How many people knew that the US's national motto is "In God We Trust"?

[Jodi]

GORSNAK –

I do not care to dispute this issue any further . . .

Okay, though you might have made your offense a bit more explicit in your last post but one; it would have saved me a lot of typing. Not that I’m requesting that you insult me or anything, but the fact that I had pissed you off flew by me. But enjoy your pique! (Actually, had I known, I would have tried to clarify, as I just did above, but oh well.)

[tomndebb]

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.

Actually, I never ignore (and usually note) that it first showed up on coins in 1864. (Of course, I am usually responding to someone who has claimed “America was founded as a Godly nation; he is even named on our money.”) Four score and seven years after the Declaration and seventy-five years following the Constitution does not give IGWT on a 2-cent coin a lot of credibility as testimony that the nation was founded “under God.”

As to the issue: I’m not going to kill anyone over the subject, but I do have two serious reservations about throwing references to God onto money and mottoes and (mandated) pledges of allegiance.
First, as a believer, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt that it is an embarrassment and a shame to stamp God onto our tacky little coins (or bills). He is not some good luck charm or mascot that we ought to be throwing around in profane ways.
Second, I have found that there are an increasing number of people who genuinely find references to God on our money and mottoes and pledges to support their notion that they should be able to impose their religious beliefs on society in other laws, “after all, we have God on our [dreck of your choice],” and I find the governmental reinforcement of that sort of mindset (even if inadvertant) far more troubling than even the profanation of our cash.

[Otto]

Jodi, you seem to have the mistaken impression that I spend lots and lots and lots of time worrying about IGWT. About this, you are wrong. As I said, when I happen to think about IGWT it annoys me but not enough to open Pit threads, not enough to inflict The Wrath of Otto and certainly not enough to think there are solar-terrestrial consequences. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t ascribe to me more emotional investment in this issue than I have.

That being said, it’s not Rick’s or your place to tell me whether it’s worth my time to be concerned about this issue. I’m perfectly aware that this issue pales in comparison to, say, the detentions at Gitmo but a constitutional violation is a constitutional violation and it is my unchanging position that any decision which holds IGWT as motto and on currency as constitutional is wrong. The idea that it’s “ceremonial deism” and thus meaningless is IMHO insulting both to believers who have a statement of faith reduced to meaninglessness and to non-believers who have a statement of faith imposed upon them.

As for telling Rick to fuck himself and calling him pompous, that reaction is not based solely in this thread. I have felt that Rick has expressed himself more pompously of late and that he is extremely dismissive of people who disagree with him. Take that for what it’s worth.

I can’t imagine how you could possibly have twisted anything I said into anything even remotely suggesting that whining on a message board had anything to do with overturning the bad SCOTUS rulings I mentioned.

I mentioned my minority status not to engender any support for my position but to point out that your “the majority doesn’t care so get over it” attitude really fucking sucks.

[Liberal]

@Q.E.D.

Correct. 18 USC 17:333 says, in part:
Lynn’s activity, arguably, does not render the note unfit for reissue, and so carries no penalty.

Is it legal, if we get one of Lynn’s bills, to put the phrase back on it ourselves?

[Mtgman]

For any of the legally-minded Dopers who know the names of the cases involving challenges to Ceremonial Deism, is there any insight you can give as to the analysis used to reach the decision? Specifically I’m wondering if the intent behind the acts of congress which created the IGWT and “under god” changes in previously secular ceremonies. My understanding of the genesis of the IGWT motto was the request of a minister in order to bring the country closer to God as a remedy for the trials being undergone during the Civil War. My recollection of the genesis of the “under god” phrase in the pledge of allegiance is it was changed also with the specific intent to become a statement of religious belief. The adoption of “IGWT” instead of “E. Pluribus Unum” as the national motto was for similar reasons. These acts, from the accounts of them I have found when I glanced at the issue, seem clearly motivated from a desire to have the nation adopt a posture of, if not some specific flavor of religion, at least of religion itself.

I don’t particularly care about the words as they stand, it is as non-important to me as the choice of stained glass or leaded glass in the capital building. But if I knew the choice was driven by graft or corruption(i.e. the brother of a Senator owning a stained glass window company) that would tick me off. That’s kind of my feeling with IGWT and “under god”.

Enjoy,
Steven

[MaxTheVool]

@Jodi

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.

