Gadarene–Great, I was going to use Schempp, but you have effectively scuttled the argument I was going to make, so I concede the point that the Supremes have not directly addressed IGWT. I knew I should have gone to law school.
Otto
I think you have tolerance and tyranny confused. The theists are not being intolerant by having IGWT on the money–it does not harm you, it does not force religion upon you. Merely spending cash with IGWT is not “disseminating” theism. I don’t like it either, but I understand that i have no right to keep IGWT off the money according to my whim.’
Neuroman" You’re right about protecting the rights of the minority in a democracy, but the minority has to make a compelling case that they are being harmed by IGWT.
Gadarene–Sorry for the cross-posting confusion. I was going to use Abington School District v. Schempp, but you have effectively scuttled the argument I was going to make, so I concede the point that the Supremes have not directly addressed IGWT. I knew I should have gone to law school.
Otto
I think you have tolerance and tyranny confused. The theists are not being intolerant by having IGWT on the money–it does not harm you, it does not force religion upon you. Merely spending cash with IGWT is not “disseminating” theism. I don’t like it either, but I understand that i have no right to keep IGWT off the money according to my whim.’
Neuroman" You’re right about protecting the rights of the minority in a democracy, but the minority has to make a compelling case that they are being harmed by IGWT.
No worries, gobear. I just wanted to clear that point up; everyone seemed to be taking it as given that the Court has definitively ruled on the topic.
Jodi:
You know I love ya, but (isn’t it great when sentences start out that way?) a small quibble: as far as the courts are concerned, protecting the minority because they are the minority is, and should be, part of the job. Especially the federal courts, and especially especially the Supreme Court. Minorities are deemed worthy of special consideration by the judiciary because their interests and rights cannot be reliably addressed by the other branches of government, structurally gimmicked as they are to be primarily responsive to the majority/plurality. Countermajoritarianism is, in my view, a worthy and necessary judicial aim. Sometimes the rights of the minority must secured as against the desires of the majority.
I know you probably won’t argue with any of the above, but I think it’s an important addendum to your statement.
Let me clarify for you, MUNCH, that it wasn’t the underlying issue that provoked my initial response so much of the “Isn’t this the most horrific thing ever? Don’t you just lose the will to live?” tone of the OP. And then, well, an argument broke out – here in the Pit! Go figure! – and so here we are. But thanks for following along so closely as to number my posts; heck, even I’m not paying that much attention.
And GADARENE, you are of course correct. But that does not mean that the minority position is entitled to any especial deference regarding its merit, simply because it is the minority position. I’m sure we agree, but since this is the Pit, so feel free to call be a goat-felcher instead.
And that’s the attitude I don’t get: I must be right because I’m in the minority; you must be wrong – further, have some nefarious intent to oppress me – because you’re in the majority. Can’t we just legitimately disagree? Can’t I, as a judge (I wish; well, actually, no I don’t), say “IGWT is constitutional” without it being because I’m stupid/ morally corrupt/ dishonest/ out to get those hellbound nonbelievers? It makes me impatient: “Ah, yes, it’s unfortunate that IGWT is on the money, but then people fear us atheists and must oppress us and impose their theistic beliefs upon us.” Come on. It’s on the money because people who may be smarter than us, and who certainly have thought about it a lot more than us, have repeatedly concluded that that’s okay. Are they necessarily right? Of course not. But they’re not necessarily wrong, either, and they may as legitimately hold their position as you (general “you”) hold yours. (“General You, paging General You!”)
To paraphrase* Clint Eastwood, as Dirty Harry: “…Teachers getting thrown out of 4th floor windows 'cause they don’t give 'A’s…Little old ladies getting stabbed for there Social Security check…bigger and bigger waves of apathy and corruption washing over the city…No, that doesn’t bother me. You know what does bother me? You know what makes me sick to my stomach? It’s watching you- stuff your face with those hot dogs! Nobody, I mean NOBODY puts ketchup on a hot dog!”
Oh, well I have to agree with you there. Its about as important to me as the AIDS “crisis” in Africa or whos picture is on the 12 cent stamp or Abortion or the rights of same-sex couples or poor starving fuckers in any number of third-world hell-holes or the price of Kerosene by the liter.
But you know what really pisses me off? The county made a 4 mile stretch of road a “No Passing” zone, and now it takes me forever to get to work in the morning whenever I get stuck behind some schmuck going 45 mph!
