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

[Gadarene]

Jodi, to Otto:

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.

But the Supreme Court neither agrees nor disagrees. They haven’t touched the issue. Does that, and should that, matter in our discussion?

[bdandhr]

Well, I guess that depends on how much “faith” we put in our Supreme Court!

[Jodi]

In reverse order:

BDANDHR –

Well, I guess that depends on how much “faith” we put in our Supreme Court!

Ha! “In Scalia We Trust”? Not in my world, not unless it’s followed by the rider, “. . . and God help us all.” I trust that’s an acceptable invocation of You-Know-Who.

NEUROMAN –

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.

Well, shoot, how am I supposed to argue with that? And the font goes WAAAY big; you just have to change it yourself. [SIZE=18] and all that. I’m glad you think I’m being a sport; I’m trying to be a sport. Sometimes the line between “sport” and “shrill be-yatch” is a fine one. Which is not an invitation for contributors to volunteer which side of the line they think I’m currently one, though a lack of invitation never stops anyone around here. (Certainly it doesn’t stop me.)

But the Supreme Court neither agrees nor disagrees. They haven’t touched the issue. Does that, and should that, matter in our discussion?

Sure, some. Not a lot, but some. As you know, if the Supremes have not weighed in, it’s sort of every appellate court for itself (bound by precedent and all that, and hopefully not obviously out on the lunatic fringe). Certainly if the highest authority has not ruled on it, we can’t consider the issue 100% conclusively settled. But I think based on the following facts – there’s no real dispute in the existing authorities, the USSC has had an opportunity to rule on the issue but has declined by denying cert, thereby preserving the status quo, and the current make-up of the Court does not make one think sweeping liberal changes are in the offing – we can safely say that IGWT is presumptively constitutional. In reality. Philosophically, we can get into the meaty issues of what constitutes an advancement of religion or what appropriately falls under the rubric of ceremonial deism, if anything. A couple of beers later, maybe we throw caution to the wind and go all giddy and tackle whether we should still be using Lemon at all. From there, it’s just a small step to “Did you ever really look at your hand? I mean, really look at your hand?”

For me, the bottom line is you look at what you’ve got, and what we’ve got is cases saying “this is okay,” Congressional action saying “This is desirable,” and dead silence from the Court. So for now, it’s constitutional. And if the concurrences to the Newdow opinion are any indication – and, of course, they are – it’s likely to be considered constitutional for the foreseeable future.

[Roland_Orzabal]

Jodi:

I want to apologize for the snarkiness of my initial response. I know you don’t need the word “debate” defined, and I’m fairly sure you realize that it is an essential component of any judicial system. My response, as well as those of many others, was based on a knee-jerk reaction to the grandiose statements I believed you to be making. It seemed to me that you were dismissing all debate regarding this issue as irrelevant, and claiming that the decisions of the Supreme Court were not to be challenged by the likes of us regular citizens. You have since clarified your point, so I withdraw my previous wiseass comments. Besides, I really did find a fly in my Cheerios this morning

Now then, I have a question for all of you who support the viewpoint that IGWT is constitutional. Which of the following statements do you reject? (And by ‘you’, I mean you. I already know what the Supreme Court has to say, I want the result you get when you think for yourselves):

A) “In God We Trust” implies inherent belief in, and support of, a deity of some kind.

B) Deities are, by definition, entities of religion.

C) If (A) and (B), then “In God We Trust” implies inherent belief in, and support of, some sort of religion.

D) If (C), then “In God We Trust” is unconstitutional.

Which part of the above do you object to? The majority seems to be arguing that (A) is incorrect, so I’m going to go ahead and reply to that now. A written declaration by our government that ‘we’, meaning the United States of America, place our collective trust in an entity known as God, is an implicit declaration of a common theistic belief. The only ways that’s false are if you disagree with (B) above, or if you believe that statements become meaningless once you put them on money. If anyone cares to argue (B)-(D), I’m game for that, too.

And finally, yes, I agree that this whole issue is somewhat less than life-threatening. As I said, I’m not offended by it. As an agnostic, I find the whole thing amusing, but then again, that’s because I have no set religious beliefs to attack. If I were atheistic, I can see myself maybe being slightly unnerved. And, as someone already pointed out, the importance of an argument does not affect its validity either way. One more thing; I’m not one of those people who goes around assuming him/herself to be ‘right’ at all times. I’m genuinely enjoying the clash of opposing viewpoints here; it’s proving extremely enlightening. So, now that you’re done reading this semi-relevant little postscript, you may return to your regularly-scheduled debating.

[gobear]

[quoted]

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.
[/QUOTE]

If you had bothered to read my post, you’ll note that I mentioned the Lemon test and its three prongs way ahead of you, and I showed that IGWT passes. I introduced the notion of “harm” because I wanted to cover every base.

[Jodi]

:: Suspiciously :: Why are people suddenly being so nice? Is someone behind me with a dart gun?

ROLAND, no need to apologize. Snarky is the coin of the realm here in the Pit.