Well, perhaps I will. If I have the energy. My point was that you seemed to be saying “there are only two ways to discuss this issue… whether it IS ruled to be constitutional and whether it SHOULD be ruled to be constitutional”. I was proposing another entire paradigm. (And it’s not really necessary to get bogged down in defining “right” to have a meaningful discussion. I mean, we can have a discussion of whether slavery is a good thing without defining “good”.)

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.

Well, there’s a tough balance to meet there. On one hand, there’s no point in rehashing, word for word, discussions that have already occurred. On the other hand, every new person offers a perspective that is, at least slightly, different. I know that one of the most frustrating aspects of arguing with libertarian was that he was constantly falling back on “well, that point has already been covered” and “I don’t have the time to answer all of these comments, plus I’ve seen them all before” and so forth.

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.

Fair enough, although my opinion is that every pit thread has the potential to ascend from invective and insult into the clear light of reasoned discussion, and whenever one does, it’s a (minor) triumph for the forces of Fighting Ignorance.

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.

I think we agree here that majorities can be right. And majorities can be wrong. And minorities can be right. And minorities can be wrong. So… why bring up at all that you happen to be in the majority on this issue?

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,

And of course, I have the right to bristle at them when they do, yada yada yada, ad infinitum

Oh, and I agree with everything tomndebb just said.

[Otto]

@gobear

Having theism endorsed on the coinage is not hurting me, so I don’t worry about it.

How selfless of you. Or as Jodi might put it, How selfless of youyouyou.

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…Tolereance has to extend both ways

1. I hope the irony of advocating the avoidance of a situation in which theists would be required to exhibit tolerance in one breath while calling for tolerance in the next isn’t lost on anyone. 2) Why is it that every time someone calls for tolerance it’s the people who are being imposed upon who are expected to be tolerant?

and the constsn whining of atheists strip away all signs of relgion doesn’t strengthn national unity, but weakens it.

Because we are after all “one nation under God.”

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 Jodi or whoever can’t feel that her rights are being respected without requiring you or whoever to do something in violation of your principles then IMHO Jodi or whoever needs to re-think. Regardless, your analogy is flawed. Would you be as quiescent if you were required to bow down in the House of Rimmon? That’s the closer analogy, because there is no functional way for those who oppose the message IGWT to avoid disseminating it (Sharpies notwithstanding).

[Jodi]

OTTO –

I mentioned my minority status not to engender any support for my position but to point out that your “the majority doesn’t care so get over it” attitude really fucking sucks.

My attitude is more “it’s not that important, so get over it.” But – and the following is not directed at you personally – I have to say that, because you think you’re right, you (and others) seem to have little regard for the position of the majority. They like having this motto (or, at least, profoundly do not care); they do not want it removed; they would take (do take) an attempt to remove it as an attack on their beliefs. So how come they are expected to respect your feelings and concerns, but you can just disregard theirs? Seriously, this does sound to me like “me me me.” I don’t like it. I think it’s wrong. I don’t care if the courts disagree. I don’t care if the majority of my fellow citizens disagree. I don’t like it. And I admit: That aggravates me a tad. While is all the deference for differences of opinion supposed to be on our side, while you cloak yourselves in the mantle of perceived persecution? It bugs me. Maybe people don’t disagree with you because they’re stupid/immoral/out to get you. Maybe people just disagree with you. It’s like that possibility never crosses people’s minds when this issue comes up.

In any event, “get over it” is not my default position. But I admit it is my position on this issue, when I’m confronted with the attitude explained above.

[Gadarene]

gobear:

IGWT has been upheld by the Supremes and therefore it’s Constitutional because they are the arbiters of constitutionality, not the TMs.

Can someone show me where IGWT has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court? As I understood from a post upthread, the issue has been passed upon by lower federal courts but not by the Supreme Court itself. Because your statement reflects a contrary understanding, I decided to toddle onto Lexis and search for the phrase “In God We Trust” in Supreme Court opinions. Here’s what I found, chronologically:

1. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). The court holds that requiring the recitation of an official state prayer in schools violates the Establishment Clause even if students may opt not to join in. Justice Black’s majority opinion doesn’t mention the official motto, but he has some interesting things to say. For example, Black states that “the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral” (it speaks of “Almighty God”) does not lessen the offense to the Establishment Clause. He goes on, in the next sentence, arguably to broaden this sentiment to include things other than formal prayers:

The Establishment Clause . . . is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. . . . When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. . . . The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its “unhallowed perversion” by a civil magistrate.

370 U.S. at 430-32.

The other relevant discussion in the majority opinion can be found in a footnote:

“There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer’s professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State . . . has sponsored in this instance.”

Id. at 435, n.21.

