Every Florida school and administrative building will be required to display “In God We Trust,” according to a bill passed by the Florida House on Wednesday, and it must be displayed in a conspicuous place.
The sponsor of the bill says it is to promote religion in the public school. I think this is wrong.
Good thing they were clear on how unconstitutional they intended this to be.
The God delusion transcends political party, apparently. I had no idea it was a Democrat who introduced that…
From the link.
We have a dichotomy here. “In God We Trust” has been ruled to be “ceremonial deism,” therefore not an establishment of religion, therefore, is not unconstitutional. Just like “Under God” in the Pledge.
Yet the same phrases are being pushed – especially recently, as an alternative to gun control – as a way to legally put God back in the schools. This includes more than just Florida, but also Oklahoma and Arkansas plus one town in Missouri (Wentzville). I predict many more will follow as the bandwagon picks up speed.
IMHO, you can’t have it both ways, but for now, it looks like you can.
The phrase “ceremonial deism” was specifically coined to justify having it both ways, IMO.
Doesn’t that apply only to money? And maybe oaths of office? There are cases of the 10 Commandments, despite their presence going back decades, being removed from courthouses (Roy Moore, anyone?) and city hall lawns.
Can “ceremonial deism” apply to a new installation? Besides the stated goal of promoting religion in schools.
Ceremonial deism where traditionally used is fine with me. New uses of religious references as a requirement is not fine with me, and in this case smacks of the establishment of religion.
I would think those with a sincere belief in God would not want such phrases to be used in a ceremonial form because it diminishes their meaning, but I’ve found the True Believers usually don’t believe in what they preach so much as they desire to impose the stated acceptance of such beliefs on others.
SCOTUS and other fed courts, as of now, are unhappy with The Ten Commandments (any version) being used in a government-sanctioned sense. But they are OK with using “Under God” or “In God We Trust” in a government-sanctioned sense. IGWT is required on all money, and is permitted on an optionally-recited Pledge.
IMHO, the reason for the difference is that UG and IGWT were, in the past, rarely used in an “in your face” mode (who reads the fine print on their money?), where public display of the Ten Commandments were. Minor infractions can be overlooked, major ones cannot.
That seems like a fine line to me, but that’s where the line stands right now, legally-speaking.
I don’t think “time” can presently be used to separate the sides of the fine line. As to “promoting religion,” my thought is that 20-50 years from now, if those phrases are used consistently and exclusively in a religious- promotion sense, SCOTUS may change their tune. The nearest analogy is Brown overturning Plessy 50 years later.
If I went to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and they posted an “In God We Trust” sign in the aftermath of all this, I’d deface it every single day. If I were a teacher there, I might deface it every day.
Whenever anyone claims that a religious icon like “In God We Trust” is just ceremonial, I want to ask them how they would feel if the equivalent icon of a different faith were being mandated.
How would Rep. Daniels feel about a law that required all schools to display an icon saying “Allahu Akbar”? Would the people who think it’s okay to display the Ten Commandments in a court room be okay with having a passage from Al-Baqara on display? Would they accept a claim that it’s just ceremonial deism?
If you think it’s wrong to display an icon from another religion then it’s equally wrong to display the equivalent con from your religion. The whole point of the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion is that Christianity doesn’t get special treatment.
The apologist’s answer to that is “There is only one God, but He goes by different names.”
Which gets a little problematical when you try to include modern religions with multiple gods, like Hindu, or Catholic.
Is this the “Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion” argument?
I think it is indisputably religion. It is an explicit, specific, capitalized deity (though it would still be religion if not specifying anyway). It’s also tradition, but that doesn’t keep it from being religion.
Edit: kinda wish this was a poll
I am looking forward to watching the reactions when the Church of Satan sues to have “In Satan we trust” posted alongside the new signs.
Catholicism does NOT have multiple Gods.
Depends on your viewpoint. Judaism and Islam think ALL Christianity is polytheist, because of the Trinity.
From the first line of the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it logical for three different being to be the same being (including one being his own father) for those who don’t share the belief system.
Just as many protestants don’t believe Mormons are Christians. Or Christians who don’t believe Muslims worship the same god they do. And so forth and so on.
To me, the whole thing is Bible fanfiction, but you really don’t get to make someone of another faith look at your faith the way you want them to. I was completely accurate in pointing out how two related monotheisms view your faith. What you want people to believe is kind of moot and irrelevant.