I imagine any data you could come up with on the number of aethists in America in the 1950s would be suspect, for the same reason that data on the number of gay Americans from that period or earlier would be suspect, i.e., people might not have been willing to 'fess up to their true spiritual (or sexual) orientation in a society historically known to be repressive of that particular orientation. So even if you unearth a story that claims, say, 10% of Americans were aethists then, that might well not reflect the true number of people who privately held those beliefs. For this reason, I’m not sure it’s a point worth arguing about.
I agree with Jodi on both points. We don’t know, and it’s not worth arguing about.
I suspect that I agree with the second point for a different reason than she said it, though.
Because I don’t care if atheists make up .00001% or 99.999% – the phrase about trusting in God in an official U.S. (or state or city) government situation, like money or a school, is unConstitutional. Yes, I realize that the courts have wimped out on this and not recognized it as such, and as Jodi will attest, that is what much of the previous thread we mentioned was about. However, I continue to be amazed that anybody can say that a statement about trusting in God is not religious.
Well, obviously, the law that made “In God We Trust” our National Motto was Constitutional, because the phrase “In God is our trust” appears in the 3rd verse of The Star Spangled Banner, which was made into our National Anthem by a different law. :rolleyes:
No. I was always allowed to omit this part of the pledge. I’d prefer it were removed completely, of course. Really silly when half the class says nothing during this part while half the class says it.
A Porky Pig cartoon made during World War II to teach the kiddies the importance of saying the Pledge of Allegiance ended with Porky Pig reciting the words, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Just like that. (As he was reciting the Pledge, the scene panned up a flag pole to show an American flag with 48 stars on it waving in the breeze.)
Like “In God We Trust”, the words “Under God” were added in the 1950s by Congress. Unlike “In God We Trust,” we don’t have the excuse of having any phrase even remotely resembling “Under God” in the National Anthem.
And incidentally, The Star Spangled Banner did not become the National Anthem until the 1930s.
Yup, I’ve been watching this unfold in my little cowtown state. The motto is really “with God, all things are possible.” Making one think that, without Him, nothing is, and therefore, atheists are useless and should be persecuted:)
I just wonder how quickly these things would be unconstitutional if they just replaced God with Allah.
[quotes]
Because I don’t care if atheists make up .00001% or 99.999% – the phrase about trusting in God in an official U.S. (or state or city) government situation, like money or a school, is unConstitutional.
[/quote]
No, it is not. The fact of the matter is that no court has ruled that IGWT is unconstitutional and several have affirmatively ruled that it is constitutional. I realize that your firmly-held opinion is that it is unconstitutional, but that opinion does not make it so. Under any reasonable legal analysis, and for any practical purpose of discussion of the situation as it exists today, IGWT is not unconstitutional. Period.
The courts are the bodies charged by society with making the determination, and a number of them have done so. They just haven’t reached the decision you like. That doesn’t make their decision indefensible, nor does it indicate they have “wimped out.” In reality, their decisions are far more defensible than your mere opinion, because they are supported by legal analysis and citation and because their opinions are the ones that count from every practical standpoint.
I certainly don’t object to your opinion and I respect your right to hold it, but I think it is misleading for you to state it in such affirmative terms as to indicate it is factually or legally correct, because it simply is not.
Ok Jodi, while I agree that, as it stands, IGWT is constitutional today, isn’t it being held up to scrutiny because it is placed in a separate context? David’s opinion that it is unconstitutional in this context is just as valid as the next guy’s until the Supremes have spoken.
One other note, and I have no cite for this, just dim memories, but wasn’t the original decision to uphold “Separate but Equal” later viewed as upholding a principle that was in fact, not constitutional for political and social reasons? The court may be the final arbiter of what legally violates the constitution, but it is not the only valid voice in what violates the spirit of the document. We all get to do that.
That would be Plessy vs. Ferguson, in 1896, in which the Supremes ruled that segregation by race was constitutional as long as the facilities were equal, hence the phrase, “separate but equal.” This was overturned in 1954 by Brown vs. the School Board of Topeka.
Oh please. Look, I suppose the ‘the court hasn’t ruled’ argument mind be valid for something that requires a careful consideration of various obscure and esoteric legal elements, but this one is fairly simple.
Let’s say for a second that following the WTO lunacy here in Seattle, our legislature had decided to pass a law saying that from now on, reporters could only film and photograph demonstrations from certain, police-controlled “media zones”. Let me guess, until the court had ruled you would be defending that as being constitutional?
“Establishment” in this context means having a state church, like the U.K. and Sweden have. IGWT is constitutional because it does not endorse any specific religion. The constitution does not require the US to be a godless state, although I’d personally be a lot happier if people would realize God belongs in the same category as the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
Not really. The courts have interpreted “establishment” over the years as including unnecessarily aiding religion, or giving preference to religion over nonreligion. “IGWT” gets a pass because, apparently, of the “secular intent” of the motto. Nothing like celebrating the rich secular history of God, I guess.
I do not intend to pick on David, but the problem is that he does not say “I think it is unconstitutional” or “it is unconstitutional in this context”; he states that it is unconstitutional, period. This is simply incorrect. The problem is that when he makes that statement so affirmatively, it might appear that he is setting forth some proven fact or established point of law, when in fact he’s just giving his opinion. I have no problem with that, of course, but I think to give it so firmly and so entirely without context might mislead people.