Here you see the groundwork of a “ceremonial” justification for IGWT. Note, however, that the Court doesn’t address itself to the motto in any case, and that there could be a valid distinction drawn between a “ceremonial occasion” (at which special time a song is sung or document is read for a purpose other than religion, and in which the existence of God is mentioned in passing) and the adoption and dissemination of a four-word motto (having to do with nothing but God) by the federal government. That is, the “ceremony” aspect of ceremonial deism seems to be what saves the National Anthem et al. here.

So what do we have? The prayer is “denominationally neutral” even though it mentions God, and yet it still counts as a “particular religious belief” behind which “the power, prestige, and financial support of government” cannot constitutionally be placed. I think we can agree that, though there’s room in this opinion principledly to distinguish IGWT from those things that are being held unconstitutional (especially given the footnote), the Court nowhere upholds the constitutionality of the motto.

IGWT, in fact, is mentioned in Engel only in Justice Douglas’s concurring opinion and in Justice Stewart’s dissent. Douglas says that, in his view, government financing of religion “is an unconstitutional undertaking whatever form it takes.” Id. at 437. He specifically mentions IGWT and “Under God” in his footnote listing examples of such financing. So he thinks the majority hasn’t gone far enough.

Justice Stewart, by contrast, seems to think that the majority has, in effect, held IGWT unconstitutional, an outcome with which he disagrees. “The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion.” He then lists mentions of God in the national anthem, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in our national motto as places into which the court’s holding has reached.

2. School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) This is another school prayer case, holding unconstitutional state and city requirements that the Bible be read at the beginning of the school day. Once again, the majority opinion by Justice Clark does not touch upon our national motto.

Justice Brennan’s concurrence, however, does discuss the question of IGWT’s constitutionality. Let me reproduce it:

As we noted in our Sunday Law decisions, nearly every criminal law on the books can be traced to some religious principle or inspiration. But that does not make the present enforcement of the criminal law in any sense an establishment of religion, simply because it accords with widely held religious principles. As we said in McGowan v. Maryland, “the ‘Establishment’ Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” This rationale suggests that the use of the motto “In God We Trust” on currency, on documents and public buildings and the like may not offend the clause. It is not that the use of those four words can be dismissed as “de minimis” – for I suspect there would be intense opposition to the abandonment of that motto. The truth is that we have simply interwoven the motto so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits.

374 U.S. at 303 (emphasis added).

So this takes the “ceremonial” rationale a bit further and explicitly ties it to IGWT. Still, even if this had been the majority opinion, this wouldn’t be the Supreme Court holding the motto constitutional - it is, at best, an indication that they may do so in a future case. For those non-lawyers out there, I’ll explain that the Court’s dicta (that is, everything that is not specifically tied to the judgment in the case…its speculation or pontification and, particularly, the concurring and dissenting opinions that accompany the majority holding of the court) is non-binding, and is only treated as persuasive (something to consider, not something that must be followed) for future actors and in future judgments. Moreover, even for dicta, the Court seems to take great care here to couch its thoughts in somewhat spongy language: “this rationale suggests,” “may not offend,” “may well not present.”

This is taking much longer than I expected. Suffice to say that none of the ten Supreme Court cases mentioning the phrase IGWT explicitly hold it constitutional - I suspect mostly because the Supreme Court has never taken a case to answer that specific question of constitutionality. (Much like it’s still accurate to say that the Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of “Under God” in the pledge, because the case was decided on a standing issue ostensibly without regard to the merits of the constitutional argument.) It’s clear, however, that were the Court to take such a case, they would almost certainly affirm the constitutionality of IGWT. The precedents of Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (holding that the Nebraska legislature may constitutionally open each session with a Judeo-Christian prayer by a state-employed chaplain) and Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (which, in upholding a city’s right to include a creche in its holiday display, mentions IGWT and “Under God” as (presumably permissible) examples of “reference to our religious heritage”) suggest this, even though neither actually holds that IGWT is constitutional.

The majority opinion in the Newdow case, of course, doesn’t address the constitutionality of IGWT or even “Under God”, confining itself to a procedural disposition. Rehnquist’s concurring opinion states clearly his belief that both “Under God” and IGWT are constitutional, but, as stated before, this has no binding effect and is not an opinion of the Court.

[Jodi]

OTTO –

I mentioned my minority status not to engender any support for my position but to point out that your “the majority doesn’t care so get over it” attitude really fucking sucks.

