# "In God We Trust" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2001, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011 "2001-04-06T01:35:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/81 "2001-04-08T05:21:12Z")
> [@](#): > > And you may feel that the U.S. ought to be a purely atheistic society, but I am not required to agree with that, either. Now, this is the sort of nonsense I would have expected from the Religious Right. No one is arguing that the U.S. should adopt “No Gods, No Masters” as its national motto. No one is arguing that Christians or members of any other religion should not be free to express their trust in God in their own homes, houses of worship, other privately owned meeting halls, places of business, automobiles, and persons. “Neutral” or “secular” do not equal “anti-religious” or “atheistic”. > [@](#): > > Only if you engage in the results-oriented, back-forming reasoning you display: > … > And allow me to say, if your above analysis is any example of the results-based way you would apply the law, the people of Texas ought to thank their lucky stars you’re not a judge. I think “results-oriented analysis” is exactly what the courts have done with IGWT. > [@](#): > > I have said before, I have no problem with people _disagreeing_ with this analysis, but when people post as if they cannot even _see_ the argument (implicit in saying the opposite conclusion is the “obvious” one), then I suspect a person is posting either through disingenuousness or obtuseness. And how exactly are we supposed to express our disagreement? “Well, now…{tugs at forelock}…I be no scholar or law-yer, but I was a-thinkin’ that mebbe them judges might be wrong…{cringes}…{tugs at forelock}…but I reckon as how I’m just a foolish lay-man…no doubt I’m jest not understandin’ the learned law-folk…I don’t be no judge or law-yer or nothin’…{shuffles feet}…{tugs at forelock}…I be beggin’ your pardon for a-wastin’ yer time, noble sirs and ladies…{slinks away}” ---
**Author:** ![Randy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Randy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/82 "2001-04-08T05:23:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner and Jodi \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Thanks, Randy. > > > > See, Jodi? Another poor deluded non-lawyer who thinks “In God We Trust” has something to do with being a good Christian and going to church on Sunday and, you know, religion and stuff. > > Yep, one more. That brings you up to, what?, twelve? Be sure to forward you findings to the circuit courts with instructions to revise their opinions, because if _you_ disagree with them on how a reasonable person interprets the motto, then _they_ must be wrong. \*\* The last statistics I heard, the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians. So, being this is a democratic society, my vote is; leave it on there. I mean, there may be SOME who are offended by this. But I’ll bet you a million IGWT bucks most aren’t. And what of us who WANT it to be there, I’ll bet even we outnumber those who don’t. (no I don’t have statistics)(that’s why I said “I’ll bet”) ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/83 "2001-04-08T05:30:25Z")
DSYOUNG – Maybe you’ll find people listen to you as someone stepping in as an impartial observer, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. The only issue I would take with your post is this: > [@](#): > > Thus, as a Christian, Jodi objects to the concept of totally removing reference to religion by government in this country, a position advocated by people like DavidB and others. I object to removing the motto because we do not censor statements or enactments that are not unconsitutional, which it is not. My relgious beliefs do not dictate how I interpret the law, or how I think it ought to be applied. I think that sort of “spill-over” is manifestly inappropriate. So I object to this characterization to the extent that it implies that I have reached this conclusion because of my beliefs, as opposed to by using my head. > [@](#): > > Now, don’t get me wrong. To those who would like to think that the motto “In God We Trust” on our money violates the First Amendment, I simply point out that nothing in either the plain language of that amendment, nor in the interpretation of that language for the last 200-plus years requires, or even commends such a conclusion. In short, like it or not, the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee us an a-religious government. It never has, and likely, it never will. Thank you. At this point, I have posted to this thread twenty-four times in less than two days. I doubt very much that I can add anything to my argument, which is either clear by now or never will be. I am fully aware that some posters do not agree with me; I didn’t expect agreement, and I said as much in my second or third post. So you kids have fun. Unless someone raises a point that is _new_, I likely won’t be posting again. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/84 "2001-04-08T05:31:30Z")