:rolleyes:
It really takes a “special” kind of asshole to pontificate about what other people should worry about.
*because I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it was classic!
Thanks for the cites. About the only one I was familiar with was the Newdow case. I’ll see what I can make of them when I get some free time.
Now let me offer up some cites on some of my statements earlier. As I mentioned it is my judgement that the current state of the coins and the pledge should not be judged in a vacuum. The process used to create them and change previously secular ceremonies(or monies) into cremonies(or monies) which offer allegiance to a “god” should be considered. The words themselves may be vapid to the point where there can be reasonable doubt as to their effect, establishing a religion or not, but the intent behind the change is crystal clear. The intent behind re-working the coins in the 1860’s was clearly to establish the US as a religious nation. Take the following evidence, from the US Treasury’s Fact Sheet on the History of “In God We Trust”
Please make note of the Secretary’s portion. It is the portion I believe violates the establishment clause.
Please note the stated intent of Congressman Bennet. “At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.” This I am also asserting violates the establishment clause. The government is disallowed from making declarations of faith. It can not possibly speak for all the faiths within the nation with the same voice and as such it was designed to remain mute on the subject.
I’ll see if I can dig up similar cites for the intent behind the modifications to the Pledge of Allegiance if there is interest.
Since you’re now pontificating about what I should worry about, that must make you an extra special kind of asshole.
I responded to the part of your post that seemed me to make sense. Was the rest of some sort of performance art? Because then my reply is what I always say when confronted with art I don’t understand: I loved your use of light.
Oh, you’re still here? Lest you get the impression that I’m stalking you, or that your posts were substantial enough to make an impression, I just want to say that it’s not hard to see the fact that you’ve gotten all frothed up about this topic, since you have well over 10% of the posts to your name. Seemed a little excessive, given your “lack of interest”.
“Justice Jackson, you seem to think that compelling the recitiation of the pledge is wrong, and because you think it’s wrong you have very little regard for the feelings of those who like mandatory flag salutes.”
“Justice Stevens, you think you’re right in ruling student-led prayer at high school football games unconstitutional, and Justice Kennedy, you think you’re right to bar similar prayers at graduations, but because you think you’re right you have very little regard for those who like to pray at games and graduations.”
Do you see where I’m going with this? I care fuck-all if someone who seeks to impose their religious observances on me gets upset if they aren’t allowed to do it. No one’s stopping anyone who insists on having IGWT on their money from writing it on themselves, with no governmental mandate for the dissemination of a religious message.
I would love to see some of the deference for difference of opinion on the side of the theists, but to diectly address your point, it is impossible for IGWT to be both printed on all the money and not printed on all the money. If it were not on all the money, the theists would then have the choice of writing it on themselves. Currently those who do not wish to disseminate the message, be they theist or non-theist, do not have the choice. Even if the motto is marked out, it’s still there on the bills, and there is no way to remove or obscure it on coins. If it comes down to a choice, then the person who wants to disseminate the religious message is the person who should have to take affirmative action to disseminate it. They should not expect non-believers and the government to do it for them by default.
quote=gobear]The theists are not being intolerant by having IGWT on the money–it does not harm you, it does not force religion upon you. Merely spending cash with IGWT is not “disseminating” theism.
[/quote]
Of course it is. If I were required to pass out leaflets with IGWT on them then I would be disseminating a religious message. That doesn’t change just because the leaflets I’m passing out can be exchanged for goods and services.
Wrong. AFAIK the standard for determining an Establishment Clause violation is still the Lemon test which holds that for a statute not to violate the EC: 1) it must have a secular legislative purpose; 2) its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; 3) it must not fosteran excessive entanglement with religion. There is no requirement of “harm” and the standard of proof is not “compelling.” IMHO IGWT on the money and as the motto violates 1 and 2 and thus is unconstitutional but then I’m not on the Supreme Court.
Sorry, go, but you missed my point. I’ve never made much of a deal about the phrase being on the money. Filthy lucre and all; not as big a deal to me. Since that’s the only thing you’re objecting too, you’re not really in the right thread.
I’m talking about it being the national motto. About the fact that the original national motto–e pluribus unum–was written over. The national motto, not a phrase on a nickel. The single phrase that is supposed to represent the collective voice of this nation. The distilled, most important message this nation has to tell the world about itself.
Katie Couric: “Hey, Uncle Sam, can you sum yourself up in a single phrase? What is the United States all about?”
Uncle Sam: “In God We Trust.”