My attitude is more “it’s not that important, so get over it.” But – and the following is not directed at you personally – I have to say that, because you think you’re right, you (and others) do seem to have little regard for the position of the majority. They like having this motto (or, at least, profoundly do not care); they do not want it removed; they would take (do take) an attempt to remove it as an attack on their beliefs. This is not an assertion that “majority = right”, but how come they are expected to respect your feelings and concerns, but you can just disregard theirs? Seriously, this does sound to me like “me me me.” I don’t like it. I think it’s wrong. I don’t care if the courts disagree. I don’t care if the majority of my fellow citizens disagree. I don’t like it. And I admit: That aggravates me a tad. Why is all the deference for differences of opinion supposed to be on our side, while you cloak yourselves in the mantle of perceived persecution? It bugs me. Maybe people don’t disagree with you because they’re stupid/immoral/out to get you. Maybe people just disagree with you. It’s like that possibility never crosses people’s minds when this issue comes up.

In any event, “get over it” is not my default position. But I admit it is my position on this issue, when I’m confronted with the attitude explained above.

[Gadarene]

Shoulda previewed.

gobear:

IGWT has been upheld by the Supremes and therefore it’s Constitutional because they are the arbiters of constitutionality, not the TMs.

RickJay, to gobear:

But once again, nobody has argued that point.

I just did. To repeat, the Supreme Court has never directly held IGWT to be constitutional. Which brings up an interesting point: at what time, per Jodi, are we not allowed to state that a thing is, in our opinion and following the analysis used by the Court in previous decisions, unconstitutional? When several appellate courts have ruled that the thing is constitutional and no appeals have yet made it to the Court, but we know from observation that the Court will affirm? When an appellate court has ruled that the thing is constitutional and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari (supposedly unrelated to the merits of the case, remember)? When the Supreme Court has mentioned in dicta that the thing is probably constitutional, but hasn’t formally taken up the question? I’m curious.

[gobear]

@RickJay

But once again, nobody has argued that point.

Lissener and Otto have both said they IGWT should not be on the money and the Supremes are wrong, yet they have failed to cite any caselaw to back up their contention. Complaining about a motto that they find irritating is one thing, but “irritating” is not synonymous with “illegal”. If they acknowledge that IGWT withstands the test of law, then they can’t really quibble with the Supreme’s decision.

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.

You misapprehend me. An argument may be valid, yet not worth fighting. There are serious intrusions of Fundianity, like the FMA, being perpetrated buy the Bush regime, and there is no point in winning a point of symbolism when real civil rights are at stake. If a crocodile is biting your leg off, you don’t stop to worry about a hangnail.

Second, I think I have earned sufficient anti-religious bona fides to be taken seriously when I urge that we cut our theist brethren a break. They are entitled to have their views respected, and if a meaningless bit of ceremonial deism keeps them happy, I’m for it. The money says, “In God We Trust,” not Jesus or Allah. It doesn’t advance any specific religion, it doesn’t intrude on private religious conscience, and it doesn’t excessively entangle government and religion. Thus it passes all three prongs of the Lemon test.

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.

And some people are wrong.

And to Jodi: when have you ever known me to back away from a fight? OTOH, if my unsavory rep taints the discussion (As in “Please don’t be on my side, Gobear”), I’ll politely withdraw.

[MysteryFellow63427]

@Jodi

. To LISSENER and OTTO and others: 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.

Tough shit. The motto’s there, it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not going anywhere. Suck it up.

Jesus Fucking H Christ on a goddamn bleeding cross. This is the dumbest motherfucking shit I’ve read in a long, long time here. This may be slightly tangential, but you know what’s great about the U.S.A.? It’s supposed to protect the rights of those in the minority.

Let me say that again for emphasis:
THE MINORITY.

We haven’t always done a good job, but we’re supposed to try. Now it practical terms, no, this issue isn’t a big deal, as practically everyone here on the anti-slogan side of the debate has already said. I don’t lie awake at night and get into traffic wrecks because it’s preoccupying me. But it bothers me just the same.

[Optihut]

@A Monkey With a Gun

False analogy. It doesn’t say “In Jehovah we trust” or “In Jesus we trust”; it says the much less Christiancentric “In God we trust”. The phrase does not exclude the other two major western religions, nor Hinduism (which believes in the “Divine Absolut” - though the Absolut takes on many forms), nor many other religions. Most religions have some concept of God. The vagueness of the phrase was obviosly intended to be inclusive. It could be said to exclude Buddhism, as that religion is non-theistic, but I seriously doubt the motto was intended to persecute Buddhists. I’ll grant that it may make some atheists uncomfortable, but your analogy/question refered to specific figures in specific religions and was therefore inept.