**DSYoung:** No, this is a free country, the majority of whose citizens happen to be Christians. Is this a “white country”, ruled by “white people”? (Well, at least for the time being.) **Randy:** In a free country, like ours, the majority is not permitted to vote on what everyone’s religious convictions should be. If you woke up tomorrow and discovered that 90% of the population had become atheists overnight (something in the water supply, perhaps), we still would not be permitted to have a big vote and make Randy renounce Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/85 "2001-04-08T05:33:02Z")
Jodi, I have no difficulty with your grasp of the existing caselaw. As a Canadian it isn’t an area I have any expertise beyond the normal ability to see them as rationalizations. I am more impressed that you have somehow convinced yourself that IGWT does not have the effect of advancing religion. I am a lawyer myself and will happily go to court arguing a chicken is a pig if I have the case law to back me up on the point. I won’t however continue that argument with my grocer. You make some astounding points along the way to convincing yourself that the cases actually make sense. What possible comfort is it to a polytheist that, in your opinion, God singular also means God plural? Or your assertion that athiests want an athieistic state rather than a secular one where freedom from religion means something. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/86 "2001-04-08T05:35:55Z")
BTW Jodi, sorry for piling on, you did have enough on your plate without my rather gratuitous comments. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/87 "2001-04-08T05:45:11Z")
MEBRUCKNER – > [@](#): > > Now, this is the sort of nonsense I would have expected from the Religious Right. . . . I am not required to believe the government needs to be perfectly secular either. And – again – the courts – all of them, including the Supremes on this broad point – agree with that. But it’s just “nonsense” because t doesn’t agree with your position, right? This is the old “I’m right and you’re stupid” argument, which I find _supremely_ annoying. > [@](#): > > I think “results-oriented analysis” is exactly what the courts have done with IGWT. Ah. All of them? Yes, of course, all of them. And your evidence for this is . . . ? > [@](#): > > And how exactly are we supposed to express our disagreement? > > “Well, now…{tugs at forelock}…I be no scholar or law-yer, but I was a-thinkin’ that mebbe them judges might be wrong…{cringes}…{tugs at forelock}…but I reckon as how I’m just a foolish lay-man…no doubt I’m jest not understandin’ the learned law-folk…I don’t be no judge or law-yer or nothin’…{shuffles feet}…{tugs at forelock}…I be beggin’ your pardon for a-wastin’ yer time, noble sirs and ladies…{slinks away}” If you do not see the difference between recognizing that an opposite opinion exists, and agreeing with that opposite opinion, then into the obtuse pile you go. I have not asked for obsequiousness, though feel free to bow and scrape. I have asked for the simple recognition that a legitimate position other than your own exists. > [@](#): > > In a free country, like ours, the majority is not permitted to vote on what everyone’s religious convictions should be. But, apparently, we are supposed to take polls of what everyone’s beliefs are to decide whether or not an enactment is okay. You reconcile this how? NED – > [@](#): > > I am more impressed that you have somehow convinced yourself that IGWT does not have the effect of advancing religion. I have not “convinced myself” of that; it took no convincing. I read the case law and agreed with it. When you read an analysis you agree with, do you have to “convince yourself” of its justice? > [@](#): > > I am a lawyer myself and will happily go to court arguing a chicken is a pig if I have the case law to back me up on the point. See, and I won’t. If it isn’t true, then my concept of what is required of me as a person upholding the rule of law precludes me from arguing for it. (As you might imagine, I am not a criminal defense lawyer.) > [@](#): > > You make some astounding points along the way to convincing yourself that the cases actually make sense. I’m “convincing myself,” my argument is “nonsense,” I wouldn’t be able to see the justice of any establishment challenge – why can’t people take my position and my posts at face value without dragging in unproven assumptions value judgments? > [@](#): > > Or your assertion that athiests want an athieistic state rather than a secular one where freedom from religion means something. I NEVER said this. My comment was directed at MEBRUCKNER specifically based upon his posts to date. Kindly do not extrapolate from what I did say anything that I did not. Thank you and good night. 04-08-2001 12:33 AM IP: Logged ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/88 "2001-04-08T05:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > I am not required to believe the government needs to be perfectly secular either. And – again – the courts – all of them, including the Supremes on this broad point – agree with that. But it’s just “nonsense” because t doesn’t agree with your position, right? This is the old “I’m right and you’re stupid” argument, which I find _supremely_ annoying. I find it supremely annoying to have my opposition to having “In God We Trust” as the national motto equated with advocating that “the U.S. ought to be a purely atheistic society”. Yep, phase one, we take “In God We Trust” off the money; phase two, we burn down all the churches, shred all the Bibles, and send all the Christians off to the re-education camps. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/89 "2001-04-08T14:23:02Z")