Now then, I have a question for all of you who support the viewpoint that IGWT is constitutional. Which of the following statements do you reject? (And by ‘you’, I mean you. I already know what the Supreme Court has to say, I want the result you get when you think for yourselves):

A) “In God We Trust” implies inherent belief in, and support of, a deity of some kind.

B) Deities are, by definition, entities of religion.

C) If (A) and (B), then “In God We Trust” implies inherent belief in, and support of, some sort of religion.

D) If (C), then “In God We Trust” is unconstitutional.

Which part of the above do you object to? The majority seems to be arguing that (A) is incorrect, so I’m going to go ahead and reply to that now.

Yeah, I’d probably go with (A), of these choices, so carry on.

A written declaration by our government that ‘we’, meaning the United States of America, place our collective trust in an entity known as God, is an implicit declaration of a common theistic belief.

Rather than answer this myself, I think I’ll let Madame Justice O’Connor have the floor. Keep in mind that you obviously don’t have to buy this (though I largely do), but this is the answer to your objection:

The Court has permitted government, in some instances, to refer to or commemorate religion in public life. See, e.g., Pinette, supra; Allegheny, supra; Lynch, supra; Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). While the Court’s explicit rationales have varied, my own has been consistent; I believe that although these references speak in the language of religious belief, they are more properly understood as employing the idiom for essentially secular purposes. One such purpose is to commemorate the role of religion in our history. In my view, some references to religion in public life and government are the inevitable consequence of our Nation’s origins. Just as the Court has refused to ignore changes in the religious composition of our Nation in explaining the modern scope of the Religion Clauses, see, e.g., Wallace, supra, at 52—54 (even if the Religion Clauses were originally meant only to forestall intolerance between Christian sects, they now encompass all forms of religious conscience), it should not deny that our history has left its mark on our national traditions. It is unsurprising that a Nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes, and oaths.* Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today. See Allegheny, supra, at 623 (declining to draw lines that would “sweep away all government recognition and acknowledgment of the role of religion in the lives of our citizens”).

Facially religious references can serve other valuable purposes in public life as well. Twenty years ago, I wrote that such references “serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society.” Lynch, supra, at 692—693 (O’Connor, J., concurring). For centuries, we have marked important occasions or pronouncements with references to God and invocations of divine assistance. Such references can serve to solemnize an occasion instead of to invoke divine provenance. The reasonable observer discussed above, fully aware of our national history and the origins of such practices, would not perceive these acknowledgments as signifying a government endorsement of any specific religion, or even of religion over non-religion.

Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 328 F.3d 466 (2004) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Link is here. (And GOBEAR, you might be interested to see that Madam O’Connor continues to put forth her preferred “establishment” test, and thereby argue by implication for the abandonment of Lemon.)

Basically, it’s: Yeah, it’s meaningless in any religious sense at this remove and in that form (on the money, or as a motto). Look at the concurrences to Newdow for a quick primer on the latest Supreme Court thinking on this issue.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Gorsnak

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.

A question which I’d also like to hear Jodi answer, actually.

@Jodi

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.

I think you missed the point of the question, because you aren’t really answering it.

Substantive due process is a well-established component of constitutional jurisprudence, as is (to a lesser extent) “ceremonial deism” as an exception to the establishment clause. In other threads, I’ve argued (persuasively IMO, but YMMV)that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in utilizing SDP is shoddy, and amounts to little more than a judicial end-run around the constitutional text. Gorsnak’s question is drawing a parallel: is my questioning of the court’s reasoning on SDP any less foolish than those who question the reasoning that allows IGWT on currency?

Now I know that later in the thread you basically said that you only hold this view for this particular issue, since it’s just Not A Big Deal ™ in your book, and that it would be a mistake to extrapolate your position to other constitutional issues. But I’m not sure why that is the case. Certainly those discussions inevitably turn just as abstract and theoretical as IGWT discussions. Why is one a foolish waste of time and the other not?

Now, you’ve certainly got a valid point about the tone of these discussions, and about the quality of the arguments that are all too frequently presented. And it is certainly true that several regular participants on these discussions put forth arguments that boil down to “me! me! me!,” consider name-calling to be effective counterargumentation, prefer to question motives rather than confront the argument presented, and so on. That really is frustrating. You’d think it’d be obvious that just saying “I am GREATLY OFFENDED by the motto” is not a terribly effective argument for the motto’s unconstitutionality. Yet the argument persists. And when you point out that it is flawed, you’re told to fuck off, you evil anti-atheist cocksucker, usually by a self-described champion of tolerance.

Having said that, I’d like to think that a person could construct a reasoned, temperate argument that, say, the notion of “ceremonial deism” is deeply flawed, and that you wouldn’t characterize a discussion centered on that as a waste of time.

[Denis]

::Aiming dart gun at Jodi::

@tomndeb

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.

Sing it, brother!

I haven’t faced any obscenity like the “We Hate Gays Amendment”, or other legal debris, but I have had significant problems due to an atmosphere apparently promoted by the IGWT and “under God” nonsense.

I’ve been hounded out of jobs, where previously I was seen as an honorable, moral person. I was literally told, twice, that since I’m an atheist, I’m a Bad American and untrustworthy. The IGWT and “under God” nonsense was trotted out as an excuse.

