Well, you haven’t told us of any “serious consequences” yet.
I would think that offered you an excellent opportunity to prove them wrong. It’s easily done on this matter.
But if something is “low grade”, it’s not serious.
I’m an atheist and wish it weren’t on the currency, but it has had zero effect on my life. I think it’s wise to pick one’s battles and this isn’t one of them. Makes us look bad and there is no upside.
Regarding the “no religious purpose” phrase, consider two mottoes that we might put on currency, something that is in use by nearly everyone in this country, every day, frequently.
Motto #1: “We like trees.”
Motto #2: “In God we trust.”
Motto #1 cannot possibly be said to advance religion (except for Druids), but Motto #2 is, at best, ambiguous, and at worst, a blatant religious statement. The courts do not seem to be able to make this distinction.
I agree that the decision is consistent with earlier rulings. I also agree that the notion that the phrase “In God We Trust” does not advance religion is well on the far side of idiotic.
I disagree that this is minor. Considering how I would feel if the words were 'In Satan We Trust" or “There is No God”, this is a bad ruling, and a clear violation of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is wrong, just as they were in Kelo v. City of New London and Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade.
And *stare decisis * can kiss my hairy white textualist ass.
Regards,
Shodan
A textualist would tell you that this does constitute an establishment of religion. Not even close. It’s only in a very lose interpretation of the 1st amendment that this can be considered a violation.
Saying that Congress may pass a law regarding an establishment of religion is not a loose interpretation of the First Amendment - it is a violation of it.
Regards,
Shodan
I was with you up until Roe. How do you feel about Dred Scott, Brown or Mutual Film?
I don’t think the phrase directly relates to any particular event but it creates a culture of default religionism that makes people think it’s acceptable for religion to be a part of politics. I don’t think removing the phrase will remove religion entirely, but I think it would be a good start and demonstrate good faith on the part of the religious segment of the US.
The teacher says “Of course the US is a christian nation.” You say, what, that the Treaty of Tripoli states that it’s not? That’s a pretty obscure line of argumentation for a 12year old. They return the volley with, “If the US isn’t a christian nation, why is ‘in god we trust’ on our money?”. Now what?
Lemon juice is a low-grade acid but it will still cook the fish in your ceviche.
People still use cash?
Your password cannot be stolen and your PIN cannot be forgotten. It’s honored most anywhere.
You might say In Cash We Trust.
I choose to be amused by the whole thing, especially how the most fanatical Christians are so eager to debase their religion into “Ceremonial Deism” just so they can say they’re allowed to put slogans on the currency. Both this and the recent government prayer ruling are just another step down the ladder for actual, meaningful Christian faith. They value style over substance, always…God on money, God in council and congressional prayers, God, God, God…but the courts have basically defined their God as generic in order to shoehorn him in.
Here the text:
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
*
Make your textualist argument that putting “In God We Trust” on the currency is a violation of that clause.
See definitions 3 and 4. Stating that you trust in a God shows that you believe the existence of God to be valid or true, as well as to cause the recognition of religion to occur.
I doubt that God’s particularly pleased to see His name on our money, considering some of the shit we spend it on.
How is that not the endorsement of a religion by Congress? Congress passed a law that this phrase had to be printed on currency, and it’s a phrase that endorses a religion, or a certain subset of religions.
The only way I can imagine to get out of it is to say that the “God” in “In God We Trust” doesn’t actually refer to the deity of any religion, but is just ceremonial language that sounds fancy. But that’s bullshit, right?
Yes, that’s bullshit. But there is SO much bullshit coming out of the Supreme Court that this tiny turd doesn’t even register. Roe v. Wade. Kelo v. City of New London. Plessy v. Ferguson. Gonzales v. Raich. Wickard v. Filburn. Whatever that Obamacare SC case was named where the mandate was upheld as a tax although it was explicitly defined as not a tax and the government argued it was not a tax…
I strongly suspect that people who think this current decision is bullshit support at least some of the above cases if not all of them. Goose, gander, etc…
Yep, there’s all sorts of bullshit out there in the world, and your point would be valid if the title of this thread was “All The Bullshit In The World”. What opinions others may hold about totally unrelated subjects really don’t matter when it comes to the topic brought up by the OP.
A textualist reading would say it’s not the establishment of religion. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say the motto is an “endorsement” of religion. Perhaps “acknowledgement”. But neither of those is “establishment”.
Darth Panda: Words do not stand alone in the constitution. In the phrase “Establishment of religion”, the word "establishment’ means something very specific. It does not take on every shade of meaning of that word.
Keep in mind that I was addressing Shodan’s claim that a textualist reading of the establishment clause tells us this is a violation. I do agree that in the current jurisprudence, the concept of “ceremonial deism” is bullshit. In the context of a textualist or originalist reading of the constitution, I see no problem with it.
Because compelling people to join in these kinds of declarations of faith is an establishment of religion.
If the question is “how do you know what ‘establishment of religion’ means”, that is not a worthwhile game. Because how do we know that “Congress” means Congress or “shall” means shall?
Yes, it does. And this ruling is contradictory to that meaning.
Regards,
Shodan