Jodi, I haven’t even finished reading your latest post, but before I do, I’d like to make a request. Stop accusing me of not reading the establishment cases. I have read and am quite familiar with at least eight of the Supreme Court’s establishment cases, plus a fair number of the ones down here in the Fifth Circuit. Believe it or not, it is quite possible to read and understand the law, but still disagree with you. Your assuming otherwise does nothing to advance the tone or substance of this debate. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/90 "2001-04-08T16:05:29Z")
**Jodi** , my beef here is not with your representation of the state of the law with regard to IGWT. The courts say it’s constitutional, and everyone here has acknowledged that. No, my beef is with the spotty logic that you continue to apply in this matter. Let’s take your murder analogy from above, which you used to discredit my _Lemon_ analysis. You claim that my analysis is ass-backwards because it takes account a definition of religion before applying a legal analysis. To demonstrate my supposed inadequacy, you attempt to analogize two legal questions:[ul][li] Does a government practice establish religion?[/li][li] Is killing someone murder?[/ul]Your analogy is flawed because in my example, I have taken account of a definition (actually, your definition) of religion, whereas you have not. Let’s complete your analogy and use a definition of murder that excludes a particular crime from being considered murder. So be it enacted in the great State of Illogica that “murder” does not include any killling committed by Charlton Heston. Now, was this killing unlawful? The killer was Charlton Heston, so it wasn’t unlawful.[/li] Hmm, not much point in going on to the other three prongs of the murder test, eh? Just like there’s no point in going through _Lemon_ if the government practice is not religion. And in the absence of “religion” from the equation, you know as well as I that any sort of secular purpose will do, and that it won’t be real hard to come up with one. [_Gaylor v. U.S._](http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/95-1033.html) invokes “the historical role of religion in our society” and patriotism, secular purposes that could easily be argued to apply to my hypothetical generic monotheism oaths. If there isn’t any religion involved, how could there possibly be any religious purpose, advancement, or entanglement? Or if you prefer the latter-day “endorsement” test, it’s awful hard to endorse a religion that, by your definition, isn’t even present in a mandatory oath to a generic godlike higher power. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jodi_ > And allow me to say, if your above analysis is any example of the results-based way you would apply the law, the people of Texas ought to thank their lucky stars you’re not a judge. Thank you for your kind-hearted concern. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/91 "2001-04-08T16:08:14Z")
“. . . other **two** prongs of the murder test . . .” ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/92 "2001-04-08T17:29:19Z")
MEBRUCKNER – > [@](#): > > I find it supremely annoying to have my opposition to having “In God We Trust” as the national motto equated with advocating that “the U.S. ought to be a purely atheistic society”. Well, maybe I’d consider refraining from painting you as a nefarious atheist if you would refrain from painting me as a mindless theist. See how that works? MINTY – > [@](#): > > Jodi, I haven’t even finished reading your latest post, but before I do, I’d like to make a request. Stop accusing me of not reading the establishment cases. My apologies. How about this? I have yet to see a shred of evidence indicating you have read the cases in question. 1. You did not point out my enormous error of misstating a holding, which I am confident you would have if you had caught it. 2. You have said “if I’m right that “establishment of religion” covers all belief in a supernatural higher power (and the courts have sometimes said exactly that), then invoking “God” on our money is, by definition, religious,” indicating that you confuse the establishment or advancement of religion with whether something is “by definition, religious,” when these are two entirely different things and even if something _is_ religious, it doesn’t mean that the government is _advancing_ religion. 3. You also said that as long as the advancement test was cleared, then the enactment would be okay (your post of 4/7/01 10:42 AM), as if you were totally unaware that the _Lemon_ test is a three-part test and an alternative one (meaning A **or** B **or** C, not A and B and C), and passing one part doesn’t mean you’re in the clear. 4. You have confused something that _might_ be religious (as IGWT certainly might be) with a religion, as if “religious” and “religion” are the same, and as if the context in which the motto is used is totally irrelevant (something like “It _can_ be religious, therefore it _must_ be religious”), the sort of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ argument I would not expect of someone who has read and digested the judicial analysis. 