In Washington, you can be fired for any reason, or none, unless you belong to a union (I don’t).

I didn’t take it to court because I do have significant financial responsibilities to my family, but I have written to legislators. Every response seems to be a “there, there” kind of form letter.

I understand that there are far more pressing problems facing the US. I (as a member of a minority) would really like it if this particular cudgel was removed from the arsenal of bigots.

No, I don’t think it would turn bigots into non-bigots, but it sure would deprive them of a mighty handy (and to many, very many, government sanctioned) excuse, now wouldn’t it?

Sorry I didn’t delve into legalese, I’m just a working man relating his own problems with this crap. I’m sure you can find others with similar stories. I know I have.

By the way: since you included a quote from me in the list of people of whom you so snarkily asked, “Have you lost your minds?” No, I’m quite sane and do have a sense of proportion.

[Jodi]

DEWEY –

I think you missed the point of the question, because you aren’t really answering it.

Not only am I not “really” answering it, I didn’t attempt to answer it at all. Because I didn’t understand it. As I said. And then the poster took a powder, so I moved on. But I’m happy to address your post.

Substantive due process is a well-established component of constitutional jurisprudence, as is (to a lesser extent) “ceremonial deism” as an exception to the establishment clause.

. . . ye-eessss . . .

In other threads, I’ve argued (persuasively IMO, but YMMV)that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in utilizing SDP is shoddy, and amounts to little more than a judicial end-run around the constitutional text. Gorsnak’s question is drawing a parallel: is my questioning of the court’s reasoning on SDP any less foolish than those who question the reasoning that allows IGWT on currency?

Well, how would I know? I don’t know the basis for your challenging of SDP. But if your theory (brilliant though it may be) is rejected by the courts, then your articulation of it is not more foolish than questioning the reasoning of IGWT – and, of course, no more wise. Because if we look at it on the philosophical level, you may construct an edifice of logic and reasoning that mere mortals marvel at. But if we look at it on the level of real, existing jurisprudence, if at the end of the day, the decision-makers in the real world dismiss it as just so much smoke and mirrors, what, in the real world, is it worth? Not much. But then, I assume your problems with SDP do not devolve down to “Judges are morally bankrupt” or “judges are stupid” or “SDP is part of some nefarious pattern of oppression,” so maybe you’re argument – probably your argument – is more persuasive as a logical and legally sound attack than those we have mostly seen here.

Now I know that later in the thread you basically said that you only hold this view for this particular issue, since it’s just Not A Big Deal ™ in your book, and that it would be a mistake to extrapolate your position to other constitutional issues. But I’m not sure why that is the case. Certainly those discussions inevitably turn just as abstract and theoretical as IGWT discussions. Why is one a foolish waste of time and the other not?

Why is debating the abstract ever a waste of time? And when? I don’t think I would say it is always a waste of time, but if (a) you’ve done it before on the subject (whatever it may be), at length, and (b) you’ve ground the debate to a halt on the philosophical level, and © you have very little chance effecting any sort of change on the real-world level, then at some point the “debate” becomes something between a navel-gazing festival and a circle-jerk. This is not to say persuasive argument cannot effect change in the real world. But I don’t find these particular arguments very persuasive (and neither do the courts), and it’s not like anyone is saying anything new.

I had this same issue arise in a discussion with someone who wanted to assert that he, an American male over the age of 18, was not required to register with Selective Service. What he meant, of course, was that he had lots of philosophical objections that meant that the government didn’t really have the authority to require him to do so. And the same argument again with a woman who asserted some absolute right to have an alcoholic drink in a titty bar, when that was illegal in her town. And my positions there were basically the same as here: Whatever a person’s own personal opinion is on what should be required or allowed or legal or constitutional or whatever, at the end of the day, they are just your opinions if no one agrees with you. Meanwhile, back here on earth, the legality, constitutionality, allowability, etc. of government action is determined by legislatures and courts, and a given thing is legal/ constitutional/ allowed/ not allowed if they say so.

Now, you’ve certainly got a valid point about the tone of these discussions, and about the quality of the arguments that are all too frequently presented. . . . .

Having said that, I’d like to think that a person could construct a reasoned, temperate argument that, say, the notion of “ceremonial deism” is deeply flawed, and that you wouldn’t characterize a discussion centered on that as a waste of time.

Absolutely a person could; I’m certain you could. I probably would not consider that discussion a waste of time, because open minds, exchanging ideas respectfully, increase the amount of knowledge in the world and that is rarely if ever a waste of time. But, to be totally honest, I might consider it a waste of time for me personally. Not because I’m a big honkin’ expert on this subject – I’m not – but because it is a subject I have debated exhaustively several times, and IME, it always turns out the same way. People who think the mere mention of God by government is always an endorsement of religion – those people don’t change their minds. Which is not to say that’s not a defensible position. I just don’t happen to agree with it. Obviously, YMMV and, so long as you don’t implicitly attribute my disagreement to stupidity or cravenness or bigotry, we’re not going to have a problem. Not that you did, but you take my point.

[Greathouse]

Reading this thread has been both educational, and a hell of a lotta fun. Thanks to everyone involved.