Yes, it was addressed specifically at the “secular purpose” prong of the Lemon Test.
In God We Placed Our Trust, with the ‘placed’ being understood, since this is a reference to our religious heritage.
OK, thanks. But if “Placed” is supposed to be understood, I didn’t understand it. Anyway, this country is very religious and I’m not, so it would suck to be me if this all wasn’t trivial nonsense.
You aren’t actually trying to equate imprisoning criminals with kidnapping and breeding slaves, are you?
In case you haven’t noticed, Africa is very poor. Slavery benefits the few, and the cost of impoverishing the rest of society.
No; slavery is expensive. It requires an entire social system to keep them in line, and corrupts the society that owns them. The South still hasn’t fully recovered from the self-inflicted damage of slavery.
That’s ridiculous. That’s not a “secular purpose”, that’s a transparent attempt by them to pretend that pushing Christianity isn’t an attempt to establish Christianity as the state religion.
That’s all that such attempts at so-called “ceremonial deism” are, which is why the people pushing for them freak out whenever someone shows up who isn’t Christian and tries to take advantage of “ceremonial deism”. When the courts talk about how God on the money and prayer before Congress and so forth aren’t breaching separation of Church and State and aren’t attempts to push Christianity, they are simply lying. They are demonstrating their bias and corruption.
The people defending putting God on US money by saying it’s “no big deal” and that non-Christians should just get over it and that it doesn’t really refer to the Christian God would be enraged if “God” was replaced with Allah, Buddha, Satan, Shiva or whatever. Because ultimately it is about pushing Christianity and always has been, whether people choose to admit it or not.
It’s adorable that American liberals care so much what their government puts on the money it issues compared with the trivial aspect of what it does with that money.
Keep holding their feet to the fire !
It doesn’t matter which religion. Religion has no place in our government, regardless of which particular one. By placing it on our currency they are saying that the government, since they are the printers of the money, trust a supernatural entity and have established religion (again, it doesn’t matter which one). Call it that ceremonial deism shit if you would like to, it’s still establishing that our government says it holds the religious belief of the existence of the supernatural.
That’s an interesting opinion. One that I, in the hypothetical agree with, but not one that is supported by the text of the Constitution or the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
I’ve read the SCOTUS decisions on this topic and I think they’re bullshit. But it is the law, as much as I’d like to see it changed.
I didn’t intentionally leave out your edit, I replied before it happened. 
:dubious: You talk like liberals don’t complain about what the US government does. They do.
I don’t know why you have such trouble with what others say. If I think that imprisoning criminals has some similarities with kidnapping and breeding slaves, I’ll let you know ok? But maybe since I didn’t. your time might be more productively spent in contemplating what I DID say.
Meanwhile, if you will think for a bit about how slavery and imprisonment can both deprive an individual of his liberty and also make him work for nothing, then you might be able to understand why I think there is something in common. Especially since in ancient times slavery was sometimes the answer to crime.
if you focus on what I do say, instead of all these things you feel compelled to add in, like breeding and kidnapping, you’ll understand better.
“Add in”? Those were parts of slavery in the South.
I compared two aspects of prison life to slavery, probably slavery’s key aspects. Slavery did not have to involve either kidnapping or breeding, though it can, and there was no need to bring them into what I said. Slavery takes many different forms with different qualities. As I mentioned, slavery sometimes was the fate of a criminal, he was neither kidnapped nor bred. Or you have mercy on surrendered enemies and instead of killing them, you put them to work. Once again, neither kidnapping nor breeding is involved.
Again, my remark, which you so deliberately misunderstand, is that while America became offended at ONE FORM OF SLAVERY, a form which did happen to involve breeding and kidnapping, it still did not become offended at another form–the punishment and rehabilitation of criminals by removing their freedom and putting them to work. The only real difference is how the “slave” got into his situation–with the criminal, we tend to feel he deserves it.
But so too did the ancients feel that some people deserved slavery–criminals and enemy combatants–which you will never acknowledge, preferring the mistaken belief that all slavery forms were the same as 19th century American slavery. SOME slavery wasn’t as obnoxious as the kind we had.
Since it’s impossible to care about two things at one time, this post is valid and you’re clearly a very intelligent person for pointing out this obvious hypocrisy .
Obsessing over whether Comrade Lenin’s cap is straight on postage stamps whilst ignoring that whole Gulag thing is worthy of what has been called the neo-stalinist cottage industry.
Understood. But this country used to be even more religious. There was a time in our history in which religious entanglement was much more common, and no case law existed to limit such entanglement. There was a time in living memory in which prayer in public school was legal.
Today, those practices are curtailed. But they remain part of our factual history. The government cannot say, “We used to believe in God, but now we don’t,” for the same reason they cannot today say, “God exists.”
But we can continue to use a motto that once referred to such belief, because the phrase has been used so often, on every piece of money, that it has lost through “rote repetition any significant religious content.”
You mean like Catholic Mass, reciting the Rosary or saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day?
However, the slogans 'Eat, Drink, And Be Merry, For Tomorrow We Die !', and ‘Party Like There’s No Tomorrow !’ are both excellent stimulators for the economy.
Understood, as well. I’m not sure if you’re trying to connect the historical religiosity of the country with the amount of entanglement there was between religion and government, but if you were, I’m not so sure that’s correct. The SCOTUS, over the last 100 years or so, has been on a trajectory of a more expansive interpretation of the constitution that is not necessarily correlated to the religiosity of the country. And, this country has become more religiously diverse in recent decades.
But that is exactly what “In God We Trust” does say-That we(the Government, the people that issue this money) trust in God. Either that, or our government is saying that we put in trust in nothing at all. This silliness about how the phrase refers to the past only doesn’t fly-It states the “We Do This”, not"This Is A Historical Reminder That We Used To Do This" *
It has enough religious content that any proposal to change it brings forth an army of indignant Christian religious groups from sea to shining sea.
Here is question that I think should be answered if you want to go down that path: Has there ever been a survey to see if Americans think that phrase is religious in nature?
Again, it’s quite amusing to me to watch devout Christians argue so vehemently for the total obsolescence of their faith just so they can stick it on money. If it’s lost “any significant religious content”, then you’re acknowledging that it’s an empty phrase that means nothing. And if that’s the case, then why is that empty phrase so hotly defended every time the suggestion is made to remove it?
You and the IGWT brigade are trying very hard to have it both ways, Bricker. It’s religiously important enough to the majority religions that it’s next to impossible to remove it, and yet it’s supposedly an empty phrase that contains nothing but secular symbolism. Which is it? Because it can’t be both.