t feel you have to step into the line of fire on my account.
But once again, nobody has argued that point.
gobear, this is just a total non-argument. “Don’t worry your little head over it, it’s no big deal” may speak to the importance of the argument, but it doesn’t say anything about the validity of the argument. And if it’s not worth worrying about, you and Jodi should not have posted to the thread. Or is your only purpose to tell other people that their opinions aren’t important ones? You’re not going to win that argument; evidently, SOME people think the issue is important.
I obviously can’t change your mind about that, so let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right. Does it follow that once a person has died, what he has taught has no value? Are Martin Luther King Jr’s words now worthless?