So, Reeder, your leftist kneejerk here is as ill considered as ever. All relevant arguments for and against the motto need to be based on whether or not it violates the establishment clause, not on bad analogies juxtaposing religous figures or on an imagined bias towards Christianity.

Riiight.
As I said in a previous thread, the policially correct form would be to say “In n gods we trust, where n is a positive integer, including zero.” But I guess too many religious people might find that offensive.

[Jodi]

Sorry about the double post; I largely agree with T&D too (as usual); and –

Hi, GAD!!! :: waves wildly :: Excellent post. I see law school has suited you.

[Optihut]

@neuroman

Jesus Fucking H Christ on a goddamn bleeding cross. This is the dumbest motherfucking shit I’ve read in a long, long time here. This may be slightly tangential, but you know what’s great about the U.S.A.? It’s supposed to protect the rights of those in the minority.

Let me say that again for emphasis:
THE MINORITY.

Actually I think that it’s the government’s job the be there FOR EVERYONE. Not just the majority, not just the minority, but for everyone.

Oh and I misspelled “politically” in my other post.

[Gadarene]

Mgtman:

For any of the legally-minded Dopers who know the names of the cases involving challenges to Ceremonial Deism, is there any insight you can give as to the analysis used to reach the decision?

I can’t give you much insight, 'cause I’m already late for some errands I need to run, but I can give you a list of cases in which ceremonial deism is discussed, and you can take a look at them on FindLaw. I have no doubt you’ll be able to parse them and get to the heart of the matter at least as well as supposedly legally-minded me.

In addition to Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 435 n.21 (1962), and School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), mentioned below, we’ve got Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), and Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow.

Enjoy!

[Metacom]

I emphatically second Jodi.

I’m not an atheist, and I’d like to see the references to God in our government go out the window. Even the ceremonial ones. I think religion should be a personal thing, and seeing the names of what I believe in used to further some disgusting political end bothers me.

That said, I can have a really hard time rationally discussing this issue (and other religious issues) with a lot of the atheists on this board, because some of them constantly emit a stream of flippant religious insults that stem from either ignorance, insecurity, or intolerance. By the time I’ve caught up on a religious thread, and read the requisite “Believing in God is the same as believing in a magical pink Unicorn!!!” jabs, “Christians belive XXXX” (where “XXXX” is a belief usually held by fundamentalists, but far from all Christians), “believers are irrational/mentally ill/stupid/etc.” posts, and other, more subtle jabs I have a hard time keeping my posts snark free.

Does anyone really think this is the most infuriatingly sad thing they’ve heard in a long time (to quote/paraphrase the OP)? I think if the situation were reversed, and “God Doesn’t Exist and Those Who Believe in Him Are Profoundly Retarded” was written on our currency, I’d still think that Guantanamo bay, the war in Iraq, the torture cover-up, etc. were more horrific issues that I’ve heard about recently. And I most definately wouldn’t spend my free time removing the phrase from currency (I was really hoping Lynn was wooshing us on that issue, but she seems to have reinforced it in subsequent posts…)

[Gadarene]

(I just know we’re gonna cross-post, because I don’t believe gobear could have so completely ignored me just there, but…)

Lissener and Otto have both said they IGWT should not be on the money and the Supremes are wrong, yet they have failed to cite any caselaw to back up their contention.

Could you cite some caselaw backing up your contention that the Supreme Court has held IGWT to be constitutional?

Complaining about a motto that they find irritating is one thing, but “irritating” is not synonymous with “illegal”. If they acknowledge that IGWT withstands the test of law, then they can’t really quibble with the Supreme’s decision.

Which decision would that be, exactly?
And hi, Jodi! Thanks! I still remember gratefully the input you have me on my personal statement.

[Jodi]

NEUROMAN –

Listen, if you’re going to call me stupid, please refrain from posting stupid shit. It undermines your credibility. You know what’s great about the U.S.A.? It’s supposed to protect the rights of all of its citizens, everyone

Let me say that again for emphasis:

EVERYONE

Where on earth do you get the idea that our system defers to the minority just because they are the minority? Haven’t you seen all the people taking me to task (correctly) when they thought I was saying “the majority is always right”? Protecting the rights of the minority is done not because they are the minority, but because they are part of the greater “everyone.” Get it?

GOBEAR, I welcome your assistance whenever you want to give it, in this or any other thread. And “fundianity”? I like.