5. You have not referred to a single case yourself to support your position, not even the dissents that would allow you to legitimately point out that even though mine is the currently favored judicial position, it is not the _only_ judicial position – again, a response I would expect pretty much instantaneously from a lawyer familiar with the cases. I say this not to attack your scholarship, but rather to illustrate that I believe my assumption in this regard was a legitimate one. > [@](#): > > Believe it or not, it is quite possible to read and understand the law, but still disagree with you. Of course. But generally it is possible to tell that someone has read and understood the law, because their posts reflect that. Yours do not. However, I accept your representation that you are entirely _au courant_ in this area of law. How could I not? > [@](#): > > Your assuming otherwise does nothing to advance the tone or substance of this debate. Ah. Unlike the advancement of tone and substance to be found here?: > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I could convince you much of anything short of a state church or mandatory participation in prayer at public schools was an establishment problem. > [@](#): > > No, my beef is with the spotty logic that you continue to apply in this matter. Unfortunately for you, it is not _my_ logic that is spotty. I have not argued that any belief that might possibly be construed as “religious” is therefore a religions. I have not argued that any statement so much as mentioning a spiritual or religious term must therefore be a religious statement. I have nto argued that any use of a religious statement (accepting for the moment your argument that IGWT is such), no matter how small, pedestrian, ceremonial, or tradition bound, constitutes the establishment of religion. If you’re looking for spotty logic, there’s a few examples. > [@](#): > > You claim that my analysis is ass-backwards because it takes account a definition of religion before applying a legal analysis. Absolutely wrong. What I am saying is that if you presuppose the conclusion you wish to reach (“IGWT does not establish religion”), then any attempt to determine whether IGWT establishes a religion becomes a circular tautology – IGWT does not not establish religion because IGWT does not establish religion. You appear to be under the misapprehension that I have argued, or that I believe, that IGWT cannot _ever_ be a statement of belief sufficient not only to trigger establishment scrutiny (as it does by merely using a term that _might_ be religious) but to fail the establishment test entirely – as it would if passed today as a prerequisite for government employment, since it would fail at least two, and probably three, prongs of the _Lemon_ test – but we’ve already been over this ground, haven’t we? > [@](#): > > Your analogy is flawed because in my example, I have taken account of a definition (actually, your definition) of religion, whereas you have not. This is totally wrong, to the extent that it implies that I would in all cases define IGWT as non-religious. What I said is that IGWT is not a _religion_ (ever, unless joined with other beliefs) and IGWT may not be _religious_, depending on how and when it is used. You might have to devote less time to my “spotty” logic if you actually understood the argument I am making. > [@](#): > > Let’s complete your analogy and use a definition of murder that excludes a particular crime from being considered murder. So be it enacted in the great State of Illogica that “murder” does not include any killling committed by Charlton Heston. Now, was this killing unlawful? The killer was Charlton Heston, so it wasn’t unlawful. Hmm, not much point in going on to the other three prongs of the murder test, eh? Just like there’s no point in going through Lemon if the government practice is not religion. Wrong, because the _Lemon_ test is an alternative test (A or B or C, and if you check yes at any point, the enactment fails). Therefore you do not stop after A, no matter how it turns out (and it is points like this that make me wonder just how up on this area of law you really are). > [@](#): > > And in the absence of “religion” from the equation, you know as well as I that any sort of secular purpose will do, and that it won’t be real hard to come up with one. Again, you do not back-form secular purposes; they either exist or they don’t. It is not something to “come up with,” unless you, like BRUCKNER, are asserting that all the circuit courts have engaged in the dubious practice of results-orienting judging, as opposed to truly holding the positions they hold. (I always find this an astonishing position to take, especially by another lawyer: “f the judges do not see the justice of _my_ position as the correct one, they must be either stupid or intellectually dishonest.”) > [@](#): > > If there isn’t any religion involved, how could there possibly be any religious purpose, advancement, or entanglement? Because you are dealing with a phrase that at minimum _touches on_ spiritual ideas, which is what would trigger establishment analysis. What is so hard about this? > [@](#): > > Or if you prefer the latter-day “endorsement” test, it’s awful hard to endorse a religion that, by your definition, isn’t even present in a mandatory oath to a generic godlike higher power. I would like to see where I ever “defined” IGWT as never ever ever in a million years regardless of context a religious expression, not even if recited weekly at the steps of the altar in church. I’ll wait here. What I _said_ is that one belief alone is not a _religion_ and that IGWT is not necessarily _religious_. You appear to be characterizing this as my having argued that IGWT is the equivalent of “Signed by the Treasurer.” That may be the argument you _wish_ I had made, but it is not in fact the argument I am making. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/93 "2001-04-08T17:49:38Z")