“We all get to” in what context? The only opinions that matter in any practical sense are those set forth by the judiciary vested with the obligation to interpret the Constitution. If they say IGWT is okay on money, that’s the opinion that carries the day and, legally speaking, IGWT is okay on money. You may say you disagree, as many do, but, practically speaking, so what? In any event, I don’t mind that people hold the opinion that IGWT is unconstitutional; I sort of object when that opinion is set forth as if it The Last Word on the subject, when it’s not.
JDEMOBRAY says:
No, it isn’t is it? Which is why I just can’t understand why I can’t get every single person to agree with me that IGWT is Constitutional, at least as used in money. What, you disagree? Over something so “fairly simple”? Oh, please.
Let’s not say, since your example is such a piss-poor one, dealing as it does with hypothetical questions regarding freedom of speech and the press as opposed to concrete questions regarding the advancement of religion by the government. In any event, and for your information, any law duly passed by a legislature is presumed to be constitutional until it is proven otherwise. That, however, does not place on me the onus of defending it. Moreover, IGWT has been subjected to judicial scrutiny, and found to be Constitutional. The issue has not been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court; that does not mean it has not been considered by other courts.
Seems to me that jodi is simply being anal here about the term “Unconstitutional.”
I’ll bet that she found the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion issues the court recently found to be unconstitutional to be perfectly keen until the court did rule on it, am I correct?
If I am wrong, please correct me jodi, but from what you’re saying anyone who said that “it was unconstitutional” until the decision was handed down was wrong to do so.
I think this is semantics here. And a waste of time to argue about.
Now, if you are instead claiming that since the court never ruled one way or another that it had to be constitutional, are you not saying that the absence of evidence IS evidence of absense? I’d hate to think of what our courts would look like if that was a standard we used across the board…
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 15 hours, 54 minutes and 35 seconds.
4266 cigarettes not smoked, saving $533.31.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 19 hours, 30 minutes.
I think the problem is a discrepancy between the usual layman’s definition of “unconstitutional” and the official legal definition of it. We call a law “unconstitutional” when what we mean is “that law seems to me to be in obvious violation of one or more Constitutional principles and I bet that a court will, soon or eventually, knock it down on those grounds.” When a lawyer calls a law “unconstitutional” he or she means just what Jodi said: a court ruled on it and found it unconstitutional. We need not get into the question of how any particular lawyer feels about “partial-birth” abortions.
(And Satan, whaddya mean it’s “just” semantics?! :))
Maybe so, but there is to me a large difference between thinking something ought to be unconstitutional and stating that something is unconstitutional. The former is the province of everyone who holds an opinion on the issue; the latter is the province of the courts.
Consider yourself corrected.
Anyone who stated, as if the law were settled and the issue undisputed, that the law was unconstitutional before the court ruled would not have been necessarily wrong or right, because the issue was not decided. In any event, the law in so far as IGWT is concerned is different, because the courts, to the extent they have looked at the question, have virtually uniformly held that IGWT is constitutional. So it’s not just stating an opinion as fact when the real legal interpretation is up in the air; it’s stating an opinion as fact just because you happen to disagree with the legal interpretation.
I honestly don’t see what’s so hard about this. There is a difference between “is” and “ought to be,” and it is a far from semantic one.
I don’t know if I’m claiming that or not, as I’ve now read it five times and still have no idea what it says. In any event, what I am saying (and have said) is that laws are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality in the absence of (or during the pendancy of) legal challenges. That does not mean one side is right or wrong, it merely means that until the issue is decided, the enactment will be presumed constitutional. Are there ways around this, for outrageous offenses to constitutional rights? Sure. Injunctions and writs of mandamus or prohibition, to name two. But the general principle is that constitutionality is a rebuttable presumption if a law is duly and properly enacted.
Well, since it’s not a standard they use at all, you can sleep in peace tonight.
KIMSTU says:
And it may be. I know I am occasionally guilty of insisting on precision in legal terms, just because precision is so important within the context of my profession. The problem is that there is no way to establish “constitutionality” in any meaningful context – not just the law – if the defintion we accept is “that law seems to me to be in obvious violation of one or more Constitutional principles.” In other words, that’s your opinion. Where does that leave us? You say “it’s constitutional!” and I say it’s not. But since under this definition, anything may be deemed “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” depending on the belief of the individual puting forth the opinion, then we’re all equally “right” or equally “wrong.” To the extent that questions of constitutionality have or ever can have definitive answers, those answers are to be found in the decisions of the courts, not the opinions of the populace. Am I splitting semantic hairs? It wouldn’t be the first time. But I honestly don’t think I am.
So if the Court was considering hearing a Roe v. Wade kind of case, and a protestor outside had a sign which read “Outlawing Choice is Unconstitutional,” you would admonish the person with a sign that is improper and urge them to make a sign which states “Outlawing Choice ought to be Unconstitutional” instead, right?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 19 hours, 55 minutes and 18 seconds.
4273 cigarettes not smoked, saving $534.15.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 20 hours, 5 minutes.
Oh, I don’t know. How much have I had to drink in this hypothetical? Have I had a bad day? Is the protester you?
In a forum such as this (“Great Debates”), in a thread that obviously if implicitly raises the question of whether IGWT is constitutional or not, I would, however, point out that firm affirmative blanket statements (“It is constitutional”) are not the Final Last Word they might initially appear to be when they appear without any context whatsoever to indicate they are opinion and not facts.
But I honestly don’t think I am.