Newdow et al v. Peterson et al, just out from the folks on the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals:
Yup. Entirely consistent with prior law. Correct decision.
Perhaps right for the court to uphold the law. Certainly bad for Congress to pass such a law.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and courts put a higher value on continuity than reason or morality. Cf. Dred Scott (slavery), Plessy (enforced race separation), or Mutual Film (1st Amendment didn’t apply to media). Each took 50-100 years to overturn, but overturned they were, when consistency became untenable.
I predict this one will suffer a similar fate. Just wait 50 years and mark my words. If Christians are no longer in the majority, there will be pressure on either the legislatures or courts to change this practice or decision.
Not a good decision, but the issue is sufficiently minor.
Not to the Plaintiff, and not to some of us. Newdow is serious, and one of his points is that others trivialized the matter just so they could wave it away.
Any idea why Congress passed such a law originally? Was God feeling insecure that day?
The moment christians are ok with “in gods we trust” I’ll believe the ‘not advancing religion’ part.
I don’t know. It seems pretty trivial. Why do you think its not? What are the serious consequences the existence of the phrase has on your life?
The phrase being on the money is often used by people to support their contention that America is a christian nation and therefore we should be using the bible to make all our laws. If it were gone, they wouldn’t shut up, but they’d have to think harder and then their skulls might pop which would be entertaining, if messy.
I actually concur but on this specific issue I daresay the better strategy is to wait until American atheists and agnostics make up a larger segment of the population. It’s harder to rally without a more obvious and generally sympathetic victim.
So, it will include the “All Others Pay Cash” part from now on, right?
Well, they are wrong. Not seeing how that has a serious consequence on your life. I would also dispute that this happens “often”, but I don’t think it’s something either of us can prove.
Are there other serious consequences?
It’s a near constant reminder of something ridiculous. If we had “Zeus is Lord” on all our money no one would be hurt by it, but don’t you think there would be a movement to repeal the law?
Then that would be the case, right? This may be one situation where agnostics, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. will be on the same side of the issue.
As an atheist, I object on the basis that it doesn’t reflect sufficient separation between church and state.
As a believer, I object on the basis that god should not be associated with the dirty business of money changing and materialism.
As someone who thinks this is a trivial matter, I object to the the fact that the Supreme Court does not also see it as a trivial matter.
It may be consistent with prior decisions, but this phrase is just patently false. It’s so obviously false that the only reason I can come up with for saying it is that the court was desperate to avoid doing what was correct.
When an atheist is discussing how the US is a secular country and needs to be welcoming of all religious views, you know what gets thrown in our faces again and again? That “In God We Trust” thing on our currency and in our motto. People consistently use that to make us atheists feel unwelcome in our own country, a country whose Constitution specifically says that that the government must be neutral with regards to religion.
So it’s trivial in a way, because it doesn’t prevent me from voting or using public facilities, but on the other hand it’s obvious that its only purpose is to give a poke in the eye to a minority of US citizens, citizens of a country whose Constitution says that it shouldn’t be doing that.
That’s my opinion too.
SCOTUS to theists: “Your God is meaningless.”
Well you didn’t live my life. No, I’m not constantly troubled by it but certainly the teachers of my catholic middle and high school used that reasoning and based on conversation with other people, they were not alone in thinking that. The phrase perpetuates a low-grade, pervasive and erroneous assumption about our country and I would think on that basis alone, it’s worthwhile to get rid of it.
I don’t see what problem Muslims might have with it. They don’t view Jesus as the son go god but they do believe in God. You might have heard the phrase “Allah Akbar!”. No?
Also, I can’t see agnostics getting upset about it, as they take no position on the existence of God, as it is unknowable.