You continue to amaze me, Jodi. I am on the way out the door right now, but plan to respond later. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/94 "2001-04-08T22:04:17Z")
Well, with all Jodi’s complaining that we haven’t read the case law I thought I hadn’t least better peruse them before making further comment. I can’t recall ever seeing a line of cases so intellectually dishonest or self serving in their rationalizations. In law this is a real accomplishment. I should say that this may, in part, be a result of my greater familiarity with Canadian constitutional law. While we are certainly not immune from rationalization our charter of rights was written with the benefit of your long experience to minnimize this sort of sophistry. Perhaps there are other lines of authority I am unfamiliar with which are equally inane. While I agree with Jodi’s comments regarding resaonable man tests generally it is also clear that OConnor fails the test dismally. Reasonable people do not engage in meaningless distinctions which obscure rather than illuminate the issues. Presumably, one could endorse bills with the slogan “we sure like our pot” as an aknowledgement of a state of affairs without this also being seen as a statement of official approval. The purpose of having a motto is to have a motto, apparently the content matters not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/95 "2001-04-08T22:40:51Z")
NED – “intellectually dishonest” “self-serving” “rationalizations” “sophistry” “inane”. Congratulations on using so many pejorative adjectives to make safe value judgments. They are safe, of course, because they are unprovable. Beyond that comment, I didn’t see in your post any argument requiring a response. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/96 "2001-04-08T22:50:27Z")
Not surprising Jodi, your only argument is to repeat the case law. When faced with the task of explaining why an official aknowledgement of a state of affairs does not constitute an official approval and endorsement of the state of affairs you would have to rely on actual logic. ---
**Author:** ![Gundhilde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@Gundhilde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gundhilde)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/97 "2001-04-08T23:04:58Z")
Let me just add that I can’t believe I originally posted this in IMHO. That is all. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![squib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@squib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squib)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/98 "2001-04-08T23:16:57Z")
Here’s my two cents. I don’t care how many courts and judges say that IGWT does not advance religion [what is this, a poll?], I am not persuaded. IGWT is a simple declarative sentence in the English language. It means what it says. It means what the well-meaning folks who “coined” it _meant_ it to mean. It means what most [read: damn near all] people who give it a second thought think it means. It means, “We Americans believe in God and trust in God.” It is a singularly religious sentiment. To conclude otherwise is, yes, disingenuous and results-oriented in the extreme. Counter-argument acknowledged. The counter-argument is lame. One can similarly argue that the Confederate battle flag is about heritage and the swastika is about Navaho fashion design. Symbols and mottos carry the meanings people invest in them. That’s how they work. For what it’s worth, I’m not losing any sleep over it either. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2001, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/99 "2001-04-09T02:25:57Z")
My apologies in advance for what promises to be a massive quote-and-response post. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > I have yet to see a shred of evidence indicating you have read the cases in question. > > 1. You did not point out my enormous error of misstating a holding, which I am confident you would have if you had caught it. So from the fact that I had not read a single Court of Appeals opinion, and merely took your word on what it said, you deduced that I have not read anything. Very nice. > [@](#): > > 1. You have said “if I’m right that “establishment of religion” covers all belief in a supernatural higher power (and the courts have sometimes said exactly that), then invoking “God” on our money is, by definition, religious,” indicating that you confuse the establishment or advancement of religion with whether something is “by definition, religious,” when these are two entirely different things and even if something _is_ religious, it doesn’t mean that the government is _advancing_ religion. \ I’ll repeat it one last time. If a court is making a legal determination whether a government practice is an establishment of religion, it matters whether or not the practice has something to do with “religion.” If it isn’t religion, then the legislature must, by definition, be endorsing someting else. You disagree, and thereby deduce that I haven’t read anything. > [@](#): > > 1. You also said that as long as the advancement test was cleared, then the enactment would be okay (your post of 4/7/01 10:42 AM), as if you were totally unaware that the _Lemon_ test is a three-part test and an alternative one (meaning A **or** B **or** C, not A and B and C), and passing one part doesn’t mean you’re in the clear. I’ve looked over that post several times since you posted this, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where I said that “as