Not “out of many, one”–“in god we trust.” What kind of bullshit is that?
And I’d argue that it IS hurting you, gobear. I’d argue that it’s part of the support system that allows the people who work against gay rights to think that their country thinks like they do. It’s part of the cultural fabric that allows fundamentalists to believe that the government has ANY GODDAMN BUSINESS deciding the rights of gay people versus straight people.
It blurs the separation between church and state, and validates the people who think that the government has any right to be involved in religious affairs. It allows religion to color the law, which is a HUGE problem, every day, for people like you and me.
I can see how that might be frustrating. I trust that you can see how it might be frustrating to cover the same point over and over, to attempt to respond to five posts only to find three more on preview, and to have all your responses dismissed by the fiat declaration that your own hypotheticals are ridiculous while everyone else’s are reasonable.
Please recall the expressly stated legislative purpose behind the invocation of “God” on the coins. “The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.” – Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase.
Also you may recall the expressly stated legislative purpose behind the adoption of “In God We Trust” as the national motto. “At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.” – Rep Bennett.
I contend these purposes are clearly non-secular and thereby fail the first portion of the Lemon test. As such they offend the Establishment Clause.
Yes, and I in turn care fuck-all if someone wants to see IGWT as an “imposition of religious observances” when it very arguably is no such thing, and repeatedly has been held to be no such thing. And when presented with your “care fuck-all for the other side” attitude, my reciprocating “care fuck-all for the other side” attitude can be summed up in three words: Suck it up. Do you see where I’m going with this? The argument easily reduces: “IGWT is unconstitutional and should be removed, and I care fuck-all if that upsets you.” “Oh yeah? Well, IGWT is constitutional and won’t be removed anytime soon, and I care fuck-all if that upsets you.” Again, why do you expect your position to be treated with some degree of deference or respect you don’t accord to the other side?
Then you say, if we like it, we can write it on our money. But as you note, you can easily cross it off your money. Heck apparently, some people actually do (amazingly, IMO). But, you say, I can’t get it off the coins! What, are you going to issue us all engraving machines so we can put it on our coins?
Look, your entire argument is premised on your conclusion that IGWT, without anything more, somehow advances religion. You admit as much in your correct discussion of Lemon. But as you rightly note, the courts disagree. So if it doesn’t advance religion (and the courts have held that it doesn’t), then there’s no more problem to having it on the money than having the Secretary of the Treasury’s signature on the money. And your “I don’t give a hot damn about those who disagree” can just as easily be turned against you. And probably will.
Ah. But I did not call you stupid (although I definitely implied it), just as you have not called me stupid. I said your post was stupid. Sorry, just trying to get in the spirit of the thread with some nitpicking.
I knew that jumbo font was going to come back and bite me in the ass, I just knew it.
Got it. I think I did not represent myself well with my emotional kneejerk post (which was indeed inspired by my belief that you were saying “the majority is right.”)
I do not believe that our system should “defer to the minority” by default. That is a meritless position. Yes, protecting everyone’s legal rights is important, and ‘minority’ does not mean ‘right’ any more than majority does. What I should have said in jumbo flashing neon pink letters in my original post is “being in the majority does not mean ‘right’.” (I forgot, what was that definition we decided on for ‘right’?) But usually it is the rights of those in a minorty that need to be most vigilantly defended, as those in the majority often have options for recourse more easily available when their rights are (systemically) violated.
As an aside, Jodi, thanks for being a sport in this thread. I know that I and the other posters appreciate it.
P.S.
I love GD threads in the Pit.
P.P.S.
Jodi, looking at your VB code, I just had to say that the size attribute only goes to 7, not 18
I’m just flabbergasted that someone didn’t know about our national motto until they read it here. Does no one play currency poker anymore? If not then you’d think that he’d have happened upon the “In God We Trust” thing while origami-ing his twenty into an eerie resemblance of the twin towers burning.
I suppose now is not the time to bring up the pledge of allegiance…
And just what or whom would it be suggested that we do trust in? If I have not read this thread closely enough, I apologize. Maybe we are not supposed to trust in anyone but ourselves? Geez - that would be a stretch for me…
Well, my suggestion to the Illuminati board was “In Greenspan We Trust,” which wouldn’t even require changing the initials in message board threads complaining about it. But the suggestion was rejected because it would have caused the “Jews control the world’s banking system” whackos to spontaneously combust. They had some BS reason why that was a bad thing.
