This all started when I asked which religion is being “established” by the motto.
That question has two parts:
Name the religion.
Prove that it’s being “established”.
People were mostly trying to answer #1, you included. And while your answer might have been true (I don’t think we can say for sure) 150 years, it is not true today. And since we are talking about the case before us today (that is, recently), I think it’s absolutely germane to bring up recent Congressional votes and opinion polls.
Now, it’s nice of you to be the thread historian and all, but I’m not seeing what the original vote for the motto tells us about the situation today, since we have a more recent vote, more recent polls, and more recent court rulings.
And so, I ask again:
Which religion is being established by having “In God We Trust” on our currency? Note: The verb “to be” is conjugated in the present tense in that sentence. We all do know what “is” means, right?
Maybe, but 1873 was the 43rd Congress. The 39th Congress didn’t have anything do with any of it. But there weren’t any Jews in the 43rd Congress, so I didn’t bother to look for the vote there,
Why is it when I search for groups that lobby both the Congress and the public to keep that religious saying on our money, all I can find are groups that profess to be Christian in nature? If a Jewish Congressperson votes to keep it, what section of voters do you think he is trying to appeal to?
I have no way of knowing, and neither do you. But when something can get 90% support by the American people, it would not seem that lobbying would be necessary.
Is it your contention that, absent lobbying, Congress would vote to end the practice of putting In God We Trust on our currency?
Is it your contention that if an amendment were proposed to make this part of the Constitution that it would fail? Because that is what would likely happen if the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.
You’re going to have a hard time proving that 90% of Americans have actually been lobbied at all on the subject, much less lobbied “heavily”.
But I eagerly await your attempt!! I’ll give you a little help. Starting with me, I’ve never once been lobbied, and I’m part of the 10% that doesn’t want it on our currency.
There is more than one type of Christianity at play here. The branch I identified with said another branch that held slavery good in the bible is in error and perverting what was mere tolerance in a world that universally tolerated slavery, and where slavery was also for criminals and POWs since they lacked prisons and detention camps like we have today. In civil war times the nation was growing somewhat intolerant to the specific form of negro slavery practiced in the U.S. while we to this day largely support “slavery” for criminals–freedom taken away and made to work.
As far as being economically non-viable–tell that to some African blood diamond slave.
I’d somewhat agree the specific circumstances of slaves working cotton became unviable. But how would slaves do where we have migrant workers harvesting vegetables by hand to this day? Probably even more economically viable than the “slave wages” the migrants are paid.
No offense taken, we all have similar opinions of my brother and all my other brothers and sisters agree with me we want it somewhere it can be professionally taken care of.
Nice attempted dodge. I’m not sure we need to re-litigate that entire thing again.
I’m just trying to figure out how you can conclude that Dred Scott decision was both a substantive due process case (which you have clearly expressed as being the hallmark of a bad decision) and, at the very same time, that it was a “not a bad decision”. I, myself, would have trouble holding two clearly conflicting views at the same time, but YMMV.
And he’s never explained what it is about this issue that makes that type of analysis valid. Given the very recent votes to affirm it, this would seem to be exactly the type of issue for which the intent of the original legislators would be moot.
Can you answer my question about how putting “In God We Trust” passes the 3rd item of the Lemon Test?
Sure. The secular purpose is to acknowledge the historical fact of our religious heritage: Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pitts. Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring): “…because of their ‘history and ubiquity,’ such government acknowledgments of religion are not understood as conveying an endorsement of particular religious beliefs.”
Was that particular quote addressed specifically at the “secular purpose” prong of the Lemon Test? Because invoking a specific reference to God, without any context that it’s supposed to be a reference to historical tradition, doesn’t strike me as being “secular”.
If the motto had been “In God We Trusted”, maybe. But it references a current condition, not an historical one.