long as the advancement test was cleared, then the enactment would be okay.” You want to quote me, or shall I just follow your example and assume that you haven’t read anything? But even if I did imply something like that, so freakin’ what? Forgive me for avoiding unnecessary legal clutter in a logic contest, especially when I wasn’t even attempting to apply the test in that post in the first place. Besides, as you surely know, _Lemon_ is darned near dead at the Supreme Court these days. > [@](#): > > 1. You have confused something that _might_ be religious (as IGWT certainly might be) with a religion, as if “religious” and “religion” are the same, and as if the context in which the motto is used is totally irrelevant (something like “It _can_ be religious, therefore it _must_ be religious”), the sort of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ argument I would not expect of someone who has read and digested the judicial analysis. What a terrible error, seeing a connection between “religion” and “religious.” I’ll be enrolling in remedial English training immediately. But where, pray tell have I ever stated that the context of a practice (such as the IGWT motto) is irrelevant? Is it because I declined to respond to your ridiculous insinuation that I would believe the non-coercive, wholly private, yet religion-related speech of a government official would constitute an establishment problem? (That’s the Supreme Court justice in your 4/6, 4:27 post, btw.) I do happen to think that the context of IGWT matters on our money, where it purports to speak for every person in the country. But in other contexts, where it does _not_ attempt to speak for me and my Hindu buddies, I have no objection–and do not believe it would violate the establishment clause. Think of pastors in the military preaching to their congregation, for instance, or the guy Congress pays to deliver prayers at the opening of each legislative day. > [@](#): > > 1. You have not referred to a single case yourself to support your position, not even the dissents that would allow you to legitimately point out that even though mine is the currently favored judicial position, it is not the _only_ judicial position – again, a response I would expect pretty much instantaneously from a lawyer familiar with the cases. Jesus Crisco on a deep fried jalapeno, Jodi, in case you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m arguing about your _definition_ not the state of the law. So complain all you want about a lack of cites, but it isn’t something that requires or even invites citation to legal authority. But hey, if you want to argue law in a language debate, see if you can find a definition of “religion” in any of those cases. I see lots of stuff about “advancement” and “endorsement” and “establishment,” but nowehere have I ever seen a court define “religion” in the context of an establishment case. I assume that’s because religion is usually patently obvious. YMMV. > [@](#): > > I say this not to attack your scholarship, but rather to illustrate that I believe my assumption in this regard was a legitimate one. . . . But generally it is possible to tell that someone has read and understood the law, because their posts reflect that. Yours do not. Pretty much the only person arguing law in here for the last page or so is you. Everyone else has been debating whether the law makes any sense, to which you repeatedly respond by arguing what the law is, then complaining that the rest of us don’t bow to your superior knowledge of the law. Whatever. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _minty green speaking here_ > > Your assuming otherwise does nothing to advance the tone or substance of this debate. > > Ah. Unlike the advancement of tone and substance to be found here?: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m not sure I could convince you much of anything short of a state church or mandatory participation in prayer at public schools was an establishment problem. > > > [@](#): > > > > No, my beef is with the spotty logic that you continue to apply in this matter. And maybe if you hadn’t jumped down my throat, way back after my very first post for pointing out (correctly, and without being in the slightest bit “misleading”) that a denial of certiorari has no value as precedent, I might have been a little more even-toned. (Hell, that’s why the Bluebook says you’re not generally supposed to add the _cert. denied_ notation to a case more than two years old–yours was from 1979.) Nevertheless I stand by my statements above. I don’t know that I could convince you that anything that hasn’t already been fully decided by the courts is an establishment problem, and your definition of religion is still weird. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately for you, it is not _my_ logic that is spotty. At least a few rational people in here apparently believe otherwise. > [@](#): > > I have not argued that any belief that might possibly be construed as “religious” is therefore a religions. I have not argued that any statement so much as mentioning a spiritual or religious term must therefore be a religious statement. I have nto argued that any use of a religious statement (accepting for the moment your argument that IGWT is such), no matter how small, pedestrian, ceremonial, or tradition bound, constitutes the establishment of religion. If you’re looking for spotty logic, there’s a few examples. That’s not the position that I or MEBuckner or anyone else in here has taken. If anything, we have argued that either invoking the trust of and in God or asserting that “we” do so is religious, since we’re talking about IGWT. But if you want to extrapolate that we believe even the merest mention of anything that might be construed as a spiritual term is a violation of the First Amendment, there’s not anything we can do about it but tell you that you’re wrong. (Hope I’m not wrongly putting words in anybody’s mouth there, but that seems to be what we have been saying to Jodi.) The thing that kills me about your logic is how you first define away a practice as not being “religion,” then deny that how “religion” is defined plays any role in the legal analysis of whether Congress the practice is a law respecting an establishment of religion. > [@](#): > > What I am saying is that if you presuppose the conclusion you wish to reach (“IGWT does not establish religion”), then any attempt to determine whether IGWT establishes a religion becomes a circular tautology – IGWT does not not establish religion because IGWT does not establish religion. No tautology is involved in what I am really arguing. In defining religion, I am attempting to determine whether a practice _is_ religion, not whether the government has _established_ religion. Those are not identical inquiries, even though the latter inquiry is necessarily dependent upon resolution of the former. > [@](#): > > You appear to be under the misapprehension that I have argued, or that I believe, that IGWT cannot _ever_ be a statement of belief sufficient not only to trigger establishment scrutiny (as it does by merely using a term that _might_ be religious) but to fail the establishment test entirely Just following your logic generic monotheism is not “religion” and the implication that IGWT is generic monotheism. > [@](#): > > – as it would if passed today as a prerequisite for government employment, since it would fail at least two, and probably three, prongs of the _Lemon_ test – but we’ve already been over this ground, haven’t we? No, I don’t think we have, since you have not shown how such a law would fail _Lemon_ if generic monotheism is not a religion at all. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _minty green speaking here again_ > > Let’s complete your analogy and use a definition of murder that excludes a particular crime from being considered murder. So be it enacted in the great State of Illogica that “murder” does not include any killling committed by Charlton Heston. Now, was this killing unlawful? The killer was Charlton Heston, so it wasn’t unlawful. Hmm, not much point in going on to the other three prongs of the murder test, eh? Just like there’s no point in going through Lemon if the government practice is not religion. > > Wrong, because the Lemon test is an alternative test (A or B or C, and if you check yes at any point, the enactment fails). Therefore you do not stop after A, no matter how it turns out (and it is points like this that make me wonder just how up on this area of law you really are). This one is fucking hilarious. I post an establishment example, which is analyzed (sometimes) under the three-part, in-the-alternative _Lemon_ test. You respond with a murder example, in which each of three elements must be fulfilled, so I show how a definition similar to the one of yours that I employed in my establishment example could impact your own murder hypothetical. Then you respond that I’m wrong, because YOUR OWN EXAMPLE is not one that employs in-the-alternative tests. So sure, I must be the idiot here. > [@](#): > > [Y]ou do not back-form secular purposes; they either exist or they don’t. It is not something to “come up with,” unless you, like BRUCKNER, are asserting that all the circuit courts have engaged in the dubious practice of results-orienting judging, as opposed to truly holding the positions they hold. No, I truly believe that the judges honestly don’t think IGWT on currency violates the establishment clause. I just think their reasoning is more akin to rationalization than actual logic. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I’m out of here (except for one short housekeeping post, to be made shortly). If I have read too much into your “generic monotheism isn’t religion” position as it applies to IGWT, Jodi, I apologize. I hope you will now take this opportunity to stop reading ignorance into mine. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2001, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/100 "2001-04-09T02:41:42Z")
The honorable Justice Reavley (on loan from down here in the 5th Circuit, I’m sorry to say) in _[Gaylor](http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/95-1033.html)_ points out the similarity between the “reasonable person” test in tort law and the “reasanable observer” test that Justice O’Connor uses in her “endorsement” test for establishment clause violations. But Reavley entirely omits the simple fact that in tort cases, we submit to the jury the question of what a reasonable person would do. That’s because we want actual people to decide what is reasonable. Justice Reavley, on the other hand, judicially decides what a reasonable observer would think of IGWT and specifically refuses to send the issue to the trial court for a factual determination. **MEBuckner** , weren’t you saying something about judges pulling this stuff out of their butts? Mark this hypocricy as Exhibit 1. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011.md?page=6)